your park United States Departrnent National Service of the Interior Reminds P.O. BOX 37 127 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200t3.7 t27 TO: tN REPLY nEFEI MAY 15 îffi ¡,lecrorandr:m

TAKE ltre Secretary PRIDE IN AMERICA"

SeQsÏ,""i"t"nt tary for Fish and Wildlife and parks '986 Di I Park Senrice , üllhm Penn ltlott, ,r SUÂ'ECT SI.JTSIARY: Designat of National Historic tanùnarks--Request for Secretarial Action

DISCIJSSION: The National Park Syste¡n Advisory Board, at a neeting on þril 2g, 1986, reccn¡nended designation of the following properties as t{atiõnal Historic Ianùnarks:

(I) Loct¡st Gror¡e (Ger¡eral Geonge Rogers Clark House), viciniÈy of to,isville, Kentucþ (2) Sûrite H,aven (Grant-ænt House), vicinity of Grantt¡þod Village, Missot¡ri (3) tSS ilonitor, off Cape HaÈteras, liþrth Carolina (4) îrææ'Caprtol, Austin, Texas (5) Kennecott Mines, vi.ciniÈy of Kennecott, Alaska (6) ros Adaes (ltuestra Senora del Pilar los Adaes), vicinÍty of Robeline, Lo¡isiana (7) Space Iaunch Coçlex I0r Vandenberg Air Force Bâsê, California

rn accordance with l,lational Historic lanônarks progral regrr.rlations, the Boarrl revier¡ed the studies nqninaÈing these prcperties fór nnùnark status, ard fq¡nd that the properties neeÈ t¡ational Historic lanùnarks Progran criteria. rhe Board nenbers voted unanimously to reqrmend the designatiõns of the above prcperties, except Èhat in the case of locr¡st Grove, tne ñotion to reccnrend designation passed by a vote of 4 Èo 2. titr objections to these designations have been raised by any of the parties reqr.rired to be noÈified of tanônark nqnination prc¡nsals.

r recunnend thaÈ !¡ql appro\re the Board's recqrrpndation and designate the prqerties listed above as tilational HisÈoric lanùnarks.

Approve

¿ 3 1986 TÞte JUN Date

Prepared by: laura Feller ext.: 343-8167

31 ÉormNo :Q-306 (Rev l0'74) -I't U N ITE D ST \Th5 DT P.\ RT}I L.N 1' O I- I'H h I \ R IO R NPS USE ONIY NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAI REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES RECEIVEQ INVENTOR,Y .. NOMINATION FORM OATE ENTE FOR FEDERAL PROPERTIES SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOW TO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS TYPE ALL ENTRIES.. COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS

INervrE FE: HrsroRrc u.s.s. tu

ANO/ON COMMON Shipwreck Site a¡d Remains, U.S.S. Monitor flrocarloN STREET & NUMBER South of Cape Hatteras in the Atlantic Ocean _NOT FOR PUELICATION cllY TOWN CONGR€SSIONAL OISf RICT Hatteras x vrcrHlrY oF STATE coo€ COU NfY cooÊ North Carolina 037 N/A llcussrFrcATIoN

CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS PRESENT USE _OISTRICT l$ueLrc _occu PtEo _AGFICULTURE _MUSEUM _EUrLOrNG(St _PR IVAT€ Xu ¡¡occupreo _COMM ERCIAL _PABK _SIRU CfU RE _WORK IN PROGRESS _PRIVAfE RESIOENCE -golH -EOUCAIIONAL J(SlrE PUBLIC ACOUISITI ON ACCESSI BLE _ENTER TAINM ENT _R E LIG IOU X S xoBJecf _IN PROCESS R€STRICTEO -YES -XGOVERNMENT _SCIENTIFIC _BEING CONSIOEREO _YES UNRESTRICTEO _f RANSPORTATION -INOUSTRIAL _NO _OIHER: -MILITAFY !f ecuucv (tt'ept¡caùtet REGToNALHEADoUARTERS Natlonar Oceanic and Atmospheric Adninistration

Sf REEÍ & NUMEE'ì 33 t¡Ifiitehaven N[rl clTY fowN STAI€ !'lashington _ vtctNtTY cF ff rocerroN oF rJGAL DESCRIPTIoN COURTHOUSE Sane above REGISIRY OF OEEOS, ETC as

STR€ET & NUMBER

c¡fY fowN STAIE fl nnnnrSENTATToN rN EXISTING suRvEys TrrLE National Register of Historlc Places

OAfE October 11, 197\ x _FEOERAL _STAIE _COUNfY _LOCAL OEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECOROS National Park Service crfY fowN SIATF llashi-ngton D. C. f,f oe scRIPrIoN

coNolTloN CH€CK ONE CHECK ONE

_EXCE LtÊ NT Lorr..,ororro _U NA LTER EO LoRrcr¡,¡el srre _GOOO Lru,*t f,-nlreneo OATE- -MOVEO _XFAt F Lu*ettosEo

DESCRIBE THE PRÊSENT ANO OFIGINAL (IF KNOWNI PHYSICAL APPEARANCE

The wreck of USS Monitor Iies off the NorthCarolina coast on the eastern Continental SheIf 16.1 miles south-southwest of Buxton, North Carolina, in 220 feet of water at the center ll,atitude and Longitudel of the one-miIe diameter Monitor National ¡,larine Sanctuary. The wreck lies on a sandy plain and is surrounded by an associated wreckage f ield. I¡Ihi1e marine growth is attached to the huII, the immediate bottom area is devoid of vegeÈation. U.S.S. l¡loniÈor as Built, L862 U.S.S. Monitorr prototype of a new type of ironclad, turreted lvarship, was l-auncheC at Greenpoint, Long Island, New Yorkr oÍr January 30, L862. As Launched, Monitor was 173 feet in length, with an extreme bean of 4L feet, 4 inches, an Il foot, 2' inch depth of hold, a I0 foot, 4 inch , and displaced 987 gross tons.' Monitorrs freeboarC was only 18 inches, offering a Iow profile with only the turret, pilothouse, smoke and blower stack above deck. The f64 foot long, 36 foot wide wrought iron hull was protected from shellfire by a 32-inch-wide iron beam armored shelf supporting 27 inches of oak and pine backing covered by five layers of 1-inch iron plates. Two courses I/z-inch iron plate was laid over 7 inches of pine deck planking and I0-inch deck beams. DeckliEhts admitted light below to the wardroom and were protected by iron covers which could be hooked in place. The deck was pierced by hatches for blowers, smoke stacks, and access to the engine room, berth deck and the turret. fron stanchions set into the deck supported rope lifelines. The principal feature of the vessel was the 20-foot (internal) diameter, 9 foot high iron turret, which housed two XI-inch Dahlgren smoothbore shell guns, the shiprs armament. The turreÈrs 2I L/2-foot diarneter bulkhead was composed of eight courses of one-inch iron plates proEected the guns and their crews. The turret set, on a bronze ring on t,he deck and was raised by a wedge under the central column when going into action. The turret revolved under the power of two steam engines operating through a gear train and controlled by Èhe gunnery of f icer in t.he Èur ret'. ilonitor was propelled by an Ericsson vibrating lever engine of 320 indicated horsepower which drove a singlet 9-foot diameter four bladed screw. The engines were powered by two forced-draft fed Horizontal fire-tube boilers. l¡lonitorts bunker capaciÈy was Fcrm No lO-300a (Rev 10.74) U N ITID STATES DEPÅR]'Nf ENT OI. THE INTLR IOR R NPS US€ ONLY NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RECEIVED NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PI^ACES INVENTORY .. NOMINATION FORM E NTEREO

CONTI NUATION SHEET ITEM NUMBER 7 EACC 2 100 tons of coaL. Þlonitor was designed to operate at 9 knotst hèi service speed was 6 knots. The interior of the vessel was divided amidships by a single iron bulkhead which supported the weight of the turreÈ and provided a pressure barrier for t,he fire room. Cabinsr storeroomsr berth deck, wardroom, and Lockers were locaÈed inside the hul1 below the waterline. Eeads designed for operations below the waterline were installedr and the inÈerior spaces were ventilated by forced draft. The anchor, of four- fluked designr was seÈ into a welL at the bow and was raised and lowered by a manually operated windlass inside the vessel (I). l{odifications to llonitor Following her engagement with C.S.S. Virginia at Eampton Roads, Virginia on !1a.rch 9, I862, and subsequent operations on Virginiars James River, Monitor !vas modified, repaired, and overhauled. Much of the work was acomplished at Èhe Washington Navy Yard. Repairs included replacing battle damaged armor plate. Modifications to Èhe interior of the vessel included raising the bert,h deck, shifÈing storeroom bulkheads, and adding storerooms and an additional sheLl room. On deck the piJ.othouse, which had been hit during the engagement with Virginia, wounding Monitorrs commander, s/as armored with a oak and iron glacis. The square smoke stacks were replaced with a breeching which led to a single telescoping 24-foot t,al1 stack. Boats were rigged from davits on the deck. A breast-high sheet iron nrifle screenn was added to the top of the turret. Additions were made to the machinery; An Andrews centrifugal pump driven by two-cylinder steam engine was added in May 1862 and a blower and engine for additional forced ventilation vrere added in October of the same year. Monitorrs main engines were overhauled in October of 1862. These were the only major alterationsr repairs, and replacemenÈs to the vessel prior to her sinking on December 31, 1862 (21, I{reck of U.S.S. l{onitor Uonitor evidently capsized when sinking. She Iies upside down and rests with her port side partly atop her displaced turret. The $rreck retains much of .U-e¡il-A¡'s original form. Archeologists documenting the wreck in 1979 reported that: BotÈom plating on the lower hu11 aft of Èhe amidships bulkhead survives almosÈ intact where Form No l0-300a ,Rev l0-74) N U ITb.D ST.\ TIS DL.P.\RI \IENT OI. THE I\'I'I:R IOR FOR NPS USE ONLY NA TIONAL PAHK SERVICE ECEIVED NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY .. NOMINATION FORM OATE ENTEREO

CONTI NUATION SHEET ITEM NUMEE R 7 PAGE 3 supported by boilersr. machinery, and machinery foundations in the engineering-nuit spãces. Along both sides of the aft l0wer praclnõ has deteriorated and only the supporting irames r-emain. rn the extreme stern the ãrmor belt, has been extensivery damaged along the portions of the overhang. Damage to the deck dxtends from the stern as far forward as the present rocation of the turret and an extensive amõunt of armor plate has been dislodged. The propellor shaft and proper10r...have been displaced...but remain near their original positionð...rnside the hurl the st,eam pro.pulsion plant, boilers, blower6, pumps, and associated machinery remain rerativety-has intact. Forward of the midship bulkhead damage been more extensive. The huI1 has collapsedl with the exception of the vicinity of ttre firot house and limited areas inboard or the polt aimor belt, pl_atingr associated frames and fioor timbers, and oÈher structural iron fragments have colrapsed into the inÈerior of the ... rr those aieas not obscured by remains of the hul1, exposed material has been identified as portions of tne interior of the vesse1r.i.9., equipment and fitt,ings that were stowed away below the crewrs quarters a-nd wardroom, and associated artifacÈs. Exþosed port.ions of the turret appear structuralry souìci and exhibit little evidence of det.eriorat.ion. The gun -byports, visible beneath the hu11 r ârê blocked the po stoppers (3). rt

Limited archeological testing and recovery at the site in 1979 and 1983 recovered more Ehan õne hundred aitifacts from an area of the vessel- which originally cabin and p?n!ry: "The broad spectrum of ed in the limiÈed number of aitifacts re I proie-i included woodr leather, rubb , 9}ass, ce,ramics, iron, brass and pr nce- of å substantial accumulation of I ted thaÈ excelLent -possÍbilities for the pieservation of organic material exist... Ithis is] perhaps characLerlzed by recou"r-"à sampl"" Ji relis.hr_ pepper, leather, and wood... (4)-." Uoniiô¡'s ånchor, attached to the wreck by it,s chain, was locatea-ãiã-recovered in Form No l0-300a iRev 1O-74) UNIThD ST\'IL.S DEPARI \lL'NT Ot- THh l\Tt:RIOR R NPS US€ ONLY NA I-IONAL PARK SERVICE ECEIVED NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY .. NOMINATION FORM OATE ENTE

CONTINUATION SHEET ITEM NUMBER 7 PAGE \ 198 3 to test met hods of large artifact preservation and conservation at the site (5). The wreck site of U.S.S. ü-A¡ålg¡ retains a high IeveI of integrity, Major construction features and details are intact" Minoi coistrucÈion features, while deterioratedr damagedr or no longer intact in some areas, are archeologically recoverable thrõugh documentation and comparison with the hisEorical record. nemovál of art.ífacts from the vessel has been limited to date and has been mitigated by archeological practices of documentationt conservation, -and analysis. Preservation of associated material culture and the potential for meaningful historical archeol-ogical investigations based on anthropologically derived research questions Ís apparently high. I Richard H. Webber, M-Anåle¡S 9f lbe U.S. N-A:¿y- 18-6.1:1932. (Washington, D.C.: Naval History Divisionr Navy Departmentr 1969) p. 10; Gordon Watts, trNational Register of Historic Places Inventory/ttomination Form, U.S.S. Monitorrr unpublished manuscriþt on file aÈ the office of the National Register, National Park Service, Washingtonr D.C.¡ L974; Ernest peterkin, nBuilding a Behemothrn Civil f{ar Times fllustrated XX (JuIy I981) pP. 12-21, Pass.; Edward !1. t4i11er' U.S.S. MoniÈorl The ShiÞ That Launched A t'fodern Navy. (Annapolis' t'laryland: Leeward PublicationsT Inc.' 1978) pP.21-35r PêE-Êi William H. Cracknell, nUnited States Navy Monitors of the Civil 9'Iarrn Profile, September I973r PP. 275-282.

2 Peterkinr nBuilding a Behemothrn P. 19.

3 Gordon P. Watts, JÊ,,t Invest,igating the Senains gf, the. U.S.S. Monitor: A Final BePort.s¡ 1979 Site Sesting i¡ lhe Monitor National $arine Sanctuary. (Fort, Pierce, Florida: Harbor Branch Foundation¡ Inc.r 1981) P. 13.

4 Watts, Investigating the Remains 9! the U.S.S. Monitor.-.. p. 94. Form \o 10.300a tRev 10.74) UNITtD ST,\TL.S DIP¿\Rl'IlL,NT Otj l'HE INThRIOR FOR NPS USE ONLY NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ECEIVEO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTOR Y .. NOMINATION FORM ENTE RED

CONTINUATION SHEET ITEM NUMEER 7 P¡CE 5

5 Gordon P. tr!lonitor ,83, n nconservationWatts, Jr,¡ and Curtiss E. peterson, of the Anchor and chain (Recovered from the I{reck of the uss }tonitor, Augustr,g3rn''conservation òheesebox rr (z) pp. L-4, 6 Bass.t curt,iss E. pet,erson, of ttie Monitor Anchor: Progress Repor,trn cheesebox rrr (l), pp. r-ã, PêS-S.. El srcn¡IFICANcE

PE RIOO AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE .. CHECK ANO JUSTIFY BELOW _PREHISTORIC _ARCHEOLOGY PFEHISÍOFIC _COMMUNITY PLANNING ARCHIIECTURE _a€LrctoN r 400-l -LANOSCAPE _ 499 ---ARCHEOLOGY.HISIORIC _CONSERVAIION _.LAW _SCIE N CE _t500-t599 ---AGRICULIURE _ECONOMTCS _Ltrtfi4¡¡¡, LPIU R € _ t 600.1 699 J(ARCHTI€CIURE _EOUCAITON XUrlrt¡ny -SCU )ÇSOCIAL HUMANIIARIAN _l 700.t 799 Rr tN -a Ê ERING _M u stc _THEAIER ¡l80O.l899 -ENG -coMMERCE -ÉxPLoRArtoN¡sETTLEMENT -.pHrLosopHy _TRANSPORTATION _ I 900. _COMMIJNICATIONS XI¡.¡OUSTRY _POLIIICS,GOVERNMENT tsPEcrçv' l(INVENTIoN -oTHER

SPECIFIC OATES 1862 BUTLOER/ARCHTTECT Joh¡ Ericsson STATEM ENT OF SIGNI FICANCE-E The story and he significance of U.S.S. Monitor in the is interwovennone with perceptions and hence the vessel has b ecome another of the myths out of which AmerÍca nsr conception of their history has been constructed, along with others as The LiberÈy 8eI1, George Washington, and t he Frontier (1).n Much has been said in Ehe popular media and in scholari forums about the im portance of v Ue¡;!!g_f.nfamous¡ t,o American histor y. Sonitor f it has been said, like other vessels such AS 1o U.S.S. Sayf lfêfrnbecame Constitution (nOld Ironsidesn)r. and U.S.S. Maine, and remains a part of the American mind , its bare menE ion conjuring up images of what \{e are as a .people, of our expe r i ence as a people, and of some of the ma jor events and motifs in our history (2)." l'!oni tor has been termed none of the most meaningful ob jects in American histor !.,.so heavily Ìaden with values that transcend the mundane an d the common... (3).n One more sweeping comment on Monitorrs sign ificance stated the ve ssel was important nnot jus t as a ship t,hat eha of nged the course , but as a s ymbol of a people, their ingenuit Yt their capabilities, and mos E importan tly, their reco gnition of t.hose Americans who contrib uted to the technolo gical success tye enjoy today (4).n i{hiIe much pontification ove r the importance of Monitor to the American people and their past has ensued, quantification and qualification of si gnifi cance has not: nthe question of the l!onitor's intrinsic va1 ue either as a s ymboL or as an artifacE has largel y been dismissed as so obviou s that it was not in need of furthe r discussion (5).n The- significance of üonitor has been debated at a nationaÌ conference on Monitorts meaning_ and significance; Dr. Larry Tise, then Director of the State of NorÈh Carolinais Departr]ent oi Archives and History noted at a 1978 Monitor confereñce that the impor.tance of the vessel needed to Oe turttrer discussed since questions concernÍng her value had nbecome more common and often the subject of sharp disagree noted that nmuch of the value an incredible history, and ve of people associated with bhe down to the present (7), NPS Fofm tGcoo.. OMB No. lO24-Onlg 3-t2l E¡p, ìO.,3r-94 United States Department of the lnterior National Park Service For HPS uro ooly National Register of Historic Places received l-..^-l-¡.. ll^-l-^l!^- E^-- ¡^a^ rrtuEttrlrf t-rtlrrrrrrr(lltlrll rlrr rrr wtE 6¡199g--¡--J

Continuation sheet Item number q ftloe ^

However, t.he significance of u.s.s. Monitor can be quarified and quantified utilizing the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places. Monitor meets aIl four criteria for National- Register listing; a) she was associated v¡ith broad patterns and events in American history, namely the development of the in the 19th century, the rise of industrial faciliÈies in the United States, and the American Civil War as well as public perceptions and reacÈions Èo these factors; b) she was associated with an individual significant in American history' Swedish-American inventor and enEineer John Ericssoni c) she embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type as a proLoLype for a class of Americah warshlp used by the unit,ed States Navy as well as other powers well into the 20th century; and finally d) because her remains are Iikely to yíeId informat,ion important to American history through a mõre Ce€ailed understanding of the vessel but more imporÈantly as a means for assessing the Anerican nmind-setn through ant.hropo]-ogica1ly generated research questions which probe human interactíon with new technology and how nmodernn industrial societies prepare for war. Naval historian Dr. Philip K. Lundeberg has noted that in nappraising the historical significance of...l'lonit,or, the modern observer is confronted with a wide range of technological comparisons--partly with other mid-l9th century ironclads--that makes such an undertaking a deliberate search for adequate perspective (8).n Assessing lvtonitor's signif icance to broad patterns of American history requires contextual setting and perspective as Monitorrs role in the development of the ironclad warshipr the Civil War, and publ ic reaction t,o the war and the new technology embodied in Monitorrs design and construction are investigated. llonitor and the Developnent of the Ironclad ltarship !lany of the features incorporated into Mgnitorrs design--steam powered screw propulsion, iron hul1, large caliber guns, and iron armor---had been developed prior to the construction of Monit,or. Designs and proposals for ironcl-ad date to as early as the I840s. The outbreak of v/ar on Russia's Crimean peninsula brought about the first use of ironclads in naval warfare when French- and British-built floating armored batteries bombarded NPS Fom |SCoG. OMB f{o lû24-OOIB ße) Erp. lO-31-84 United States Department of the lnterior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places lnventory-Nomination Form

Contin¡ation sheet Item number I Page 3

shore-based fortifications in I855. In response to the success of Lhe French batteries, France and Britain consÈructed sea-going ironclad warships, the French applying iron armor to the wooden steam frigaÈe !¿ Gloire in 1858 and the British laying the keel, in Èhe same year, of the ironclad Warrior. By 1860, a number of ironclad warships had been laid down and constructed, including nmore than forty seagoing ironclads, thirty armored coastal- defense vessels, and eighteen partially protected already builÈ, building or authorized in Europe (9).n The development of the heavy shel1 gun in the 1820s and a scarcity of timber reserves had nmade clear Èhe necessiÈy for the subsequent adapÈation of iron armor on naval warships (10).n Arnor, as well as iron sea-going hulIs, and steam screw propulsion¡ while conceived and nto some degree testedtr prÍor to the American Civil War of I86I-1865, were not futly combined until Ericssonrs intuitive leap in the deéign and construction of üonitor. Naval historian Philip Lundeberg has noted that the most significant aspect of Monitorrs design was that she was nthe worldrs f irst turreted ironclad... Iwhich]...rìoEe than üonitorts Iow-freeboard draft and tapered lower hu11, was the most distinctive element of this novel weapons system...(11).n The design and construction of Monitor, then, summed up precisely thought,s and improvenents of iron hulls, armor, steam screw propulsion, shell guns, and turrets (I2). Monitorrs combat with C.S.S. yj¡S_f.È¿ at Hampton Roadsr however, was the first between ironcl-ad warships and nreveal,ed the Iimited effectiveness of the Virginiars casemated broadside battery against a mobile, low- freeboard opponenÈ, while conversely demonstrating the practical impregnability and all-round fire capabilityn of üonitor (13). This demonstration, and the fact that nEriccsonrs turret conception was the first to take form in an actual man-of- war...weighed heavily in the international acclaim which he was subs equ ently awarded... (14). n

Monitor received international attention as well as acclaim. The turret concepÈ, ably demonstrated for the first time on Monitor, was adopÈed by the navies of the world while t.he hull form and design of the coasÈ-bound, largely unseaworthy vessel was not except by Russiars Swedes. English naval archiÈect J. Scobt Russell, writing in 1865, noted that Monitor and the class of NPS Fom 1090Gr oe) OMB \o. ;O24_COIB èrÞ..to-31- 84 United States Department of the lnterior National Park Service For NPS uro onty National Register of Historic Places rÊc€ived lnventory/-Nomination Form date entered

Continuation sheet ltem number I Page 4

nmonitorstr that followed her offered conditions 'such as wer ât least for sea-going , wourd reructantly accept. The row side will, in a sea-wêy, arlow the seã to swiep over the shipr"-hipts and the waves, not the sai] ors, will have possession of the deck....n Russell stated nthat we should copy them [Àmerican monitorsl, r -no longer recommend, than they sËduld copy us. But we may each do wel-L to study and admire thè merit of the ot,herts work (r5).n ur!imately, the adaptation of murtiple turrets to sea-going ironclad hu11s, or the ðynthesis of concêpts tested and proven in Monitor and her progeny and Gloire anã Warrior and their successorsr culminated in the devàlo-pìent oa iron and steel-hulled and rater ocean-going capital ships. üonitor and most of her successor moniE,ors were not effective sea-going warshiPs, as the foundering of MbniÈor and the near- ross of Passaic demonstrated. They !,/ere, however, designed effective coastal operation vessels; iideaÍty suited to the Lask of coastar defense, monitors represent,ed the most appropriate for a nation which, in the 19th century, retièa ãlmost eIglusively on its oceanic buffers for securiÈy...the monitors offered maximum security for the smalrest possibre expense (r6).n-of While Monitor had l-imited ate devèLopment the Euro_pean i ronclads an pn, she diã have a profound effect on warsh tne uniÈed st,ates during the civil vtar. The public response to Monitor and combat npr_ompted her with C.S.s. Virginia in the Uniteã States a nMonitor crazet with politital and to a lesser degree military-.su-pport to construct a large nurnber of this typõ of craft, which gained the generic name of nmonitorsn...throú!nout the civir war, the construction of new, larger, more sophisticated versions of l'lonitor occupied a substantial portion of warship production in the United States (17).n _In aI1, fifty-nine monitors were ordered after the perceived nsuccessn of the original l,lonitor---of these, apprõximat,ely thi-rÈy-five were commissioned, twenty-seven during tnè civil warl and the last to be built was laid down in 1BB9 (18). Gradually some monitors !/ere gi_ven multiple turrets and more seaworthy hulls¡ but the nmodernn American owes much of its forir to the steel-hul1ed nA'B'C'Dn ships of ths 1880s patterned after European warships typical of warrior and her progèny (19). ' NPS Fofm lG10ût OMg No 1024-,)O18 E¡p. ro-31-84 , çr..]4J, United States Department of the lnterior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places I nventory-Nomination Form

Continuation sheet Item number I fàge 5

l{onitorrs Role in the À¡nerican Civil llar

Monitor was widely perceived as the nship that saved the Unionn during the Civil war. The presence of C.S.s. Virginia in waters close to Washington, D.C. and the poLential destruction of t,he Federal fleet at Hampton Roads by Virginia inspired hysteria and some panic. The arrival- of Monitor aÈ Hampton Roads and her baÈtIe wiÈh V:L¡Sinå¿, ending the Confederate ironclad's destructive foray among the Unionrs wooden fleetr PEovoked a flurry of pro-!lonitoI sentiment that persisted long after üonitor's career ended and the last shot,s of the Civil War had been fired. Popular conception of üonitorrs role nas the ship that saved the Union' and won the CivÍl l{ar has been overstated. The role of ltlonitorrs offspritg, the Unionrs rmonitorsrn in the Civil War has also been over-emphasized. As targely coast-bound vessels, monitors were strategically linked to two aspects of Union naval strategYr protect the advance bases for the blockade and bombard forts for the blockade of the Confederate coast and the capture and closure of Confederate ports. The use of monitors in the blockade enhanced the superiority of the blockadersr fleets and would have enabled these fleets to stand off and Possibly destroy attacking Conf ederate i ronclads. The monitor-class \{arships had a demonstrated role in the blockade, which was a major naval aspect of the Civil Vfar. The monitors alone were not successful in taking Confederate ports. A fleet of nine vessels (including seven monitors) attempted to crush the harbor defenses of Charleston, South Carolina on Apri1- 7, 1863 and was repel1ed. nThroughout the entire l-hour and 40-minute engagement¡ the guns of the Union ironclads were able to deliver only 139 rounds. In turn, the cannon of the IConfederate] forts rained more than 2,000 shots on the invading shipsr hitting them no less than 439 times. One non-monitor, t,he Keokuk, was lost and several suffered serious damage (20). n The nyth of monitor invulnerability was shattered at Charleston and again at l'lobiler Alabama, when the monitor Tecunseh was lost after hitting a Confederate mine. The monitors were not able to capture and hold Confederate ports; those ports that were taken feII to combined land and sea forces and the last Confederate port to fal1' tiilmington, NorÈh Carolina, remained open until January of 1865 near the wart s end. l,lonitor-cIass warships, theref ore, while NPS Fom 10.)00., OMB \o. t.f24-.:C1A ß.rz) Erp. lO-31-84 United States Department of the lnterior National Park Service For HPS urc orúy National Register of Historic Places recelvd I rrrranlarrr-ll ¡rrrr i rr at i ¿rrr E¿rvrrr date eatered ¡tr!rtt¡tvr t-r!lr¡t¡trrúltlvt¡ ¡ r9 I ltr

Continuation sheet Item number B fìage 6

composing an important part of commitment to naval construcÈ influence on the collapse of the the civil [,Iar. The civil War y, Ericsson's monitors, the first rarge-scare use of ironclad warghips in combat, and a substantial favorable public and poritical response to the ironclads; the laÈter may be the most significant, aspect of the monitors. Pr¡blic Response to t{onitor and the t{onitors Public response Lo Lhe news of t'Ionitorts battle wiLh c.s,s. Virginiar ending the Confederate ironcladts destructive rampage, was enthusiastic and outspoken; npoetsr govêEnment authorities, soldiersr sâirors, and the civirian puuric..'.considered Ehe ironcrad a tool for achieving victor!..-..n and nmythicized t.he weapon (21).n ivlonitor of f icer Frederick Keeler notèd in a letter to his wife: nYou cannot conceive of the feelÍng...the Ùlonitor is on every onets tongue....rt was Èord from one to another as r passed aIonE---hers an officer from the llonit,or---& they Iooked aE, me as if r was some strange being (22).n Keeler alèo noted that a young female visiEor to the vesseL, when asked if she had seen the shipts armament, had said noh yes...& kissed them too. I feel as if I could kiss Èhe deck we stand on (23).n Mo¡i!-q¡ rvas viewed as an impregnable super-weapon. one contemporary newspaper correspondent wrote that nAmericanlike, we went mad over the Monitor. Naval warfare was revolutionized, we thought, in an hour. The supremacy of England on the ocean was ended. Monitors vrere henceforth to sway the destinies of commercer and Monitors had been patented for the exclusive use of the universal- Yankee nation (24).n Newspapers around the nation rep_orted t,he MoeiÞqr-Virginia battle and discoursed on the power and invulnerability of ironclads; the editors of the- san Francisco Daily Alta carifornia, a continent away from the battle, noted in 1863 that Our Monitors can hanmer away with a steady hand, and in a manner which will defy att the modern improvements in naval $/arfare. IE is certainly a subj ect upon which we have j ust reason to congratulate oursel-ves, that the intelLigence of the naval authorities of this country, and the NPS Fom lOæG¡ ;Me ¡.¡o 'r]24 -;!,4 ß4) Exp lo-3r-ò4 United States Department of the lnterior National Park Service For NPfi u¡c or*y National Register of Historic Places recelved lnventory-Nomination Form &te enterÊd

Continuation sheet Item number I tàge 7

superiority in engineering and mechanical skill and naval warfare, which it must be admitted they possess, has caused this gigantic element in naval warfare, and preeminently the American Monitor, to be called inLo existence (251. Monitor reinforced _the popular concept among Americans that they were technologically superior and ingenious; Iíerman MelvifIel writing on Monitor's battle with Virginiar perrned Hail to victory without the gaud Of glory; zeal that needs no fans Of banners; plain mechanic power PIied cogently in War now placed-- Where VrIar belongs-- Ãrnong the trades and artisans (26).

Published response to I"lonitor and her progeny resulted in a plethora of books and articles--during Lne-civil !{ar several dozen were produced. A L979 bibliography enumerated 426 separate entries for Monitor alone (27). The Monitor craze permeated the public consciousness during the civil war. $el.per's Ne$ M-a¡l.b.Lg Magaai¡e of July, f863, published an illustrated, humorous essay entitled, nTñe age oi rronrn which included an nironclad coatrn an iron-plated súove- pipe hat designated a nturretrr na steer-pointed ¡rickbat,rn and na 1ittle mil-l between rron clad plugsrn in which two armored gentlemen ntengs srugged it ouÈ. The Harper's essay arso featured Experirnent in fron Armor!!n in which Mr. nangs received a suit of iron armor, allowing him to meeÈ nthe attãck of an mad bu11 with indifferencet (28)" The iron-cIad fervor continued well after the war; an 1879 advertisement in a railroacl rnagazine depicted a monitor steaming along for nrron clad paint,n which Tas used by railroads and had been adopÈed by the nU.S. Government for fron Shipsr bottoms...(29).n The enthusiastic public response to Monitor and the later monitors during the Civil War lasted throughout the 19th century and well into the 20th century as participants in her designl construction, and career publically reminisced and ruminated on the vessel and her prace in history. Historians added to the mythology of the vesser; Monitor assumed greater importance NPS FoÍn lOC00.. oMB ¡þ. l@4-oor8 p{2) E¡p. iO-31-e4

the lnterior ::-. i .: United States Department of 1 : .;il National Park Seruice For NPS ur,only National Register of Historic Places rscclved inveniory-Nomination Form wtEA^i^ grÃ^a^-â,¿ rt9l 9g

Contiruation sheet Item number I Page 8

through the decades, becoming the ship bhat saved the Union in a dark hour of the war when Virginia rampaged unchecked and threatened to destroy the Federal Navy. Monitor also became a symbol of American ingenuity and know-howr the progenitor of the modern battleship, representing na compleLely new concept of design (30).n The context of Monitorrs role in the development of the ironclad warship and the Unibed States Navy and the conducÈ of the A ethe v ,the r nsive n myth p rican c lloniÈor.as a Representative hlork of John Ericsson U.S.S. Monitor is perhaps the best known product of John Ericsson (1803-1889), Swedish-American inventor and engineer. Ericssonrs work included progress toward the development of the steam fire- engine, screw propulsionr heavy ordnance, the use of iron in ship-building, ironclad warships' and the use of hot air as a motive force (31). Ericcsonrs work in the United States (he immigrated to America in 1839) included the development of the first screv¡-propelled vessel in the U.S. Navy' Princeton, the construction of an experirnental vessel, Ericcson, to test his theories of hot air or ncaloricn power, and the design and constructíon of Monitol and her of fspring, A colorful f igure v¡ ith a f orcef ul- personal ity' Er icssonrs genius is besÈ demonstrated in the intuitive Ieap he made in combining Pre- existing theory, concepts, and design to create the Cal-oric Ship Ericsson, U.S.S. Princeton, and Monitor. Ericsson ngradually became the protoÈype of those ímmigrant engineers who did so much for American technology (32).n Ericsson became mythicized and was to an extent apotheosized with his most famous invention, l,loni to r . l{onitor as a Prototype Mg¡;i.lg¡'s perceived success and invulnerabilicy and the substantial public and political response to the vessel sparked a program of monitor construction during the Civil War by the NÞS Fom 10.âOO.. OMB Ho tg¿a-66,g ùe) E¡p lo-3r-84 United States Department of the lnterior National Park Service For NPtl urc onty National Register of Historic Places ¡ecc$ved lnventory-Nomination Form &ta entered:

Continuation sheet Item number I Page 9

united states Navy. As previousry noted, 59 monitors r./ere 'ordered, some 35 of which were commissioned. These included ten Passaic class monitors, nEricssonrs design of what the t4onitor herself would have been if her construction time had not been so critical...with several significant improvements, n the Miantono¡oah class of double turreted monitors, rrine Canonicus class monitors, the nfirst to incor porate t.he les sons of combat experience gained during bhe Monitor -Virqinia clash and the attacks on Charleston as well as the practical ones gained from day-to-day experiencern twenEy light-draft Casco class monitors, Dictator, a sea-going nonitor, and a num.ber of river nonitors (33). After the CiviI !{ar a num.ber of nnew Navy'monitors were built with double turrets and steel hulls including the Arkansas class, the last group of monitors to be constructed by the U,S. Nâvfr at the end of the 19Eh century. The m.onitor design of 1900 bore 1itt1e resemblance to the originaL Ì'ionitor. nDetailed analysis of the available historical sources confirrn Uonitor remained unique even among the later classes of turretedr heavily-armored, low freeboard vessels which were built in the United States. Although many of the characteristics which combined to make the Monitor unique were utilized in Iater vessels, their design !vas unquestionably altered from it.s original form (34).n Sonitor therefore not only ernbodies many of the distinctive characteristics of a type but also represents a significant, unique entity as a prototypical vessel. l{onitorrs PotentiaL to Yield Information fnportant to American Eistory The wreck of U.S.S. Monitor is one of two known wreck sites of Civil lÍar monitors; the other is U.S.S. TecuBsehr ârr intact Canonicus-class rnonitor sunk in , Alabama. Tecu6seh lies upside down and is buried beneath sediment,. her engine roon was entered by divers and some artifacts were recovered in 1966 along with her anchor. Some of the artifacts are curated at the National Museum of American tlist,ory at the Smithsonia.n fnstitution, Washington, D.C. Other artifacÈs, including the anchor, could not be located in 1985 (35). Archeological research at the ùionitor site has the poEential to yield information concerning particulars of the vessel; Monitor NPS lOæGr CMB l@4-:' tð Fom ^¿o o-æ) E¡9 19-31-84 United States Department of the lnterior National Park Service Fo¡ l{PS ucc onty National Register of Historic Places rece*ved I nrranfanr-llanr irr ati¿tn Farrnrrr &te entered ¡la t!ttlalyl ,-a !Y!¡laaltg¡!v¡l ! v.

Continuation sheet Item number B tìage 'l 0

is the only monitor whose drawings do not divulge the functions of most of her compartments, and many minor cletails of construction are undocumented and interpretations t.o date have been based on conjecture. A variety of particularistic research questions concerning the unique, proLotypical character of l'lonitor could be answered through careful archeological research. It should be noted that a considerable body of documentary evidence exists; it has been estimat,ed by some Monitor scholars that a 90t accurate reproductíon of the vessel could be built f rom existing dat,a (36). Archeological research to produce credible inferences and infornration beyond Monitorrs individual characteristics and history utilizing anthropologically-generated research questions can provÍde information important to American history as welI as a better understanding of human behavior. Dr. RicharC A. Gould, chair of Ehe Departrnent of Anthropologyt Brown UniversiEy, Providence, Rhode IsIand, is currently formulating an anthropological research design for MoniÈor which will pose questions relating to the vessel as a key to an understanding of how modern industrial societies (such as the Union during the Civil trlar) prepare f or war, Eonitorr s role in the emergence of the rnodern arms racer ân assessment of rates of t.echnological change as evidenced by Sonitor's percenbages of innovative and sÈandardized elements, Monitorrs effect on the technique of mass- produced warships in America in an age of a American traditionaÌ wooden ship industry, and the influences on Me¡ilgtt s construction by the exigencies of a war situat,ion and the requirement for haste to m.eet the threat of Confederate ironclads (37). Another series of research questions might focus on the shipboard stress of officers and crew in an experim.entalr nuntriedn vessel which possibly could be answered through documentary research coupled with archeological evidence of the inclusion of more familiar items relat,ed to the conventional Navy or family Iife elsewhere. Archeol-ogical research on Monitor, compared with the other moniEor site and other Civil War ironclad and warship wrecks, could generate a corpus of knowledge important to a better understanding of monitor charact.erist,ics and lif e on board as we]1 as another perspective on the human response to the í roncl ad. OMB No lO24-¿C:il NoS Fonn lûC00'! g¿2) erp lO-3t-84 United States Department of the lnterior National Park Service Fo¡ llPti ueo ody National Register of Historic PIaces recetvd åte eritorsd t nventory-Nomination Form

Continuation sheet ltem number I Fäge 11

Archeological recovery of I'fonitor is ultimately Iinked to the public response to the vessel, which has yet.t9 die after more than a cenÈury. Archeology may provide a mitig_ative tool for the recovery of relics which would fufill the need for a tactile response tõ this famous, mythologLzed vessel, which currently resËs, unattainable to the public, at, the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.

FOOTNOTES

1 nmythicn Other aspecEs of American history include -Davy Crockett, Danie1 Boone, tñe Landing at Plymouth Rock, and the New EngJ-and town as the wellspring of American democracy: Kenneth A. Lockridge, Â Nc-w. E¡glano Tog¡: The First Hundred -YC-alS,. (New York: W.W. Irlorton & Company' 1970) p. xi.

¿ Larry E. Tise, .!'The Monitor: IÈs Ùieani.ng, i in The Monitor, Its ùieãning and Future: Papers from ê National Conference, Raleigh' U.g¡-Eh gêrgfjnL ¿B¡il 2=.A-- 1928 (washington, D'c': The Preservation Press, 1978) P. 13.

3 Tise, p, 14.

4 Charles M. l,lcKinney, nCommentsrn in Tì-c Usn¿!9L Its U-eeÂing and I'u!¡¡re.... p. 99.

5 Larry E. TiSe, trThe Plonitor: An American Artifactrtr in The Mõnitor' IlS l'leaning and Future.... P.63.

6 Tise, p. 63.

7 Larry E. Tise, nThe [4gnitOr: rts Þleanin9_ and FutuEêrr in The Mõnitor' Its t'leaning and.El¡ture.... p. L28. 1{PS Fo.m 10.t00.. oMA þ.'czr - ;'; ¡ oæ) E¡g 'rc. -3r - 8¿ United States Department of the lnterior National Park Service For NPS ulc oîty National Register of Historic Places ¡èceived lnventory-Nomination Form date enlered

Continuation sheet Item number I Fà,ge 12

I nThe Phir ip i(. Lundeberg, Monitor: FragiLe survivor, n in Thc Monitor, Its Meaning and Fut,ure.... p. 65.

9 Edward !t. MilIer, u.s.s. Monitor: The shig That Launched a Modern Navv (Annapolis, Maryrand: Leeward publications, rnc., rgTg¡ p. 14.

10 Gordon P. Watts, JE.¡ nMonitor of a New I ron Age: The Construction of the U,S,S. Monitor.r M.A. Thesis, East Carolina University, L975t p. l. II Lundeberg, nThe ùlonitor: Fragile Survivorrr pp. 66-67. L2 tMonit.or Watts, of a New f ron Age.... n p. 1 I3 Lundeberg, nThe Monitor: Fragile Survivorrr p, 66. 14 Lundeberg, p. 66. I5 J Scott RusselI, The MpdS:¡ €ys!e& af N_avaf Àrchitecture (London: David and Sonr lS65) v. Lt F,. 566. 16 Gordon P. watts, Jr,t rThe Location and rdentification of the f ronclad U.-s.S. Monitor, n f nternational Journal sle NauticaL Archeology, 4 (1975) p. 304. I7 Watts, p. 307,

18 F.ichard H. ÍVebber, M_A¡jl_a¡S of lhe u. s. Navy- I8.6f-f937 (h/ashington, D,C.:llaval History Divis ion, Navy Department, 1969) p. 3. NPS Fom 1GCOo'. OMB |{a lO24-,:O1B ßæ) Exp. to-li-84 United States Department of the lnterior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places lnventory-Nomination Form

Continr¡ation sheet Item number B fàge 13

19 See George L. FowIer¡ nEricssonrs First Monitor and the Later Turret Shipsrtr Engineering Magaziner October L897, pp. IIO-128, ?nd stanley sandrer, The Emergence eE the Modern iápitar ship (Newark: University of Delaware Press, I98I) 20 Gerald s. Henig, nAdmirar samuel F. Dupont, The Navy Department, and the Attack on charreston, Aprir 1863," Navar gfar correge Revie]{, 32, (February, L979) p. 72.

2L Earl J. Hessr nNorthern Response to the fronclad: A Prospect for the Study of l4ilitary Technology, n Civil ttiar History, 31 (June, 1985) p. 127, L29.

22 Frederick KeeIer to wife, March 1I, L862, in Aboard the USS M-anil_a&_ fg_02i Thc _te!!e¡s oÉ Acling peyneslc¡. w iLfiam Freder ick Keeler' u.s. Navy' to his [.tif e Anna, ed. Robert w. Daly (Annapo1is, Maryland: United States Naval fnstitute, 1964) pp.4I-42.

23 KeeIer, March I1, 1862.

24 Whitelaw Reid, Dispatch to the Cincinnati oaily Gazette, January 5, 1863 in A Radical Vietg¿ The nAgaten DisBatches ele Í^ihitelajg R.eid, 1861-1865 ed. James G. Smart (tvtemphis, Tennessee: Memphis State University Press, L976) pp. 240-24L.

¿5 San Francisco Daily Alta California, November 4t 1863. 26 Herman Me1viI1e, nA Utilitarian View of the Monitorrs Fightrn in Battle-Pieces and AsBects.cll the War ed. Sidney KapIan (I866, reprint.r AmhersÈ, Massachusetts: University of [{assachusetts Press, L972) pp. 6I-62, NPS Fofm lGC00'. OMB No. 1924 -\:C1B trÆl E¡9. loiît-84 United States Department of the lnterior National Park Seruice National Register of Historic Places lnventory-Nomination Form

Continuation sheet Item number I l%ge l4

27 Gordon P. Watts, Jr. and James A. Pleasants, JE., The Monitor: A Bibliography (Kure Beach, North Carolina: Division of Archives and Hist,ory, L979)

28 trThe Age of f ronrn HarE¡errs New Monthly t'lagazine, 27, (JuIy 1863), pp. 285-286.

29 AdverÈ,isement in Matthias N, Forney, The Railroad Car Builderrs P:LCt-A¡iaI DiStiena¡y (1879, reprinÈ, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., L9741 p. 25.

30 As cited in Nicholas Donnell Ward, nReflections on the Finding of the Monitorrn Loyal Legion Historical JournaI, 30 (Septenber I9741, p. 4.

31 William Conant Church, Life g.lE John Ericsson (New'York: Charles Scribnerrs Sons, 1890r 1911). 2 vols.

32 Theodore Ropp, nThe lvlonitorf s Changing Appeâ1r' in The Monitor, Its Meaning and FuÈure-.. p. 7 4.

33 William H. CracknelI, nUnited SÈates Navy Monitors of t,he Civil Warrn Profile, September I973r pp. 273-296t pêS-5. and Webbert Monitors 9! the U.S. Navy, 1861-1937. ' 34 Gordon P. !,latts, Jr,t 'rThe Location and Identification of the Ironclad U.S.S. Monitorrn p. 315.

35 U.S.S. Tecumseh, Capsule -gE History (hrashington, D.C.: Smithsonian InsÈitution, 1970). OMB l+o. 1024-OO1g Form 1OæG. pütNPS Exp. lO-3r-84 United States Department of the lnterior National Park Service For NPS uo ot*y National Register of Historic Places recotvd lnventory-Nomination Form &tc átersd

Continuation sheet Item number I fìage j

36 Interview, Ernest Peterkin¡ Camp Springs¡ Marylandr September 26, 1985 and Interview, Gordon P. l{at,tsr JÊ.¡ Greenville, North Carolina, September 30' 1985. 37 fnterviews, Richard A. GouJ-d, Annapolis, Maryland, Septembet 25 and 26, 1985. fl naa¡ oR BrBLr ocRApHr car REFERENCE s

See Continuation Sheet

@crocRAPHrcAL DATA ACRÊAGE OF NOMINAfEO PROPERTY less tlran l0 UTM REFERENCES alt,gl l¿lo,zlz,oiol l3glz,3l6,o,ol el, I lr ZON E NG NORTHING zoNE Eestr¡¡G- NoRTHt cl I ol VERBAL' BOU 'l

A1l that area encompassed within a cj-rcle radiating out È nile fron a poÍnt in the center of wreck, enconpassing known and suspected wreck scatter.with the National Marine Sanctuary bor:ndary.

LIST ALL STATES ANO COUNTIES FOR PROPERTI OVERLAPPING STATE OR COUNTY BOUNOARIES

SIAIE cooË COUNTY cooE

STATE cooE COUNTY cooE

It!ronru PREPARED BY NAME / TITLE Janes P. Delgado, Historian ORGANIZAfION National Park Service OA IE February 4, 1986

STFEET& NUMEEF IÉLEP HO N Building 201, Fort Mason E (415) 556-950) OrY OR ÍOWN t'o'balifornia San Francisco 941 23 ø CERTIFI CATION OF NOMINATION STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION YES- NO- NONE-

STAIE HISIORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER SIGNAIUR€ ln complrance wrth Executrve Order I 1 Sg3. I hereby nomtnate this propeny to the Nattonal Regrslef. certtfyrng thal th€ stale H¡storlc Preservatron Officer has been allowed 90 days in whrch to present the nominatron to the State Review Board and to evaluate its srgnificance Theãvaluated level of significance ¡s FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE -Natronal -Srale -Local TITLE OATE

R NPS USE ONIY I HEREBY CERTIFY THAÍ THIS PROPERTY IS INCLUDED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER

DATE

A H AN D HISTORIC PRESERVATI N ATTEST: DATE KEEPER OF THE NATIONAL ISTER

GPO 899.¿t4 io¡er \¡o 'jì 3004 iev !O-i'lr ()t' L \llLl) SI \ lt.: t)t:l) \RI'\lt \ I I tll' l\ it.RlOR FOR NPS US€ ONLY Ñ¡I\TiONAL PAAK SERVICE RE CEIVÊ A NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INYENTORY .. NOMINATION FORM AT E NTE RED

CONTI NUATION SHEET ITEM N(JM8ER 9 PACC 1 Church, tIilliam Conant.. Life -Af. ¡ohn Ericsson. New York: Charles Scribnerts Sons, I890. 2 vols. Cracknell, lfilliam H., nUnited States Navy Monitors of the Civil Warrn ProfiIe, I973. Forney, Matthias lt. r The Railroad Car Builder's pictorial Dictionary, Reprint, New York: Dover publications, Inc,, L974, Fowlerr George L., nEricssonrs First I'lonitor and the Later Turret Shipsrn Engineering lvlagazine, October. (I897). Henig, Gerald S., trAdmiraI Sarnuel F. DuPont, The Navy Department, and the Attack on Charleston, ApriL lS63rr Naval l{ar College R.evie3g, v. 32. (1979), Hess, EarI J., rrì.Iorthern Response to the fronclad: A prospect for the Study of i,!ilitary Technologyrn Civil War History, v. 31. (I985).

Keeler, Frederick, A.board the USS I'lonitor, L8622 The Letters s.:l Act.ing Paymaster I.IiIl iam Frederick KeeIer, U.S. Navy. !.A his Wife Anna. ed. R.obert !,J. Daly. United States Naval fnstitute, Annapolis, 1963.

Lockridge, Kenneth 4., A -l!-eg England Town: The First Hundred Years. New Yorks irl.W. Norton & Company, I970. itlelville, Iierman, nA Utilit.arian View of the tíonitorts Fight, n in BattIe-Pieces and As.oectS ol[ the I.r'ar. ed. Sidney Kaplan. Reprint, Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press I L972. It!il1er, Edward lul. , U.S.S. !!onitor: The Ship That Launched g I'lodern Navy. Annapof is: Leeward Publications, fnc. I I978. Peterkin, Ernest. nBuilding a Behemothrr Civil War Times fLlustrated v. XX. (1981). Peterson, Curtiss E. nConservation of the hnchor and Chain Recovered f rom the f,,:reck of the USS Monitorrn II (2) (r983). e-hC€S€þ_g.A Form No lO.300a tRev 1O-74) l- NtTtD ST.\ IL.S DEP.\Rl'\ltNT Ot- l'Ht lN It:RIOR FOR NPS USE ONLY NA TIONAL PARK SERVICE RECEIVED NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PI-ACES IN\ÆNTORY .. NOMINATION FORM ENTERED

CONTINUATION SHEET ITEM NUMEER 9 PAGÊ 2 "uonservaE,ton r€E,€f,sonr uurE,rss E. or E,ne P'lonrt.or Anchor 3 Progress ReporCrr Cheesebox III (I). (I984). Read, Whit,elaw. A Radical View: The n Ärr ten DisBatches s€ WhiEeIaw Reid, 1861-1865. êd. James G. Smart. I'femphis, Tennessee: Mernphis .state University press, I976,

Russelr, J. scott. The Modern system g..:E Navar Architecture. London: David and Son, 1865. sandrer, stanrey. The Emergence g¡[ the Modern capitar shi-o. Newark: UniversiEy of Delaware press, 1941. nThe Age of f ron, r Hargerrs New lvlonthly Maqaz ine, v. 27, (1863), pp, 285-286, The Monitor. Its l'leaning e¡¡i Future: papers f rom a Neli_glle! Conference. Raleigh, North Carolina. April 2-4. L979. I,lashington, D.C.: The Preservation press , I978, U.S.S. Tecumseh, Capsule Al. History. trniashington¡ D.C.: Smibhsonian Institution, 1970. hiard, \licholas Donnel-I. nRef lections on the Finding of the Monitorrn Loyal Legion Ë.i5l.gfjçaÀ Journalt v. 30. (I974), trfatts, Gordon P., Jr. nNational Register oi tij-storic places fnventory/liomination Form, U,.q.S. Ivíonitorrn unpubl_ished manuscript. National Register, i.la.tional Fark Service, Washington, D.C.r L974.

!,Iattsr Gordon P., Jr. nllonitor of a ]ïew fron Age: The consEruction of the u.s.s, Irtonitor, n û1.4. Thesis, East carorina University, GreenviJ.le, 1975.

l,Iatts, Gordon P. Jr. nThe Location and rdentif icat ion of bhe Ironclad U.S.-q. !"!onitorrn fnternational Journal p¡[ [Iautical Archeology, v. 4, (1975).

Watts, Gordon P. Jr. and James A. Pleasants, Jr. lhe l4onitor: A Bibliography. Kure Beach, North Carolina: Division of Archives and History¡ I979, Form No l0-300a tRev lO-/4) UNITtD STÀ'l-hS Dh'P,\Rl ,\ILNT Ol- THh lN'lt:RIOR FOR NPS USE ONIY NA TIONAL PARK SERVICE RECEIVED NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PI^ACES INIÆNTORY -. NOMINATION FORM OATE ENTE D

CONTINUATION SHEÉT ITEM NUMBER 9 PNCC ?, l,Iattsr Gordon P, t Jr. f nvestigaEing the Remains sf the U.S.S. Monitor: A Final Report oA 1979 Site Testing j¡ t,he Monitor National Marine Sanctuary. Fort Beach, Florida: Harbor Branch Foundationr fnc., 1981. Watts, Gordon P.¡ Jr. nMonitor t83rn Cheesebox II (2)t I983. Webber, Richard H. Irlonitors of the U.S. Navy' 1861-I937. Naval History Division, Navy Departraent, Washington, D.C., I969. U1 o ¡lie.-; r: ;8 ì:i;1:a¡ q : a o . zlú;!-'i -. I 'a lr I å tl ÁI ì Ë ã x; r! I ('';r:",,r8 :i'.)-ùùiø f ,jii I 5 -{ñ' !;: tË: i ? -. r :;so oii N il ,} -;' -¡z a t : "'? -- -t r r_ ( I r? a rt + ì : '¡o D;; ït It I '1;i "is5 T E I ";'i4lã lt -2? ¡E:i:i i ¡l ¡l T I ,t ?v!1ãT $ ! tz tr rl ùf; :;ã: Í ,ì sÌ3;i. I t r!.: @ù ú It I tt ¡ t-) I .Y -!'i$*if-k rl l' a _- ,S -- I .:11 , I o .. å t l-' I lt I I t; EÈ b.8¿' tp + T oÐ 6 k ND ¡ I .FF ôo!h ro6lF:. {.$ oFf I I T T \o ñ5 Iu r F .I u5 ol-.: Ho! I @f¡ |ldi f t f ô {o t @o TT t o î 5 Ò lr. c I c., I o 36H It lt I o ¿Þ : E !r .ü I t ¡ c It Ò I I i t t å / 'I È I ?e IT a E tt. ll E I ! t" ¡ il I I t Ì! lå ó 1' T . t ¡ î I I ¡ I = t åägil .r1Í .!: ¡ E I C ll l'r I Il I ! i¡ * Ot - --l t t r --l ---l tt -+è !\ <_-- -l s --' lll I o o (¡) It I o N o o lt rru \ u il I I go rll o I ril { t jot u t F '!! tr I \ $ 1 I "L\-r_--_\ ll r ) f { ll t? r¡ I NORTH CAROLINA Rodonthe \ Woves I Solvo

,

ô Hatteras lsland

Pamlico Sound \ I Avon ,_ I e I Euxton Cape ¡-latteras Lighthouse I Hqtleros I Cape Hatteras\ Ocracoke a v I r, Hatteras lnlet Diamond /,_Ã, lslano Shoa/s / i Diamond Shoals / /r -t-¡gnt Station //--¿¿ t7o / nalhom"-^/ / -

* uounon

N Atlant¡c Ocean

't5 NAUTICAL MILES 0 't5 STATUTE MILES

Ttre following tr¡¡o pages are sice maps of the USS I'4cnitor wreck, based on infomation gattrered during orplorations of uhe qrreck site conducted by the National Oceanic ard Atmospheric Administration over the years 1977-1979.

Ttrese naps appear here courtesy of the NOAA Sanctr:ary Frogræs staff.

\\-

)

')r/ ð

I

t

(/ç I /4 t''" -o' /-.' , t,/"

t o \'

I

a

c

e

,1

.r a

t c

'tj' )

t. .ìl ( t) ^\

at:

1) l,: ¿ I t @ (

J)

e