DOCSLIB.ORG

Naval Action at the Battle of Roanoke Island 7 February 1862

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Naval Action at the Battle of Roanoke Island 7 February 1862 Abstract A DETERMINATION WORTHY OF A BETTER CAUSE: NAVAL ACTION AT THE BATTLE OF ROANOKE ISLAND 7 FEBRUARY 1862 By Lucas Samuel Simonds Director: Dr. Nathan Richards DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY The Battle of Roanoke Island, during the American Civil War, was one of the first major amphibious landing operations in U.S. military history. As the Union Army landed troops on the island, an accompanying Union Naval squadron engaged a squadron of Confederate gunboats and some small forts on the island. This was the first in a series of battles known as the Burnside Expedition, which established a Union presence in eastern North Carolina that would last until the end of the Civil War. While the battle is historically important in its own right, here it serves as a case study for the application of a revised theory of battlefield archaeology that has been developed expressly for the purpose of studying human behavior during conflict. Drawing from a number of established theories of battlefield archaeology, this study incorporates a theory of military forces as complex systems, which redirects the focus of those established theories more closely on the study of human behavior. Using historical, geospatial, and archaeological data, this study explores the motivations behind the decisions made by the Union and Confederate naval commanders during the battle. Additionally, a limited side-scan sonar survey was conducted in order to assess the current state of submerged cultural resources related to the battle. A DETERMINATION WORTHY OF A BETTER CAUSE: NAVAL ACTION AT THE BATTLE OF ROANOKE ISLAND 7 FEBRUARY 1862 A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of The Department of History East Carolina University In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Maritime Studies By Lucas Samuel Simonds ©Copyright 2012 Lucas Samuel Simonds A DETERMINATION WORTHY OF A BETTER CAUSE: NAVAL ACTION AT THE BATTLE OF ROANOKE ISLAND 7 FEBRUARY 1862 By Lucas Samuel Simonds APPROVED BY: DIRECTOR OF THESIS: Nathan Richards, Ph.D. COMMITTEE MEMBER: Michael A. Palmer, Ph.D. COMMITTEE MEMBER: Wade Dudley, Ph.D. COMMITTEE MEMBER: Tom Allen, Ph.D. CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY: Gerald J. Prokopowicz, Ph.D. DEAN OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL: Paul J. Gemperline, Ph.D. Acknowledgements Thanks first and foremost to Dr. Nathan Richards for guiding me through the process of creating this thesis, coordinating the remote sensing surveys, introducing me to the wonderful taste of vegemite, and countless other things along the way. Thanks as well to the professors of my committee for their insights on this topic. Thanks to the UNC Coastal Studies Institute for the use of their equipment during the surveys. For proofreading the entirety of this thesis in one day, thanks to Chelsea Freeland. For their help during the remote sensing surveys thanks to Adam Parker, Will Sassorossi, and all those who helped during the Program in Maritime Studies’ Fall Field School. Thanks also to my parents for pushing me to even attempt this in the first place. Finally, for her support, motivation, proofreading, advice, and for listening to me obsess about the minutiae of Civil War naval armament (among other equally obscure facets of this thesis), thanks to Allison Miller. Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Previous Research ....................................................................................................................... 3 Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 8 Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 8 Thesis Structure .......................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 2: Theory ......................................................................................................................... 11 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 11 KOCOA .................................................................................................................................... 13 The Principles of War and METT-T ......................................................................................... 15 Differences in Approach between Babits and Bright ............................................................... 17 Multiscale Complex Systems Analysis ..................................................................................... 19 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 21 Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................... 22 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 22 Historical Research ................................................................................................................... 23 Archaeological Survey .............................................................................................................. 25 Compilation............................................................................................................................... 27 Historical and Statistical Data ............................................................................................... 27 Creation of GIS ..................................................................................................................... 28 Analysis..................................................................................................................................... 46 Chapter 4: The Battle of Roanoke Island in its Historical Context .............................................. 54 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 54 The Blockade and Early Operations in North Carolina ............................................................ 54 The Formation of the Burnside Expedition .............................................................................. 58 Confederate Defensive Preparations ......................................................................................... 63 The Burnside Expedition Heads South ..................................................................................... 68 Events of the Battle ................................................................................................................... 74 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 82 Chapter 5: Analysis – The Application of a Revised Theory of Battlefield Archaeology to the Battle of Roanoke Island ............................................................................................................... 83 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 83 Structures of Complex Systems: Command and Control ......................................................... 85 Confederate ........................................................................................................................... 86 Union..................................................................................................................................... 88 Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 91 Environmental Influences: METT-T ........................................................................................ 91 Mission .................................................................................................................................. 92 Enemy ................................................................................................................................... 96 Terrain ................................................................................................................................... 99 Troops Available ................................................................................................................. 120 Time Available.................................................................................................................... 135 Internal Influence: Tactics ...................................................................................................... 136 Principles of War ................................................................................................................ 137 Specific Tactical Principles ................................................................................................. 143 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 146 Chapter 6: Revised Account of the Battle – The Synthesis of the Historical Narrative, New Interpretations, and Archaeological Data ................................................................................... 148 Introduction ............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2019 Annual Report $2B
    2019 ANNUAL REPORT HUNTINGTON INGALLS INDUSTRIES INGALLS INDUSTRIES HUNTINGTON 2019 annual RE P ort $2B HII HAS INVESTED NEARLY $2 BILLION IN CAPITAL EXPENDITURES OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS AT ITS INGALLS AND NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING FACILITIES TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCIES AND AFFORDABILITY ACROSS THE ENTERPRISE. Ingalls Shipbuilding, in Pascagoula, Mississippi, is the largest supplier of U.S. Navy surface combatants. HUNTINGTON INGALLS INDUSTRIES Huntington Ingalls Industries is America’s largest military shipbuilding company and a provider of professional services to partners in government and industry. For more than a century, HII’s Newport News and Ingalls shipbuilding divisions in Virginia and Mississippi have built more ships in more ship classes than any other U.S. naval shipbuilder. HII’s Technical Solutions division supports national security missions around the globe with unmanned systems, defense and federal solutions, nuclear and environmental services, and fleet sustainment. Headquartered in Newport News, Virginia, HII employs more than 42,000 people operating both domestically and internationally. Cover Image: Newport News Shipbuilding delivered USS Delaware (SSN 791) to the U.S. Navy in 2019. FINANCIAL OPERATING RESULTS ($ in millions, except per share amounts) 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 Sales and Service Revenues $ 8,899 $ 8,176 $ 7,441 $ 7,068 $ 7,020 Operating Income 736 951 881 876 774 Operating Margin 8.3 % 11.6 % 11.8 % 12.4 % 11.0 % (1) Adjusted Segment Operating Income 660 663 688 715 769 Adjusted Segment Operating Margin (1) 7.4 % 8.1 % 9.2 % 10.1 % 11.0 % Diluted EPS 13.26 19.09 10.46 12.14 8.36 (2) Adjusted Diluted EPS 14.01 19.09 12.14 12.14 10.55 Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities 896 914 814 822 861 (1)Adjusted Segment Operating Income and Adjusted Segment Operating Margin are non-GAAP financial measures that exclude the operating FAS/CAS adjustment, non-current state income taxes, goodwill impairment charges and purchased intangibles impairment charges.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
    Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress Updated October 29, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RS22478 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress Summary Names for Navy ships traditionally have been chosen and announced by the Secretary of the Navy, under the direction of the President and in accordance with rules prescribed by Congress. Rules for giving certain types of names to certain types of Navy ships have evolved over time. There have been exceptions to the Navy’s ship-naming rules, particularly for the purpose of naming a ship for a person when the rule for that type of ship would have called for it to be named for something else. Some observers have perceived a breakdown in, or corruption of, the rules for naming Navy ships. Section 1749 of the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (S. 1790/P.L. 116-92 of December 20, 2019) prohibits the Secretary of Defense, in naming a new ship (or other asset) or renaming an existing ship (or other asset), from giving the asset a name that refers to, or includes a term referring to, the Confederate States of America, including any name referring to a person who served or held leadership within the Confederacy, or a Confederate battlefield victory. The provision also states that “nothing in this section may be construed as requiring a Secretary concerned to initiate a review of previously named assets.” Section 1749 of the House-reported FY2021 NDAA (H.R. 6395) would prohibit the public display of the Confederate battle flag on Department of Defense (DOD) property, including naval vessels.
    [Show full text]
  • Parker-Mastersthesis-2016
    Abstract “DASH AT THE ENEMY!”: THE USE OF MODERN NAVAL THEORY TO EXAMINE THE BATTLEFIELD AT ELIZABETH CITY, NORTH CAROLINA By Adam Kristopher Parker December 2015 Director: Dr. Nathan Richards DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY Immediately following the Union victory at Roanoke Island (7-8 February 1862), Federal naval forces advanced north to the Pasquotank River and the town of Elizabeth City, North Carolina where remnants of the Confederate “Mosquito Fleet” retreated. The resulting battle led to another Union victory and capture of the Dismal Swamp Canal, thereby cutting off a major supply route for the Confederate Navy from the naval yards at Norfolk, Virginia as well as destroying the Confederate fleet guarding northeastern North Carolina. The naval tactics used in the battle at Elizabeth City have been previously examined using the documentary record; however, little archaeological research has been undertaken to ground truth interpretations of the battle. The present study is an archaeological analysis of the battle using the same framework used by the American Battlefield Protection Program, a military terrain analysis called KOCOA. Since the KOCOA framework was developed as a means to analyze terrestrial battlefields based on modern military theory, questions arise as to whether a traditionally land-focused paradigm is the best way to analyze and understand naval engagements. Hence, the present study considers amending the KOCOA foundation by integrating modern naval theories used by the United States Navy into analysis of a naval battlefield.
    [Show full text]
  • THE NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE of ARCHIVES and HISTORY 2012-2014 BIENNIAL REPORT OFFICE of ARCHIVES and HISTORY July 1, 2012–June 30, 2014
    FIFTY-FIFTH BIENNIAL REPORT THE NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY 2012-2014 BIENNIAL REPORT OFFICE OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY July 1, 2012–June 30, 2014 FIFTY-FIFTH BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2014 Raleigh Office of Archives and History North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources 2015 © 2015 by the North Carolina Office of Archives and History All rights reserved NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES SUSAN W. KLUTTZ Secretary OFFICE OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY KEVIN CHERRY Deputy Secretary DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES RAMONA BARTOS Director DIVISION OF ARCHIVES AND RECORDS SARAH KOONTS Director DIVISION OF STATE HISTORIC SITES KEITH P. HARDISON Director DIVISION OF STATE HISTORY MUSEUMS KENNETH B. HOWARD Director NORTH CAROLINA HISTORICAL COMMISSION MILLIE M. BARBEE (2015) Chair Mary Lynn Bryan (2017) Valerie A. Johnson (2015) David C. Dennard (2015) Margaret Kluttz (2019) Samuel B. Dixon (2019) B. Perry Morrison Jr. (2017) Chris E. Fonvielle Jr. (2019) Richard Starnes (2017) William W. Ivey (2019) Harry L. Watson (2017) EMERITI: Kemp P. Burpeau, N. J. Crawford, H. G. Jones, William S. Powell, Alan D. Watson, Max R. Williams CONTENTS DeputySecretary’sReport............................1 Roanoke Island Festival Park .......................13 TryonPalace................................ 16 NorthCarolinaTransportationMuseum.................28 DivisionofHistoricalResources........................34 Education and Outreach Branch......................34
    [Show full text]
  • Us Navy Dreadnoughts 1914–45
    US NAVY DREADNOUGHTS 1914–45 RYAN K. NOPPEN ILLUSTRATED BY PAUL WRIGHT © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com NEW VANGUARD 208 US NAVY DREADNOUGHTS 1914–45 RYAN K. NOPPEN © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 THE SOUTH CAROLINA CLASS 7 t South Carolina Class Specifications THE DELAWARE AND FLORIDA CLASSES 10 t Delaware Class Specifications t Florida Class Specifications WYOMING CLASS 15 t Wyoming Class Specifications NEW YORK CLASS 18 t New York Class Specifications US DREADNOUGHT BATTLESHIP OPERATIONS 1914–18 20 t The Veracruz Occupation t World War I INTERWAR SCRAPPING, DISARMAMENT AND MODERNIZATION 34 US DREADNOUGHT BATTLESHIP OPERATIONS 1939–45 35 t Neutrality Patrols t Actions in the European Theater t Actions in the Pacific Theater CONCLUSION 45 BIBLIOGRAPHY 46 INDEX 48 © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com US NAVY DREADNOUGHTS 1914–45 INTRODUCTION The United States was the second of the great naval powers to embrace the concept of the all-big-gun dreadnought battleship in the early 20th century. The US Navy was seen as an upstart by much of the international community, after it experienced a rapid increase in strength in the wake of the Spanish- American War. American naval expansion paralleled that of another upstart naval power, Germany, whose navy also saw meteoric growth in this period. What is little known is that a tacit naval arms race developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries between these two powers, due primarily to soured foreign relations caused by a rivalry over colonial territory in the Pacific and an economic rivalry in Latin America.
    [Show full text]
  • Stephen C. Rowan and the US Navy
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 8-2012 Stephen C. Rowan and the U.S. Navy: Sixty Years of Service Cynthia M. Zemke Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Zemke, Cynthia M., "Stephen C. Rowan and the U.S. Navy: Sixty Years of Service" (2012). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 1263. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/1263 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STEPHEN C. ROWAN AND THE U.S. NAVY: SIXTY YEARS OF SERVICE by Cynthia M. Zemke A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in History Approved: _____________________ _____________________ S. Heath Mitton Timothy Wolters Committee Chair Committee Member _____________________ _____________________ Denise Conover Mark McLellan Committee Member Vice President for Research and Dean of the School of Graduate Studies UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2012 ii Copyright Cynthia M. Zemke 2012 All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Stephen C. Rowan and the U.S. Navy: Sixty Years of Service by Cynthia M. Zemke, Master of Science Utah State University, 2012 Major Professor: Dr. Denise Conover Department: History This thesis is a career biography, and chronicles the life and service of Stephen Clegg Rowan, an officer in the United States Navy, and his role in the larger picture of American naval history.
    [Show full text]
  • Pa3529data.Pdf
    {:, \ F f) Httt2~ PHILJt HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD ,,,.,_ 7 U.S.S. OLYMPIA HAER No. PA-428 Location: At the Independence Seaport Museum, Penn's Landing, 211 South Columbus Boulevard & Walnut Street on the Delaware River, in the City of Philadelphia, County of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Zone Easting Northing UTM Coordinates: 18 487292 4421286 Quad: Philadelphia, PA. - N.J. 1:24000 Dates of Construction: Authorized September 7, 1888, Keel laid June 17, 1891, Launched November 5, 1892, Commissioned February 5, 1895 Builder: Union Iron Works, San Francisco, California Official Number: C-6 (original designation) Cost: $1,796,000 Specifications: Protected cruiser, displacement 5870 tons, length 344 feet, beam 53 feet, draft 21.5 feet, maximum speed 21.686 knots, 6 boilers producing 17,313 horsepower. twin screws-triple expansion engines. Original Armament: 4 - 8 11 rifles 14 - 6 pounders 10 - 5" rifles 6 - 1 pounders 6 - torpedo tubes Complement: 34 officers; 440 enlisted men Present Owner: Independence Seaport Museum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Present Use: Decommissioned. National memorial and maritime museum. Significance: U.S.S. Olympia is a partially armored or protected cruiser which was constructed as part of a congressional program to build a new steel United States navy prior to the tum of the century. Her innovative design incorporated modern armament, high speed engines and armor shielding the magazines and propulsion machinery. She is the oldest extant steel­ hulled warship in the world. The U.S.S. Olympia was the flagship of Admiral George Dewey's victorious task force at the battle of Manila Bay on May 1, 1898. During the first two decades of the 19th century she protected American lives and interests in Panama, Dominican Republic, Murmansk (Russia), Croatia and Serbia.
    [Show full text]
  • Biennial Report of the North Carolina Office of Archives and History
    FIFTY-THIRD BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2010 Raleigh Office of Archives and History North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources 2011 ©2011 by the North Carolina Office of Archives and History All rights reserved NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES LINDA A.CARLISLE Secretary OFFICE OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY JEFFREY J. CROW Deputy Secretary DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES DAVID L. S. BROOK Director DIVISION OF STATE HISTORIC SITES KEITH P. HARDISON Director DIVISION OF STATE HISTORY MUSEUMS KENNETH B. HOWARD Director NORTH CAROLINA HISTORICAL COMMISSION JERRY C. CASHION (2013) Chairman VACANT Vice-Chairman Millie M. Barbee (2009) B. Perry Morrison Jr. (2011) Mary Lynn Bryan (2011) Freddie L. Parker (2013) David C. Dennard (2015) Barbara Blythe Snowden (2013) Paul D. Escott (2013) Richard Starnes (2011) Valerie A. Johnson (2015) Harry L. Watson (2011) EMERITI: Kemp P. Burpeau, N. J. Crawford, H. G. Jones, William S. Powell, Alan D. Watson, Max R. Williams CONTENTS Deputy Secretary’s Report Education Branch Roanoke Island Festival Park Tryon Palace USS North Carolina Battleship Memorial Division of Historical Resources Collections Management Branch Research Branch Western Office Archives and Records Section Historical Publications Section Office of State Archaeology Historic Preservation Office Division of State Historic Sites and Properties East Region Piedmont Region West Region North Carolina Transportation Museum State Capitol Division of State History
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Analysis of Confederate Ironclad Steam Engines, Boilers, and Propulsion Systems by Saxon T
    Abstract “How A Vessel of This Magnitude Was Moved”: A Comparative Analysis of Confederate Ironclad Steam Engines, Boilers, and Propulsion Systems by Saxon T. Bisbee November 2012 Director: Dr. Bradley A. Rodgers Department of History The development of steam propulsion machinery in warships during the 19th century in conjunction with iron armor and shell guns resulted in a technological revolution in the world’s navies. Warships utilizing all of these technologies had been built in France and Great Britain dating back to the 1850s, but it was during the American Civil War that ironclads powered solely by steam proved themselves in large numbers. The armored warships built by the Confederate States of America especially represented a style adapted to scarce industrial resources and facilities. The development and / or procurement of propulsion machinery for these warships have received only peripheral study. Through historical and archaeological investigation, this thesis consolidates and expands on the scattered existing information on Confederate ironclad steam engines, boilers, and propulsion systems. Using a comparative analytical approach, the steam plants of 27 ironclads are assessed by source, type, and performance, among other factors. This has resulted in an analysis of steam machinery development during the Civil War and also adds to the relatively small knowledge base relating to Confederate ironclads. “How A Vessel of This Magnitude Was Moved”: A Comparative Analysis of Confederate Ironclad Steam Engines, Boilers, and Propulsion Systems A Master of Arts Thesis Presented To The Faculty of the Department of History East Carolina University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts by Saxon T.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil War Shipwrecks
    encyclopedia of CIVIL WAR SHIPWRECKS W. Craig Gaines encyclopedia of CIVIL WAR SHIPWRECKS encyclopedia of CIVIL WAR SHIPWRECKS W. Craig Gaines Louisiana State University Press Baton Rouge Published by Louisiana State University Press Copyright © 2008 by Louisiana State University Press All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America First printing Designer: Barbara Neely Bourgoyne Typeface: Goudy, display; Minion Pro, text Printer and binder: Maple-Vail Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Gaines, W. Craig, 1953– Encyclopedia of Civil War shipwrecks / W. Craig Gaines. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8071-3274-6 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. United States—History—Civil War, 1861–1865—Naval operations—Encyclopedias. 2. United States—History—Civil War, 1861–1865—Antiquities—Encyclopedias. 3. Shipwrecks—United States—History— 19th century—Encyclopedias. I. Title. E591.G35 2008 973.7'5—dc22 2007019754 The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources. ∞ This book is dedicated to my wonderful wife, Arla, who accompanied me to numerous libraries, Civil War battle sites, and museums during the writing of this work. I also dedicate this book to the memory of the soldiers, sailors, and civilians whose legacies live on within these pages. Contents Preface ix Maine 77 Abbreviations xiii Maryland 78 Massachusetts 79 Alabama 1 Mexico 80 Arkansas 8 Michigan 81 Atlantic Ocean
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
    Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress Updated September 14, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RS22478 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress Summary Names for Navy ships traditionally have been chosen and announced by the Secretary of the Navy, under the direction of the President and in accordance with rules prescribed by Congress. Rules for giving certain types of names to certain types of Navy ships have evolved over time. There have been exceptions to the Navy’s ship-naming rules, particularly for the purpose of naming a ship for a person when the rule for that type of ship would have called for it to be named for something else. Some observers have perceived a breakdown in, or corruption of, the rules for naming Navy ships. Section 370 of the FY2021 NDAA (H.R. 6395/P.L. 116-283 of January 1, 2021) establishes a commission regarding the removal and renaming of certain assets of the Department of Defense (including ships) that commemorate the Confederate States of America or any person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America. For ship types now being procured for the Navy, or recently procured for the Navy, naming rules can be summarized as follows: The first and second SSBN-826 class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) have been named Columbia (in honor of the District of Columbia) and Wisconsin. The Navy has not stated the naming rule for this class of ships. Until recently, Virginia (SSN-774) class attack submarines have generally been named for states, but the four most recently named Virginia-class boats have instead been named in honor of earlier U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Confederate States Navy Confederate Missouri
    The Virginia Navy The Virginia State Navy existed briefly from the time the state seceded until it joined the Confederacy and turned over its military on June 8, 1861. 9 July 1861 Office of Ordnance and Hydrography, Virginia Navy, semi-official imprint cover from Matthew F. Maury at Richmond to Genl. Harding, Nashville Matthew Fontaine Maury With the outbreak of the Civil War, Maury, born in Virginia, resigned his commission as a U.S. Navy Commander to serve on the Confederate side as Chief of Sea Coast, River and Harbor Defenses. Office of Ordnance and Hydrography, Virginia Navy, semi-official imprint cover Virginia crossed thru changed to "C" (onfederate), used to Leesburg, Va. The Virginia Navy Resignation from U.S. Navy Virginia State Navy The Virginia State Navy existed briefly from the time the state seceded until it joined the Confederacy and turned over its military on June 8, 1861. 16 May 1861 Washington, D.C. Navy Dept. imprint cover to Harrison Cocke, Late Captain U.S. Navy at Petersburg, Va. Free frank use by Chief Clerk docketed as having contained Cocke's "Resignation in the US Navy, Apr 22nd 1861" Harrison H. Cocke Cocke, who was born in 1794, resigned his Captaincy in U.S. Navy on April 22, 1861 to serve in the Virginia Navy. He then commanded the James River defenses at Petersburg in 1861. There is no record that he ever served in the Confederate Navy. The Virginia Navy The Virginia State Navy existed briefly from the time the state seceded until it joined the Confederacy and turned over its military on June 8, 1861.
    [Show full text]