DOCSLIB.ORG

Naval Architecture Analysis of the Civil War Ironclad CSS Virginia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Naval Architecture Analysis of the Civil War Ironclad CSS Virginia Naval Architecture Analysis of the Civil War Ironclad CSS Virginia Nicholas Edward Marickovich Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Ocean Engineering Alan J. Brown, Chair Stefano Brizzolara Sean M. Keary 5 December 2016 Blacksburg, Virginia Keywords: Ironclad, Naval Architecture, Civil War Naval Architecture Analysis of the Civil War Ironclad CSS Virginia Nicholas Marickovich ABSTRACT This thesis presents the results of a naval architecture analysis of the Civil War Ironclad CSS Virginia, built by the Confederate States Navy to break the Union Blockade of Hampton Roads, and which engaged the USS Monitor on the second day of the Battle of Hampton Roads, March 9th, 1862. The purpose of the analysis was to examine the ship from a naval architectural standpoint pertaining to hydrostatics, stability, weight and CG, sea keeping, and basic resistance/powering requirements. The goal was to see if the story of the CSS Virginia, destroyed on May 11th, 1862 by its own crew to keep it from falling into Union hands, could have ended differently with an attack on Washington, a Northern city, or a run to a friendly Southern port, such as Savannah or Charleston. Paramarine software was used to build a geometry model based on lines included in a book by Sumner B. Besse for ship modelers. The geometry model provided the basic measures of displacement for the hull form at a draft of 21 ft forward and 22 ft aft which in turn allowed for a weight estimate to be undertaken. The goal of the weight estimate was to obtain, in particular, an estimate for the VCG of the vessel. It also allowed for gyradius calculations based on the resultant weight distribution to be calculated. Historical information coupled with the Paramarine geometry was used for the weight analysis. Paramarine was used to obtain RAOs for a sea keeping analysis and long term effectiveness ratings regarding MSI and Deck Wetness criterion were obtained based on statistical wave data from NOAA taken from stations in the Chesapeake Bay and in the Atlantic, 64 miles east of Virginia Beach. A NAVCAD analysis was made for resistance requirements, though any resistance analysis of such an antiquated hull form that is also in its way unique has large uncertainties associated with it. The results of the analysis shed some light on the CSS Virginia and its history. The hydrostatic analysis leads one to speculate that draft reduction efforts made to allow the Virginia to escape Union capture by sailing up the James River were known to be hopeless, but undertaken anyway to save the honor of those involved and shift blame for the loss of the ship elsewhere. The resistance and powering analysis suggests that an upper speed of 6 knots was probably not outside the CSS Virginia’s capabilities. Speeds much higher seem unlikely. The only way to know more would be to get better estimates of power provided by the ship’s steam engines and do a tow tank test of a ship model. Assuming a speed of 6 knots and based on a coal consumption rate, it was found that range of the CSS Virginia was at best around 614 nautical miles, giving it the distance to attack New York or sail to Charleston or Savannah. However, the sea keeping analysis shows that the Virginia was very much at home on the relatively calm waters of the Chesapeake Bay, but would have run great risks in sailing on the open sea either to attack a Northern city or make a run to the South for safer waters to fight another day. The officers of the Virginia felt that the ship was likely to flounder; based on the deck wetness criteria chosen for the sea keeping analysis their professional judgment was correct. Details of the weight analysis and a full set of RAOs are provided in the Appendices. Naval Architecture Analysis of the Civil War Ironclad CSS Virginia Nicholas Marickovich GENERAL AUDIENCE ABSTRACT This thesis presents an analysis of the Civil War Ironclad CSS Virginia, built by the Confederate States Navy to break the Union Blockade of Hampton Roads in Southeastern Virginia, using modern engineering techniques. The Virginia famously engaged the Union Ironclad USS Monitor on the second day of the Battle of Hampton Roads, March 9th, 1862. The analysis gives critical insight into how they ship may have performed in different scenarios (i.e. on the relatively calm waters of the Chesapeake Bay or the more unpredictable seaways of the eastern Atlantic Ocean). This thesis begins with a brief overview of the history behind the CSS Virginia, including the development of ironclad vessels up to 1862. Ironclad vessels featured wooden hulls that were covered in a layer of iron plating, held together by bolts. Ironclads were developed because the introduction of the exploding shell for naval use posed a significant threat to the wooden hulled warships that had been state of the art for centuries. The shells could penetrate the wooden hulls and explode inside the ship, causing tremendous damage. The iron plating which gave the ironclad its name deflected these exploding shells, allowing an ironclad to survive a naval engagement that a wooden ship of war could not. Ironclads were propelled by steam engines, which also representeded a recent technological development in maritime propulsion. At the outset of the American Civil War, the Confederate States Navy realized that the only way to break a Union Blockade (made up entirely of wooden vessels) was to construct an ironclad that could defeat the Union Fleet in Hampton Roads. An ironclad, armed with shell guns, would be a severe threat to the Union Fleet, as it could act with virtual impunity unless another ironclad vessel arrived to meet it. On March 8th, 1862, the CSS Virginia sailed into Hampton Roads and engaged the Union forces, sinking two ships while suffering very little damage. On March 9th the USS Monitor, which had fortuitously arrived on the evening of the 8th, fought the CSS Virginia to what most would consider a draw, with neither ship able to significantly damage the other. This engagement is significant in naval history, as it largely is viewed as the final death knell of the wooden hulled warship. Historical information in the form of model plans and books was used to construct a 3D geometry model of the CSS Virginia in a naval architecture (ship design) software suite called Paramarine. The geometry model was used to determine various naval architectural characteristics of the Virginia which can be used in various analyses. In parallel, a weight estimate of the CSS Virginia was made to determine the overall weight and center of gravity (the location of the overall weight inside the ship). Microsoft Excel was used to estimate the weight, and a variety of sources and methodologies were used to estimate different aspects of the weight. These different aspects include but are not limited to: Ship’s structure (the hull, decks, iron armor, etc.) Armaments and ammunition Provisions Weight of personnel serving on board and their effects Propulsion machinery weights The weight and center of gravity were input into the Paramarine computer program which, combined with the geometry model, could now analyze various aspects of the Virginia. Of particular interest was hydrostatics (i.e. how the ship sits in the water given its weight and center of gravity and how stable it is) and sea keeping characteristics (i.e. how the ship behaves in waves when moving at a certain speed: its seaworthiness). An analysis was also made concerning how much power from the steam engines would be necessary to propel the Virginia at different speeds. The Virginia was a slow vessel, only able to move between 4 – 6 knots (about 5 – 7 miles per hour). The range (how far the Virginia could travel) was also estimated. The results from these disparate analyses were used to discuss the likelihood of the Virginia’s story having a different ending. After the battle of Hampton Roads, the CSS Virginia continued to play a cat and mouse game with the USS Monitor until May 11th, 1862, when Norfolk, VA (where the Virginia was based) was taken by Union soldiers as part of the 1862 Peninsula Campaign. The Virginia’s commander desired to sail up the James River towards Richmond, but the ship sat too deep in the water to get over a sandbar that lay at the entrance to the James. Efforts were made to lighten the ship but these proved futile, and it was decided that the only course of action was to evacuate and destroy the Virginia. One notable aspect of the hydrostatic results presented in this thesis is that they suggest that efforts to lighten the ship in a bid to escape James River were known to be hopeless, but were ordered anyway to shift the blame for the loss of the ship away from its commanding officer and onto the ship’s pilots. But were there other options open? Could the CSS Virginia set sail for the friendly ports of Charleston or Savannah? Could it have made an attack on New York City or Washington DC? The results of the different naval architecture analyses were used to answer questions like these. It was found that the CSS Virginia was very much at home on the relatively calm waters of the Chesapeake Bay, but in all probability would have encountered seas too rough for it to successfully navigate a transit on the open ocean. In making a run to Savannah, Charleston, or New York, the Virginia in all likelihood would have sunk.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Draft Interpretive Master Plan Technical Support Manual - Vol
    FORT MONROE DRAFT INTERPRETIVE MASTER PLAN TECHNICAL SUPPORT MANUAL - VOL. 1 PROJECT #: FMFADA -101-2009 Submitted to the: By: Fort Monroe Federal Area Development Authority Interpretive Solutions, Inc. West Chester, PA 19382 Old Quarters #1 151 Bernard Road In association with: Fort Monroe, VA 23651 Leisure Business Advisors, LLC Richmond, VA 23223 and Trudy O’Reilly Public Relations JUNE 24, 2010 Hampton, VA 23661 Cover illustration credit: "Fortress Monroe, Va. and its vicinity". Jacob Wells, 1865. Publisher: Virtue & Co. Courtesy the Norman B. Leventhal Map Center at the Boston Public Library Fort Monroe Interpretive Master Plan Technical Support Manual June 24, 2010 Interpretive Solutions, Inc. FORT MONROE DRAFT INTERPRETIVE MASTER PLAN TECHNICAL SUPPORT MANUAL Table of Contents Executive Summary . 6 Three Urgent Needs . 7 Part 1: Introduction . 8 1.1. Legislative Powers of the Fort Monroe Authority . 9 1.2. The Programmatic Agreement . 9 1.3 Strategic Goals, Mission and Purpose of the FMA . 10 1.3 The Interpretive Master Plan . 10 1.3.1 Project Background . 11 1.3.2 The National Park Service Planning Model . 12 1.3.3 Phased Approach . 13 1.3.4 Planning Team Overview . 13 1.3.5 Public Participation . 14 Part 2: Background . 16 2.1 The Hampton Roads Setting . 16 2.2 Description of the Resource . 17 2.3 Brief Historical Overview . 19 2.4 Prior Planning . 22 2.5 The Natural Resources Working Group . 22 2.6. The African American Culture Working Group . 22 Part 3: Foundation for Planning . 24 3.1 Significance of Fort Monroe . 24 3.2 Primary Interpretive Themes .
    [Show full text]
  • United States Navy and World War I: 1914–1922
    Cover: During World War I, convoys carried almost two million men to Europe. In this 1920 oil painting “A Fast Convoy” by Burnell Poole, the destroyer USS Allen (DD-66) is shown escorting USS Leviathan (SP-1326). Throughout the course of the war, Leviathan transported more than 98,000 troops. Naval History and Heritage Command 1 United States Navy and World War I: 1914–1922 Frank A. Blazich Jr., PhD Naval History and Heritage Command Introduction This document is intended to provide readers with a chronological progression of the activities of the United States Navy and its involvement with World War I as an outside observer, active participant, and victor engaged in the war’s lingering effects in the postwar period. The document is not a comprehensive timeline of every action, policy decision, or ship movement. What is provided is a glimpse into how the 20th century’s first global conflict influenced the Navy and its evolution throughout the conflict and the immediate aftermath. The source base is predominately composed of the published records of the Navy and the primary materials gathered under the supervision of Captain Dudley Knox in the Historical Section in the Office of Naval Records and Library. A thorough chronology remains to be written on the Navy’s actions in regard to World War I. The nationality of all vessels, unless otherwise listed, is the United States. All errors and omissions are solely those of the author. Table of Contents 1914..................................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • “What Are Marines For?” the United States Marine Corps
    “WHAT ARE MARINES FOR?” THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS IN THE CIVIL WAR ERA A Dissertation by MICHAEL EDWARD KRIVDO Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May 2011 Major Subject: History “What Are Marines For?” The United States Marine Corps in the Civil War Era Copyright 2011 Michael Edward Krivdo “WHAT ARE MARINES FOR?” THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS IN THE CIVIL WAR ERA A Dissertation by MICHAEL EDWARD KRIVDO Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved by: Chair of Committee, Joseph G. Dawson, III Committee Members, R. J. Q. Adams James C. Bradford Peter J. Hugill David Vaught Head of Department, Walter L. Buenger May 2011 Major Subject: History iii ABSTRACT “What Are Marines For?” The United States Marine Corps in the Civil War Era. (May 2011) Michael E. Krivdo, B.A., Texas A&M University; M.A., Texas A&M University Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Joseph G. Dawson, III This dissertation provides analysis on several areas of study related to the history of the United States Marine Corps in the Civil War Era. One element scrutinizes the efforts of Commandant Archibald Henderson to transform the Corps into a more nimble and professional organization. Henderson's initiatives are placed within the framework of the several fundamental changes that the U.S. Navy was undergoing as it worked to experiment with, acquire, and incorporate new naval technologies into its own operational concept.
    [Show full text]
  • Winter 2006 HNSA Anchor Watch.Qxd 1/20/2010 6:25 PM Page 1
    Winter 2010 AW:Winter 2006 HNSA Anchor Watch.qxd 1/20/2010 6:25 PM Page 1 JANUARY NCHOR FEBRUARY A MARCH APRIL WATCH 2010 The Quarterly Journal of the Historic Naval Ships Association www.hnsa.org CSS NEUSE: IRONCLAD SLATED TO GET A NEW HOME Winter 2010 AW:Winter 2006 HNSA Anchor Watch.qxd 1/20/2010 6:25 PM Page 2 2 ANCHOR WATCH HNSA STAFF HNSA BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFFICERS President Executive Director RADM John P. McLaughlin, USS Midway CDR Jeffrey S. Nilsson, USN (Ret) Vice President Executive Director Emeritus Brad King, HMS Belfast CAPT Channing M. Zucker, USN (Ret) Secretary Executive Secretary LCDR Sherry Richardson, HMCS Sackville James W. Cheevers Treasurer Individual Member Program Manager COL Patrick J. Cunningham CDR Jeffrey S. Nilsson, U.S.N. (Ret) Buffalo & Erie County Naval & Military Park Anchor Watch Editor Immediate Past President Jason W. Hall William N. Tunnell, Jr., USS Alabama/USS Drum Battleship New Jersey Museum Webmaster HONORARY DIRECTORS Richard S. Pekelney Admiral Thad W. Allen, U.S. Coast Guard Sean Connaughton, MARAD International Coordinator Admiral Michael G. Mullen, U.S. Navy Brad King Larry Ostola, Parks Canada HMS Belfast Vice Admiral Drew Robertson, Royal Canadian Navy Admiral Sir Alan West, GCB DCD, Royal Navy DIRECTORS AT LARGE HNSA COMMITTEE Captain Terry Bragg CHAIRPERSONS USS North Carolina Captain Jack Casey, USN (Ret) USS Massachusetts Memorial Annual Conference Maury Drummond Ms. Angela McCleaf USS KIDD USS Texas Awards Alyce N. Guthrie PT Boats, Inc. James W. Cheevers United States Naval Academy Museum Terry Miller Communications Tin Can Sailors, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Battle of the USS Monitor and the CSS Virginia Battle of Antietam Creek
    CK_5_TH_HG_P231_324.QXD 2/13/06 1:56 PM Page 282 II. The Civil War: Causes, Conflicts, Consequences had a highly successful military career. He served with distinction in the Mexican- American War, was superintendent of West Point for a period in the 1850s, and was in command of the troops at Harpers Ferry that captured John Brown. At the beginning of the war, Lincoln asked Lee to assume command of the Union forces, but Lee refused out of loyalty to his home state, Virginia. He instead accepted a command in the Confederate army. Lee scored a number of important victories, but faced with dwindling resources, his army was unable to withstand the larger, better-equipped Union army. General Stonewall Jackson Cross-curricular General Thomas Jackson was given the nickname “Stonewall” because of his Teaching Idea actions in the First Battle of Bull Run. During the battle, a Confederate soldier “Stonewall” Jackson is described in noted that Jackson and his men were “standing like a stone wall.” The nickname “Barbara Freitchie,” listed in the poetry stuck: for the rest of the war Jackson was known as “Stonewall Jackson.” selections for this grade. You may wish Considered by many to be General Lee’s most able general, Jackson orches- to teach this poem in conjunction with trated Confederate victories in the Shenandoah Valley campaign. He led his forces your discussion of Jackson and the bat- brilliantly at the Second Battle of Bull Run, and at the battles at Antietam and tles in the east. Fredericksburg. He was wounded in 1863 during the battle of Chancellorsville and died eight days later.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Days at Fort Brooke
    Sunland Tribune Volume 1 Article 2 1974 Early Days at Fort Brooke George Mercer Brooke Jr. Virginia Military Institute Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/sunlandtribune Recommended Citation Brooke, George Mercer Jr. (1974) "Early Days at Fort Brooke," Sunland Tribune: Vol. 1 , Article 2. Available at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/sunlandtribune/vol1/iss1/2 This Research Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sunland Tribune by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. (DUO\'D\VDW)RUW%URRNH By COL. GEORGE MERCER BROOKE, JR. Professor of History Virginia Military Institute, Lexington, Va. On 5 November 1823, the Adjutant General in Washington ordered Lieutenant Colonel George Mercer Brooke of the Fourth Infantry to take four companies from Cantonment Clinch near Pensacola to Tampa Bay for the purpose of building a military post. Exactly three months later, Brooke reported from the Tampa Bay area that he had arrived and work on the post was under way. A study of this troop movement and the construction of the cantonment later called Fort Brooke gives some insight into the problems the army faced one hundred and fifty years ago. At that time the population of the country was only ten million and the immigration flood of the nineteenth century was as yet only a trickle. The population was predominantly rural, only seven per cent living in urban areas. The railroad era lay in the future. Missouri had just recently been admitted as the twenty-fourth state after a portentous struggle on the slavery issue, and the country was laboring to recover from the Panic of 1819 induced in large part by overspeculation in land.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of the Introduction of Heavy Ordnance on the Development of the English Navy in the Early Tudor Period
    Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Master's Theses Graduate College 8-1980 The Influence of the Introduction of Heavy Ordnance on the Development of the English Navy in the Early Tudor Period Kristin MacLeod Tomlin Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses Part of the European History Commons Recommended Citation Tomlin, Kristin MacLeod, "The Influence of the Introduction of Heavy Ordnance on the Development of the English Navy in the Early Tudor Period" (1980). Master's Theses. 1921. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/1921 This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE INFLUENCE OF THE INTRODUCTION OF HEAVY ORDNANCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENGLISH NAVY IN THE EARLY TUDOR PERIOD by K ristin MacLeod Tomlin A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Department of History Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan August 1980 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis grew out of a paper prepared for a seminar at the University of Warwick in 1976-77. Since then, many persons have been invaluable in helping me to complete the work. I would like to express my thanks specifically to the personnel of the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, England, and of the Public Records Office, London, for their help in locating sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Confederate Artillery Defenses Department of the Gulf 11 January 1864
    Confederate Artillery Defenses Department of the Gulf 11 January 1864 Fort Morgan 5 ­ 10" Columbaids 3 ­ 10" Sea Coast Mortars 1 ­ 8" Columbaid 2 ­ 8" Blakley Rifles 2 ­ 6.4" Rifles (old 32pdrs, rifled and banded) 5 ­ 6.4" Rifles (old 32pdrs, rifled, not banded) 16 ­ 32pdr Smoothbores 1 ­ 5.82" Rifle (8" Columbaid Pattern) 2 ­ 5.82" Rifles (old 24pdrs, not banded) 4 ­ 24pdr Smoothbores 20 ­ 24pdr Flank Casemate Howitzers 1 ­ 12pdr Field Howitzer 1 ­ 3" Rifle Fort Gaines 3 ­ 10" Columbaids 2 ­ 8" Siege Mortars 7 ­ 6.4" Rifles (old 32pdrs, rifled and banded) 5 ­ 32pdr Smoothbores 2 ­ 24pdr Smoothbores 11 ­ 24pdr Flank Casemate Howitzers 2 ­ 18pdr Guns 1 ­ 12pdr Field Howitzer Fort Powell 2 ­ 8" Columbaids 1 ­ 6.4" Rifle (l0" Columbaid Pattern) 2 ­ 24pdr Smoothbores 3 ­ 12pdr Field Howitzers 2 ­ 6pdr Field Guns Battery McIntosh 6 ­ 10" Columbaids 1 ­ 6.4" Rifle (old 32pdrs, rifled and banded) Battery Gladden 4 ­ 10" Columbaids 1 ­ 7" Brooke Rifle Battery Missouri 3 ­ 10" Columbaids 1 ­ 7" Rifle (old 42pdrs, rifled and banded) Battery Tracy 1 ­ 8" Columbaid 1 ­ 8" Sea Coast Howitzer 2 ­ 7" Rifles, (old 42pdrs, rifled and banded) 1 ­ 32pdr Smoothbore Battery Huger 2 ­ 10" Columbaids 2 ­ 42pdr Smoothbores 1 ­ 24pdr Smoothbore Redoubt No. 1 3 ­ 12pdr Siege and Field Guns Redoubt No. 2 not reported Redoubt No. 3 3 ­ 24pdr Smoothbores Redoubt No. 4 3 ­ 24pdr Smoothbores Redoubt No. 5 1 ­ 24pdr Smoothbore Redoubt No. 6 3 ­ 6.4" Rifles (old 32pdrs, rifled and banded) Redoubt No. 7 1 ­ 8" Columbaid 1 ­ 6.4" Rifle (old 32pdr, rifled and banded) Redoubt No.
    [Show full text]
  • Commonwealth Navies As Seen by the United States Navy, 1910-2010
    Commonwealth Navies as Seen by the United States Navy, 1910-2010 John B. Hattendorf1 Aux États-Unis, les perspectives sur les marines du Commonwealth au cours du siècle passé ont varié, car les Américains ont considéré la question en termes de contextes différents. Au départ, certains officiers clairvoyants de la Marine américaine, tels A.T. Mahan et W.S. Sims, ont vu le potentiel de d’entente et de coopération entre les marines « anglo- saxonnes ». Pendant la même période, les forces navales du Commonwealth ont joué un rôle dans la planification de guerre navale américaine. Avant les années 1930, beaucoup de ces plans ont été vus comme des tests de capacité de la Marine américaine contre une puissance à peu près égale et, donc, sur le plan académique ont illustré le rôle de la puissance navale, mais néanmoins ont révélé des vues intéressantes sur les marines du Commonwealth. Avec l’avènement de la seconde guerre mondiale, les relations navales ont changé de façon spectaculaire, en tant que la Marine américaine a travaillé en étroite collaboration avec les forces britanniques et du Commonwealth pour combattre l’ennemi commun. Cela a continué jusqu’à la période de la guerre froide avec des alliances de défense avec l’OTAN et autres. Cette entente persiste avec l’actuelle « stratégie maritime coopérative pour le 21e siècle » des États-Unis. In 1977, Professor Robin Winks of Yale University famously observed that, “Americans cannot understand their own history without understanding Canadian history. Conversely, Canadians cannot understand
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the Merrimac & Monitor Post Card Company “Virginia in Dry
    Guide to the Merrimac & Monitor Post Card Company “Virginia in Dry Dock” Postcard, 1906 MS0429 The Mariners' Museum Library at Christopher Newport University Contact Information: The Mariners' Museum Library 100 Museum Drive Newport News, VA 23606 Phone: (757) 591-7782 Fax: (757) 591-7310 Email: [email protected] URL: www.MarinersMuseum.org/library Processed by Jay E. Moore, 2012 DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY Repository: The Mariners' Museum Library Title: Merrimac & Monitor Post Card Company “Virginia in Dry Dock” Postcard Inclusive Dates: 1906 Catalog number: MS0429 Physical Characteristics: 1 picture postcard Language: English Creator: Merrimac & Monitor Post Card Company (Firm); Richardson, Benjamin A. (Benjamin Adworth) HISTORICAL SKETCH The Merrimac & Monitor Post Card Company was formed in 1906 with the immediate purpose of issuing commemorative postcards to be sold during the Jamestown Tercentenary celebration in 1907. The company produced postcards commemorating the events of Mar.8 and 9, 1862 during the Battle of Hampton Roads. It also created postcards pertaining to the life of CSS Virginia. They range from the April 19, 1861 destruction at the Gosport Navy Yard of the US steam frigate Merrimack, from whose hulk Virginia was built, to the destruction of the ironclad on the shores of Craney Island, Virginia, on May 10-11, 1862 at the hands of its own crew. The paintings on the postcards were taken from a series of original works by Benjamin A. Richardson (1833-1909). Richardson, born in Portsmouth, was a self-taught, amateur artist. Early in life, he earned a living as a house and sign painter. During the Civil War, Richardson enlisted in Norfolk as a private in the Confederate States Army in the United Artillery under Captain Thomas Kevill.
    [Show full text]
  • The Navy in the Civil
    The Navies of the Civil War Overview Anderson, Bern. By Sea and by River: the Naval History of the Civil War. New York: Knopf, 1962. F834 A545b Hearn, Chester G. Naval battles of the Civil War. San Diego: Thunder Bay Press, 2000. UN834 H436n 2000 Oversized Material Porter, David D. The Naval History of the Civil War. New York: Sherman Publishing Co., 1886. F834 P84n Union Joiner, Gary D. Mr. Lincoln’s Brown Water Navy: the Mississippi Squadron. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2007. UN834 J74m Merrill, James M. The Rebel Shore: the Story of Union Sea Power in the Civil War. Boston: Little, Brown, 1957. F834 M571r Taaffe, Stephen R. Commanding Lincoln's Navy: Union Naval Leadership During the Civil War. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 2009. UN834 T111c Confederacy Campbell, R. Thomas, editor. Voices of the Confederate Navy: Articles, Letters, Reports, and Reminiscences. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, 2008. UN861 V889 Hearn, Chester G. Gray Raiders of the Sea: How Eight Confederate Warships Destroyed the Union's High Seas Commerce. Camden, Maine: International Marine Publishing, 1992. F834z H436g Scharf, J. Thomas. History of Confederate States Navy from Its Organization to the Surrender of Its Last Vessel. Albany, New York: Joseph McDonough, 1894. F834z S31h 1894 Gunboats Walke, Henry. Naval Scenes on the Western Waters. The gunboats Taylor, Carondelet and Lafayette. [S.l., 187-?] F8347 N318 Gosnell, Harpur Allen. Guns on the Western Waters: the Story of River Gunboats in the Civil War. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, [1949]. F834 G677g Joyner, Elizabeth Hoxie. The USS Cairo: History and Artifacts of a Civil War Gunboat.
    [Show full text]
  • VMI Architectural Preservation Master Plan
    Preservation Master Plan Virginia Military Institute Lexington, Virginia PREPARED BY: JOHN MILNER ASSOCIATES, INC. West Chester, Pennsylvania Kimberly Baptiste, MUP Krista Schneider, ASLA Lori Aument Clare Adams, ASLA Jacky Taylor FINAL REPORT – JANUARY 2007 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Preservation Master Plan Virginia Military Institute The funding for the preparation of the Preservation Master Plan for Virginia Military Institute was provided by a generous grant from: The Getty Foundation Campus Heritage Grant Program Los Angeles, California Throughout the course of the planning process, John Milner Associates, Inc. was supported and assisted by many individuals who gave generously of their time and knowledge to contribute to the successful development of the Preservation Master Plan. Special thanks and acknowledgement are extended to: VMI ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS • COL Keith Gibson, Director of VMI Museum Operations and Preservation Officer, Chair • COL Bill Badgett, Professor of Fine Arts and Architecture • COL Tom Davis, Professor of History • COL Tim Hodges, Professor of Engineering • LTC Dale Brown, Director of Construction • LTC Jay Williams, Post Engineer • MAJ Dallas Clark, VMI Planning Officer VMI FACULTY AND STAFF MEMBERS • COL Diane Jacob, Head of Archives and Records • Mr. Rick Parker, VMI Post Draftsman OTHER ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS • All historic images and photographs included within this report are courtesy of the Virginia Military Institute Archives. • All planning and construction documents reviewed during the course of this project
    [Show full text]