INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter free, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Infonnation Conqxuy 300 North Zed) Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 "IRRESISTIBLE MACHINES": INDUSTRIAL MOBILIZATION FOR THE UNION NAVY 1861-1865 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By William Howard Roberts, M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 1999 Dissertation Committee: Approved by; John P. Guilmartin, Jr., Adviser Mansel G. Blackford __ _________ Adviser C. Mark Grimsley Oepart^ent of ^istory UMI Number: 9919905 Copyright 1999 by Roberts, Williaun Howard All rights reserved. UMI Microform 9919905 Copyright 1999, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48103 Copyright ® by William Howard Roberts 1999 ABSTRACT The American Civil War was shaped as much by the eco­ nomic and industrial resources of the combatants as by their political and strategic thinking. The Union's use of iron­ clads in quantity was possible only because the navy mobi­ lized Northern industry to build them. This industrial mobilization, and the navy's evolution of a flexible, effec­ tive system to manage a ship acquisition program of unprece­ dented size, is the theme of this work. To produce its offensive fleet of ironclads, the Union had to change its peacetime method of managing ship acquisi­ tion, but the experimental nature of ironclad technology complicated matters. The navy selected the monitor type of ironclad for (quantity production based more upon political and public relations imperatives than upon suitability for the operational tasks at hand. To build its fleet of monitors, the navy established a "project office" form of management practically independent of the existing navy administrative system. The office of the General Superintendent of Ironclads, under its de facto head Alban C. Stimers, provided desperately needed drive and ii direction during the critical months of 1862 and 1863. The project office spearheaded the navy's deliberate attempt to broaden the naval industrial base by granting contracts for monitors to inland firms. Under intense pressure, it learned to support a fleet of high-technology vessels while incorporating the lessons of combat in existing ships and in vessels under construction. Meanwhile, the navy granted contracts for seagoing vessels to inland firms in a deliberate attempt to broaden its shipbuilding industrial base. The efforts of shipbuild­ ers in Cincinnati, Ohio, form the basis for an assessment of the expansion program. Neither the broadened industrial base nor the advanced acquisition management system survived the return of peace. The expansion shipyards failed to meet expectations during the war due to capital starvation and a navy philosophy that allowed design changes to flourish unchecked; when navy contracts evaporated after the war, so did the expansion yards. In shipbuilding management, Stimers' professional self-destruction discredited the embryonic project office system and drove the navy backwards in its management of ship acquisition. Dedicated to Peg, who persevered, to Judy, who wondered, to Dad and Ing, who supported, and to Mom, who didn't get to see. IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Colonel Dan and Coomie Lee Stedham provided unfailing welcome and encouragement. Their gracious hospitality and Jenn Knotts' arduous service as "the au pair from Indiana" made it possible to conduct extensive archival research. R. Kristin Weaver, Esq., provided cogent and pungent naval and literary criticism and assisted in clarifying legal points involved in post-Civil War claims litigation. Dr. Joe Guilmartin and Dr. Mark Grimsley patiently broadened my historical horizons. My graduate student colleagues in Dr. Guilmartin's history of technology semi­ nar, notably Katie Allison, Kelly Jordan, Eric Eklund and Elliot Meadows, refined this work by deflating several trial balloons with their less patient but no less penetrating questions. Dr. Mansel Blackford provided insightful com­ ments and research guidance that helped to place the experi­ ences of shipbuilders in the context of American business history. Steven L. Wright of the Cincinnati Historical Society and M'Lissa Kesterman of the Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County helped tremendously with the "Cincinnati V connection." Rebecca Livingston of the National Archives Military Records Branch, Leo J. Daugherty of the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center, and Mark Hayes of the U.S. Naval Historical Center provided essential leads and records. Brent Sverdloff of Harvard Business School's Baker Library helped me decipher the arcana of the R. G. Dun records. VI VITA August 21, 1950 .......... B o m - Cleveland, Ohio 1973 ....................... B. S., Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1992 .......................M. A. , Old Dominion University 1973-1994 ................ United States Navy 1994-1998 ................ Graduate Teaching Associate The Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS 1. William H. Roberts. "That Imperfect Arm: Quantifying the Carronade." Warship International, no. 3, 1996. 2. William H. Roberts. "Thunder Mountain: The Ironclad Ram Dunderberg." Warship International, no. 4, 1993. 3. William H. Roberts. "The Neglected Ironclad: U.S.S. New Ironsides." Warship International, no. 2, 1989. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: History (Military History) vxi TABLE OF CONTENTS A b s t r a c t ..................................................ii D e d i c a t i o n ............................................... iv Acknowledgements ........................................ v V i t a .................................................... vii List of T a b l e s ............................................. x List of Figures ..........................................xi Chapters 1. Introduction ...................................... 1 2. The Purposes Then Wanted: Gideon Welles Builds a Navy .................................. 7 3. I Have Shouldered This Fleet: Gustavus Fox and "Monitor mania" .......................... 28 4. The General Inspector and the Passaic Project . 57 5. The Public Expect Other Work to Be Scattered: The Navy looks West ...........................97 6. The Builders Will All Be Backward: Mobilization on the Ohio River .............................. 146 7. These Monitors Are Miserable Failures: Combat Lessons and Political Engineering ........ 178 8. It Would Cost a Million of Dollars: The Price of "Continuous Improvement" 217 9. The Progress of this Vessel Is Considerably Retarded: Western Monitors 1863-64 242 vixi 10. The Sudden Destruction of Bright Hopes: Downfall of the General Inspector ...................2 90 11. Good for Fifty Years: Winding Down the Mobilization ............................. 334 12. Conclusion: Additions, Alterations and Improvements 376 Appendices Appendix A. Tabular Data for Harbor and River Monitors ............................... 391 Appendix B. Historiographical and Bibliographical E s s a y ....................................... 3 92 Bibliography ......................................... 402 IX LIST OF TABLES Table Page 4.1. Price/delivery options for Passaic class monitors . 81 5.1 Abstract of Offers made under Advertisement of Navy Department of August 16, 1862, for Iron Vessels for River and Harbor Defense . 106 9.1. Composite Consumer Price Index 1860-1866 .... 255 9.2. Extracts from N. G. Thom's Record of Prices Paid by Miles Greenwood ........................... 258 9.3. Wages from N. G. Thom's Record of Prices Paid by Miles Greenwood ........................... 262 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 4.1. Monitor turret showing XV inch guns .............. 93 5.1. Tippecanoe class monitor Manavunk ............. 125 5.2. Map of Cincinnati, Ohio a r e a .............. 129 5.3. View of Cincinnati waterfront, ca. 1866 .... 131 5.4. Typical drawing for the harbor and river monitor program ........................... 138 6.1. Side view of Tippecanoe class monitor.... .......... 158 6.2. Cross-section of hull of Tippecanoe class monitor 173 7.1. DuPont's attack on Charleston ................