Bibliography
Primary Sources:
“A Perfect Success.” Macon Daily Telegraph 09 Mar 1892, Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This source was especially useful because it revealed that many people in the south viewed the battle of Hampton Roads as a complete victory.
“Battle of the Batteries” Western Reserve Chronicle [Warren] 19 Mar 1862. Web. 14 May 2013.
This source was important because it showed how quickly news of the battle traveled across the Union. The source was retrieved from Chronicling America.
Brent, Martha Buxton Porter. Memoirs. Wakefield, VA. 1934. Print.
This source shows the life of John Porter, one of the Constructors of the Virginia. This source is useful although it was published years later, it gave a first person look into the construction of the Virginia, which was largely undocumented.
Chase, Salmon P. Letter to General Burnside, May 11, 1862. Web. 10 May 2013.
This is letter to General Burnside about the outcome of the Battle of Hampton roads. We used this source to give a view of how the Hampton roads engagement affected the land battles. This book was also an informative and eye-opening look at the Battle through another man eyes.
“Commander Dahlgren and His Guns.” Harpers Weekly 20 Apr 1861. Web. 21 April 2013
This source is useful because it gave context to the revolutionary Dahlgren Gun and its affect on the Civil War. The Dahlgren guns are another example of technology that was impacted by the industrial revolution,
“Conflict between the Iron Steamers.” Daily National Intelligencer [Washington D.C.] 10 Mar 1862, Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This source shows how the Battle had already become common knowledge only three days after the war. While the source is very biased it shows the excitement the Union felt toward ironclads after the perceived victory of the Monitor.
“The Dead Wood of the Navy and the Navy Department.” Philadelphia Inquirer 11 Mar 1862, Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This source is important because it showed some reasons that contemporaries of the battle blamed for the US Navy’s poor preparedness. It was helpful specifically because it was hard to find sources during the beginning of the Civil War that openly criticized the government because many in the north felt that the Union was waging a "holy war".
Delafield, Richard. Report on the Art of War in Europe. United States: Military Commission to Europe, 1856. Print.
This source was vital to our research because it showed how technology in Europe influenced advancements in America. This source was a report to the military on the developments of the Crimean War. It was through this document that the US Government first learned of the construction of the iron batteries used by France.
Eggleston, John. Captain Eggleston's Narrative on the Battle of the Merrimac. Richmond: Southern Historical Society, 1916. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.
This source is useful because it gives a firsthand account of both days of the battle from the view of a Virginia deckhand. The Virginia was largely undocumented, so any source we found related to it was of great use.
“The Ericsson Battery.” Lowell Daily Citizen and News 04 Mar 1862, Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This article is about the arming and launching of the USS Monitor. It revealed anticipation towards its imminent confrontation with the Virginia and hinted that there were doubts about the effectiveness of the Monitor.
“The Ericsson Battery” Memphis Daily Appeal 15 Feb 1862. Print.
This article is important because it revealed Northern excitement and anticipation regarding the construction of the USS Monitor.
Fox, G. V. "Important from Fort Monroe." Sun [Baltimore] 10 Mar 1862, Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This source shows how government officials responded to the Battle of Hampton Roads. It revealed that many northern military men were unable to accept that the new ironclad Virginia was superior to the Monitor.
Fox, G V., Robert Means Thompson, and Richard Wainwright. Confidential Correspondence of Gustavus Vasa Fox, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, 1861-1865. New York: Printed for the Naval History Society by the De Vinne, 1918. Print.
This book was pivotal to our research because it showed how people within the government responded to the success of the Monitor and how they were skeptical during its construction.
“From Richmond” Memphis Daily Appeal 19 Mar 1862. Web. 14 May 2013.
This source is important because it outlined the battle and revealed that even shortly afterward, the destruction of the Cumberland and the Congress had been overshadowed by the success of the Monitor. This source was from Chronicling America.
Gilman, William Henry. Letters Written Home: While Acting as Secretary to Commodore John C. Long, Commander of the U.S. Steam Frigate Merrimac, on a Voyage to the South American Coast and the Islands of the South Pacific, in the Years 1857-1858. Exeter, NH. 1911. Print.
This source outlines what happened to the Merrimac before the Civil War. We used this source to expand our knowledge of the Merrimac, its experiences, legacy, and esteem. Although it was edited later, it is a primary source because it was written by the Captain himself.
“Glorious News!” Augusta Chronicle 10 Mar 1862, Web. 13 Dec. 2013
This source reveals that people in the south believed that the Virginia won a decisive victory against the Monitor. It was useful because it demonstrated that the North and South held very different views about the Battle of Hampton Roads.
“Good Faith Needed.” Boston Daily Advertiser 03 Mar 1862, Web. 13 Dec. 2012
This source reveals sentiment towards the launching of the Monitor and gives specifics regarding the armaments on her. This source was very helpful because it specifically listed the size of the cannons so that it could be easily compared to other ships of its time.
“Grand Naval Victory.” Macon Daily Telegraph 08 Mar 1892, Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This source reveals the Southern sentiment toward the destruction of the Cumberland and the Congress.
Hawthorne, Nathaniel. Chiefly about War Matters. Boston. 1862. Print.
This source was pivotal to our research because it showed the perceived downsides of the Monitor, largely its cramped size and its uncomfortability.
“Important from Fortress Monroe.” Lowell Daily Citizen and News 10 Mar 1862, Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
Another recollection of the war, this source is significant in portraying the conflict in ending as a draw.
"The Iron-Clad Steamer Merrimac." Daily National Intelligencer [Washington, D.C.] 07 Mar 1862, Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This newspaper article was one of our most important sources because analyzed the battle not in the context of the Civil War, but in the context of industrialization and the future of military technology.
Jones, Catesby. "The Confederate Account of the Naval Fight in Hampton Roads ." Illustrated London News 5 April 1862, p344. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.
This account is useful because it recounts how Commander Buchanan was injured while taking the Congress.
“The Latest War News.” New York Daily Herald 10 Mar 1862, Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This Source gives an account of the Battle, clearly being biased toward the North.
Lee, A. R. “A Distressing Shipwreck.” Daily National Intelligencer [Washington, DC] 5 Jan 1863. Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This source is useful because not only does it recount the sinking of the USS Monitor, but it relates it to the context of the war and poses the question of what the US Navy will do without it.
“The Loss of the Monitor” New York Herald 4 Jan 1863. Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This sentimental piece was extremely useful in generating our thesis because it showed how deeply the Monitor had already affected American culture. The fact that the “monster of the north” could take on the Confederate Ironclad and yet sink in a common East Coast squall stunned many people. This piece is the more emotional counterpart to the article “The Monitor Foundered!” which was printed the same day on the front page.
Melville, Herman. A Utilitarian’s View of the Monitor’s Flight. 1863. Web.
This poem uses interesting phraseology and imagery to emphasize the sense that warfare was no longer fought by men, but by machines and clockwork-like calculations. This Melville work examines the negative effects of technically advancing warfare.
Melville, Herman. In The Turret. 1862. Web.
This poem was incredibly useful because it truly imparted a sense of the high status contemporaries held for the ironclads. To them, the ironclads were both strange and powerful, and carried a sense of mystique.
"The Merrimac." Daily True Delta [New Orleans] 05 Mar 1862, Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This source was useful because it gave specifics regarding the refitting and launch of the Virginia, or “Merrimac”, and also revealed aspects of both southern excitement and slight skepticism about the effectiveness of such an unorthodox machine.
“The Monitor Foundered!” New York Herald 4 Jan 1863. Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This article mourns the loss of the Monitor and discusses actions that were taken in attempts to save it. It was useful as a source for context behind the sinking of the USS Monitor.
“Monitor Sunk” Macon Daily Telegraph 6 Jan 1863. Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This source reveals the relief that was felt across the South on hearing about the sinking of the Monitor.
“Naval Disaster in Hampton Roads.” Daily National Intelligencer [Washington, D.C.] 10 Mar 1862, Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This source was written before news of the Monitor’s appearance reached the North. It clearly showed the remorse that Union civilians felt toward the loss of the Cumberland and the Congress.
“Our Greatest Monster Getting Ready for the Sea.” Wisconsin Daily Patriot 04 Mar 1862, Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This source is important because it gave the most specific account of the Monitor’s armament when compared to other ships. This source also revealed the excitement with regards to the launching of the Monitor.
Perkin, A. L. “Battle Between the Ericsson Battery, the Merrimac and Other Boats” St. Cloud Democrat 13 Mar 1862. Web. 14 May. 2013.
This source was very important because it exemplifies the discrepancies in the names of the ships present in combat. Nearly every ship mentioned in this article, with the exceptions of the Cumberland and the Congress, were misspelled or misnamed. This source was retrieved from Chronicling America.
“Revolutions in Naval Warfare” Harpers Weekly 9 Feb 1861. Web. 21 Apr. 2013.
This source is important as a primary source because it gives many details regarding the construction of the Gloire and the Warrior. It also reveals a sense of amazement at the accomplishment of European powers.
Rogers, William Edgar. The First Battle of the Iron Clads as Seen by an Eye Witness: Printed from a Talk by Colonel William E. Rogers to the Mount Pleasant Citizens' Association, Washington, D.C., October, 1923. [Washington, D.C.]: Association, 1923. Print.
This source gives an account of the battle from a soldier on the land. This gives a different perspective, focusing a lot on the movement of the ships and the location of other nearby ships.
Rowland, Thomas. Ericsson, John. “Contract Regarding the Construction of the USS Monitor”. Naval Historical Center. 25, Oct. 1861. Web. 21 Apr. 2013.
This source was vital to our research as a historical document. It gives insight into the construction of the Monitor and shows that despite the plans that they had to construct it, in the end Ericsson was playing it by ear and hoping that the design would work.
Stimers, Alban. "Letter to John Ericsson."The Rebellion Record. Ed. Putnam 9 Mar 1862. Web. 21 Apr. 2013.
This letter is from the Chief Engineer of the Monitor to Ericsson. This source was one of our most important because it showed how Ericsson was revered by many in the Union as the savior of Hampton Roads. It also shows in good detail the conflict between the Monitor and the Virginia.
“Telegraphic” The Semi-Weekly Shreveport News 18 Mar 1862. Page 37. Web. 14 May. 2013.
This belated report was important because it revealed that the ironclads had remained in a state of stalemate since the battle. This source was retrieved from Chronicling America.
“Terrible Work among the Iron-Clads” Macon Daily Telegraph 10 Jan 1863. Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This newspaper chronicles the life of the Monitor and the Virginia and notes that they have had a major military impact during their brief service.
“The War. From Fortress Monroe.” Vermont Phoenix [Brattleboro] 13 Mar 1862. Web. 14 May. 2013.
This source was important because it not only speaks of the naval battle but shows how forces on land attempted to provide artillery support to the Union Navy at the Battle of Hampton Roads. This source was retrieved from Chronicling America.
“Where Does the Laugh Come In?” Daily Commercial Register [Sandusky] 11 Mar 1862, Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This sobering newspaper article was helpful in our research because it showed that even the appearance of the monitor couldn’t detract from the losses on board the Cumberland and the Virginia.
Williamson, William, John Brooke, and John Porter. The Virginia or Merrimac: Her Real Projector. 25 Jun 1862. Southern Historical Society Papers, XIX. Richmond, 1891. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.
These letters were vital to our research because they were the only [rimary sources that discussed with accuracy the construction of the CSS Virginia.
Worden, J L. Monitor Logbook. National Archives: 9 Mar 1862. Web. 10 Feb. 2013
The Monitor logbook was absolutely necessary in our research because it gave us an accurate chronology regarding the battle and the events that preceded it.
Wright, H. G. "Expedition to the Norfolk navy-yard, Va., and attempt to blow up the dry-dock." Civil War Home, 20 Apr 1861. Web. 10 Feb 2013
This source is an extremely helpful first-hand account. It shows how the Merrimac was burned and how the Union attempted to blow up the dry-dock at the Norfolk Naval Yard.
Secondary Sources:
Amadon, George F. Rise of the Ironclads. Missoula, MT: Pictorial Histories Pub., 1988. Print.
This book was useful because it gave us many pictures about ironclads both during and after the Civil war. This book also showed the scope with which ironclads were used throughout the Civil War, and showed how the ironclad is the descendant of the modern-day battle ship.
Anderson, Bern. By Sea and by River: The Naval History of the Civil War. Boston: De Capo, 1962. Print.
This source outlines the general history of the naval battles of the Civil War. This source showed how the Monitor impacted the strategy of the North in blockading the Confederacy. Through this source we were able to look at how other ships were based off of the Monitor.
Bathe, Greville. Ship of Destiny; a Record of the U.S. Steam Frigate Merrimac, 1855-1862. St. Augustine, FL: n.p., 1951. Print.
This source shows the importance of the Merrimac before her transformation. This source was useful in that it provided us with a backdrop for the Virginia.
Barthell, Edward. The Mystery of the Merrimack. Web. 22 Jan 2013.
This secondary source was useful because it discussed how the Virginia came to have so many wrong names, especially the Merrimack, which unlike the Merrimac is entirely wrong.
Baxter, James Phinney. The Introduction of the Ironclad Warship. Hamden: Archon, 1968. Print.
This book gives an outline of the development of the ironclad from the Crimean War to the Spanish-American war. This source led us to many other sources through its bibliography.
Bennett, Frank M. The Monitor and the Navy under Steam. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and, 1900. Print.
This book was unusual in the time in which it was written. It was written during the Spanish-American and showed how steam power and ironclads were still being used then. The author connected the Monitor to the Spanish-American war clearly, showing how its design could still be seen at that point in time.
Berent, Irwin M. The Crewmen of the USS Monitor. N.p.: Department of Cultural Resources, 1982. Print.
This source listed the Monitor’s crew and talked about their lives. It was useful to us because it gave us background on the lives of the people involved as well as leading us to sources written by the crewmen of the USS Monitor.
Besse, Sumner Bradford. C.S. Ironclad Virginia and U.S. Ironclad Monitor: With Data and References for Scale Models. Newport News, VA: Mariners Museum, 1978. Print.
This source gave the raw data of the Monitor and the Virginia, giving blueprints and cross-sections. This source was useful because it allowed us to directly compared the two ships and showed their advantages and disadvantages.
Black, Wallace B. Blockade-runners and Ironclads: Naval Action in the Civil War. New York: F. Watts, 1997. Print.
This source compared the naval strategy of the south with that of the North. This source was useful because it led us to more books and gave a broader view of Civil War naval actions.
Black, Wallace B. Blockade-runners and Ironclads: Naval Action in the Civil War. New York: F. Watts, 1997. Print.
This source compared the naval strategy of the south with that of the North. This source was useful because it led us to more books and gave a broader view of Civil War naval actions.
Bradley, Chester D. President Lincoln's Campaign against the Merrimac. [Springfield]: n.p., 1958. Print.
This source shows how the US Government responded to the construction of the Merrimac by making the Ironclad Commission.
Burnett, Constance Buel. Captain John Ericsson, Father of the "Monitor" New York, NY: Vanguard, 1960. Print.
This book talked about overall process of the making of the USS Monitor and the specifications made by Captain Ericsson. We used this source to get a better grasp on how the ship was made and used in battle.
Calhoun, Gordon. "The First Annual Bamboozle Awards." Day Book. 3.6 (1997): Web. 22 Jan 2013.
This interesting source claims that the naming of the Virginia is the most confusing dilemma in naval history. The source helped us to gain a better understanding of the issue of the naming of the Virginia and other boats associated with the battle.
Canfield, Eugene B. Civil War Naval Ordnance. Washington: Naval History Division, Navy Dept. 1969. Print.
This book gives descriptions of the weapons used in the Civil War. Showing how they progressed in response to ironclad ships.
Canney, Donald L. The Old Steam Navy: The Ironclads, 1842-1885. Vol. 2. Annapolis: Naval Institute, 1993. Print.
This book gives outlines on the Ironclad ships between the years listed. We as a group used it as a guide to how the ships of that time looked and operated.
Chaffin, Tom. Sea of Gray: The Around the World Odyssey of the Confederate Raider Shenandoah. 1st. Union Square West, New York: Hill and Wang, 2006. Print.
This book gave us a more realistic view on the Union naval blockade and on how ship navigation played a role in many sea battles.
Chase, Salmon P., and David Donald. Inside Lincoln's Cabinet: The Civil War Diaries. New York: Kraus Repr., 1970. Print.
This book was about the members of Lincoln's cabinet and their roles as well as their response to the day of march 8th. We used some of this information to show how the leaders of the Union responded to the Hampton Roads engagement.
"CSS Virginia." Dictionary of American Fighting Ships. 1959. Web.
This source gave us statistics on the CSS Virginia, which was useful in comparing with first person accounts.
Eisenschiml, Otto, Bruce Catton, and Ralph Newmann. The Civil War: An American Iliad, as Told by Those Who Lived It. New York: Konecky & Konecky, 1956. Print.
This source was useful to us because it led us to many other primary sources and gave us many useful quotes.
Flanders, Alan B. The Merrimac. The Story of the Conversion of the U.S.S. Merrimac into the Confederate Ironclad Warship, C.S.S. Virginia. N.p.: A.B. Flanders, 1982. Print.
This source tracks the construction of the Virginia and shows the difficulties encountered during construction. It was useful to us because it gave us information on the skeptics of the Virginia in the South.
Halloway, Anne, perf. So Ends this Day. Perf. Paul Levengood. Virginia Historical Society, 2011. Web. 8 Apr 2013.
This Lecture was important because it tracked the Monitor from its inception to its sinking to its discovery.
Hicks, Brian and Schuyler Kropf. Raising the Hunley: The Remarkable History and Recovery of the Lost Confederate Submarine. New York: Ballantine, 2002. Print
This book is mainly about the development of the submarine, but was useful because it traced the developments back ultimately to the Battle of Hampton Roads.
Holland, Rupert. Historic Poems and Ballads. Philidelphia: George W. Jacobs & Co, 1912. Print.
This secondary source was useful because it contained poems by Longfellow regarding the Battle of Hampton Roads.
Mabry, William S. Brief Sketch of the Career of Captain Catesby Ap R. Jones. Selma, Ala.: [s.n.], 1912. Web.
This source showed how Catesby Jones was important as a General in the Battle of Hampton Roads. This source showed how the Virginia specifically impacted the South.
Martin, Charles. Personal Reminiscences of the Monitor and Merrimac Engagement, and Destruction of the Congress and Cumberland. A Paper Read before the Commandery of New York, Military Order, Loyal Legion, United States, May 5, 1886,. New York: McGowan &Slipper, 1886. Print.
This primary source shows how people in the Union viewed the Battle after the War had ended. It showed that even after the war when technology had advanced the Monitor and Virginia were still remembered as great ships.
McMaster, Silbert Trotten. A Little Unwritten History of the Original U.S.S. Monitor. Annapolis.: USNIP, 1901. Print.
This source shows some of the criticisms of the Monitor. It was useful because most books focus on the glory of the Monitor, not its downfalls.
McPherson, James M. War on the Waters: The Union and Confederate Navies. University of North Carolina, 2012. Print
This source was an excellent secondary source because it tracked the transformation of the navies toward ironclad steamers.
Mokin, Arthur. Ironclad: The Monitor and the Merrimack. Novato, CA; Presidio, 1991.Print
This book was full of letters and writings that allowed us to get more of the sailors, officers and government officials; feelings and strategies of and for the Hampton roads battle.
Parsons, Iain. The Encyclopedia of Sea Warfare: From the First Ironclads to the Present Day. New York: Crowell, 1975. Print.
This source factually outlines the timeline of the Ironclad, showing how it transformed from the Gloire to modern Nuclear Submarines.
Peterkin, Ernest W. Drawings of the U.S.S. Monitor: A Catalog and Technical Analysis. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, 1985. Print.
This large book gives an exhaustive amount of blueprints and drawings of the USS Monitor, analyzing every component within the ship.
Pollard, Edward Alfred. The Lost Cause; a New Southern History of the War of the Confederates. Comprising a Full and Authentic Account of the Rise and Progress of the Late Southern Confederacy--the Campaigns, Battles, Incidents, and Adventures of the Most Gigantic Struggle of the World's History. Drawn from Official Sources, and Approved by the Most Distinguished Confederate Leaders. New York: Bonanza, 1974. Print.
This source gives an account of the later years of the Confederacy, clearly showing the effects of ironclads on Southern life, economy, and campaigns.
Potter, Katherine. Personal Interview. 13-05-2013.
Pratt, Robert E. The Battle of Hampton Roads Virginia, March 8-9 1862. Graphic. The Civil War Trust. Web. 10 Feb 2013.
This extremely useful because it tracked the movement of ships during the battle hour by hour.
Quarstein, John, perf. The Battle of the Ironclads. Perf. Paul Levengood. Virginia Historical Society, 2011. Web. 8 Apr 2013.
This Lecture gave us many good multimedia additions to our site. In addition to being historically relavant, this lecture is important to us because it showed how the Merrimac survived being burned.
Quarstein, John V., G. Richard Hoffeditz, and J. Michael Moore. C.S.S. Virginia: Mistress of Hampton Roads. Appomattox, VA: H.E. Howard, 2000. Print.
This source was extremely useful because it showed the relationship between the Virginia and the people of the Confederacy by tracking public opinion throughout her life. This source also gives biographies of each of the crewmembers.
Rogers, William Edgar. The First Battle of the Iron Clads as Seen by an Eye Witness: Printed from a Talk by Colonel William E. Rogers to the Mount Pleasant Citizens' Association, Washington, D.C., October, 1923. [Washington, D.C.]: Association, 1923. Print.
This source gives an account of the battle from a soldier on the land. This gives a different perspective, focusing a lot on the movement of the ships and the location of other nearby ships.
Scharf, J. Thomas. History of the Confederate States Navy from Its Organization to the Surrender of Its Last Vessel.: Its Stupendous Struggle with the Great Navy of the United States; the Engagements Fought in the Rivers and Harbors of the South, and upon the High Seas; Blockade-running, First Use of Iron-clads and Torpedoes, and Privateer History. [New York]: Fairfax, 1977. Print.
This was an extremely valuable that tracked the developments of the Confederate Navy and its strategies and leaders. This source was useful to us because it showed how the Confederacy responded to the Battle of Hampton Roads.
Scott, Robert N., H. M. Lazelle, George B. Davis, Leslie J. Perry, Joseph W. Kirkley, Fred C. Ainsworth, John S. Moodey, and Calvin D. Cowles. The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Washington, D.C., 1880. Print.
This exhaustive source outlined the War, giving meticulous attention to every detail, including Hampton Roads. This source is very unbiased and offers a good look at why the Confederacy lost the War.
Selfridge, Thomas. "The Merrimac and the Cumberland." Cosmopolitan. XV. (1893): 176-184. Print.
This article, written just thirty years after the battle, revealed how legendary it had already become. However, it also dispelled many of the myths made about the Monitor and the Virginia.
Smith, Gene A., and Grady McWhiney. Iron and Heavy Guns: Duel between the Monitor and Merrimac. Fort Worth: Ryan Place, 1996. Print.
This source gives a common viewpoint of the Battle of Hampton Roads. However, its value lies in its bibliography, which is very extensive and led us to many sources.
Trotter, William R. Ironclads and Columbiads: The Coast. Winston-Salem, NC: J.F. Blair, 1989. Print.
This source shows how both coastal defenses and ironclads developed throughout the Civil War in response to each other.
“A Perfect Success.” Macon Daily Telegraph 09 Mar 1892, Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This source was especially useful because it revealed that many people in the south viewed the battle of Hampton Roads as a complete victory.
“Battle of the Batteries” Western Reserve Chronicle [Warren] 19 Mar 1862. Web. 14 May 2013.
This source was important because it showed how quickly news of the battle traveled across the Union. The source was retrieved from Chronicling America.
Brent, Martha Buxton Porter. Memoirs. Wakefield, VA. 1934. Print.
This source shows the life of John Porter, one of the Constructors of the Virginia. This source is useful although it was published years later, it gave a first person look into the construction of the Virginia, which was largely undocumented.
Chase, Salmon P. Letter to General Burnside, May 11, 1862. Web. 10 May 2013.
This is letter to General Burnside about the outcome of the Battle of Hampton roads. We used this source to give a view of how the Hampton roads engagement affected the land battles. This book was also an informative and eye-opening look at the Battle through another man eyes.
“Commander Dahlgren and His Guns.” Harpers Weekly 20 Apr 1861. Web. 21 April 2013
This source is useful because it gave context to the revolutionary Dahlgren Gun and its affect on the Civil War. The Dahlgren guns are another example of technology that was impacted by the industrial revolution,
“Conflict between the Iron Steamers.” Daily National Intelligencer [Washington D.C.] 10 Mar 1862, Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This source shows how the Battle had already become common knowledge only three days after the war. While the source is very biased it shows the excitement the Union felt toward ironclads after the perceived victory of the Monitor.
“The Dead Wood of the Navy and the Navy Department.” Philadelphia Inquirer 11 Mar 1862, Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This source is important because it showed some reasons that contemporaries of the battle blamed for the US Navy’s poor preparedness. It was helpful specifically because it was hard to find sources during the beginning of the Civil War that openly criticized the government because many in the north felt that the Union was waging a "holy war".
Delafield, Richard. Report on the Art of War in Europe. United States: Military Commission to Europe, 1856. Print.
This source was vital to our research because it showed how technology in Europe influenced advancements in America. This source was a report to the military on the developments of the Crimean War. It was through this document that the US Government first learned of the construction of the iron batteries used by France.
Eggleston, John. Captain Eggleston's Narrative on the Battle of the Merrimac. Richmond: Southern Historical Society, 1916. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.
This source is useful because it gives a firsthand account of both days of the battle from the view of a Virginia deckhand. The Virginia was largely undocumented, so any source we found related to it was of great use.
“The Ericsson Battery.” Lowell Daily Citizen and News 04 Mar 1862, Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This article is about the arming and launching of the USS Monitor. It revealed anticipation towards its imminent confrontation with the Virginia and hinted that there were doubts about the effectiveness of the Monitor.
“The Ericsson Battery” Memphis Daily Appeal 15 Feb 1862. Print.
This article is important because it revealed Northern excitement and anticipation regarding the construction of the USS Monitor.
Fox, G. V. "Important from Fort Monroe." Sun [Baltimore] 10 Mar 1862, Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This source shows how government officials responded to the Battle of Hampton Roads. It revealed that many northern military men were unable to accept that the new ironclad Virginia was superior to the Monitor.
Fox, G V., Robert Means Thompson, and Richard Wainwright. Confidential Correspondence of Gustavus Vasa Fox, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, 1861-1865. New York: Printed for the Naval History Society by the De Vinne, 1918. Print.
This book was pivotal to our research because it showed how people within the government responded to the success of the Monitor and how they were skeptical during its construction.
“From Richmond” Memphis Daily Appeal 19 Mar 1862. Web. 14 May 2013.
This source is important because it outlined the battle and revealed that even shortly afterward, the destruction of the Cumberland and the Congress had been overshadowed by the success of the Monitor. This source was from Chronicling America.
Gilman, William Henry. Letters Written Home: While Acting as Secretary to Commodore John C. Long, Commander of the U.S. Steam Frigate Merrimac, on a Voyage to the South American Coast and the Islands of the South Pacific, in the Years 1857-1858. Exeter, NH. 1911. Print.
This source outlines what happened to the Merrimac before the Civil War. We used this source to expand our knowledge of the Merrimac, its experiences, legacy, and esteem. Although it was edited later, it is a primary source because it was written by the Captain himself.
“Glorious News!” Augusta Chronicle 10 Mar 1862, Web. 13 Dec. 2013
This source reveals that people in the south believed that the Virginia won a decisive victory against the Monitor. It was useful because it demonstrated that the North and South held very different views about the Battle of Hampton Roads.
“Good Faith Needed.” Boston Daily Advertiser 03 Mar 1862, Web. 13 Dec. 2012
This source reveals sentiment towards the launching of the Monitor and gives specifics regarding the armaments on her. This source was very helpful because it specifically listed the size of the cannons so that it could be easily compared to other ships of its time.
“Grand Naval Victory.” Macon Daily Telegraph 08 Mar 1892, Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This source reveals the Southern sentiment toward the destruction of the Cumberland and the Congress.
Hawthorne, Nathaniel. Chiefly about War Matters. Boston. 1862. Print.
This source was pivotal to our research because it showed the perceived downsides of the Monitor, largely its cramped size and its uncomfortability.
“Important from Fortress Monroe.” Lowell Daily Citizen and News 10 Mar 1862, Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
Another recollection of the war, this source is significant in portraying the conflict in ending as a draw.
"The Iron-Clad Steamer Merrimac." Daily National Intelligencer [Washington, D.C.] 07 Mar 1862, Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This newspaper article was one of our most important sources because analyzed the battle not in the context of the Civil War, but in the context of industrialization and the future of military technology.
Jones, Catesby. "The Confederate Account of the Naval Fight in Hampton Roads ." Illustrated London News 5 April 1862, p344. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.
This account is useful because it recounts how Commander Buchanan was injured while taking the Congress.
“The Latest War News.” New York Daily Herald 10 Mar 1862, Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This Source gives an account of the Battle, clearly being biased toward the North.
Lee, A. R. “A Distressing Shipwreck.” Daily National Intelligencer [Washington, DC] 5 Jan 1863. Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This source is useful because not only does it recount the sinking of the USS Monitor, but it relates it to the context of the war and poses the question of what the US Navy will do without it.
“The Loss of the Monitor” New York Herald 4 Jan 1863. Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This sentimental piece was extremely useful in generating our thesis because it showed how deeply the Monitor had already affected American culture. The fact that the “monster of the north” could take on the Confederate Ironclad and yet sink in a common East Coast squall stunned many people. This piece is the more emotional counterpart to the article “The Monitor Foundered!” which was printed the same day on the front page.
Melville, Herman. A Utilitarian’s View of the Monitor’s Flight. 1863. Web.
This poem uses interesting phraseology and imagery to emphasize the sense that warfare was no longer fought by men, but by machines and clockwork-like calculations. This Melville work examines the negative effects of technically advancing warfare.
Melville, Herman. In The Turret. 1862. Web.
This poem was incredibly useful because it truly imparted a sense of the high status contemporaries held for the ironclads. To them, the ironclads were both strange and powerful, and carried a sense of mystique.
"The Merrimac." Daily True Delta [New Orleans] 05 Mar 1862, Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This source was useful because it gave specifics regarding the refitting and launch of the Virginia, or “Merrimac”, and also revealed aspects of both southern excitement and slight skepticism about the effectiveness of such an unorthodox machine.
“The Monitor Foundered!” New York Herald 4 Jan 1863. Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This article mourns the loss of the Monitor and discusses actions that were taken in attempts to save it. It was useful as a source for context behind the sinking of the USS Monitor.
“Monitor Sunk” Macon Daily Telegraph 6 Jan 1863. Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This source reveals the relief that was felt across the South on hearing about the sinking of the Monitor.
“Naval Disaster in Hampton Roads.” Daily National Intelligencer [Washington, D.C.] 10 Mar 1862, Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This source was written before news of the Monitor’s appearance reached the North. It clearly showed the remorse that Union civilians felt toward the loss of the Cumberland and the Congress.
“Our Greatest Monster Getting Ready for the Sea.” Wisconsin Daily Patriot 04 Mar 1862, Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This source is important because it gave the most specific account of the Monitor’s armament when compared to other ships. This source also revealed the excitement with regards to the launching of the Monitor.
Perkin, A. L. “Battle Between the Ericsson Battery, the Merrimac and Other Boats” St. Cloud Democrat 13 Mar 1862. Web. 14 May. 2013.
This source was very important because it exemplifies the discrepancies in the names of the ships present in combat. Nearly every ship mentioned in this article, with the exceptions of the Cumberland and the Congress, were misspelled or misnamed. This source was retrieved from Chronicling America.
“Revolutions in Naval Warfare” Harpers Weekly 9 Feb 1861. Web. 21 Apr. 2013.
This source is important as a primary source because it gives many details regarding the construction of the Gloire and the Warrior. It also reveals a sense of amazement at the accomplishment of European powers.
Rogers, William Edgar. The First Battle of the Iron Clads as Seen by an Eye Witness: Printed from a Talk by Colonel William E. Rogers to the Mount Pleasant Citizens' Association, Washington, D.C., October, 1923. [Washington, D.C.]: Association, 1923. Print.
This source gives an account of the battle from a soldier on the land. This gives a different perspective, focusing a lot on the movement of the ships and the location of other nearby ships.
Rowland, Thomas. Ericsson, John. “Contract Regarding the Construction of the USS Monitor”. Naval Historical Center. 25, Oct. 1861. Web. 21 Apr. 2013.
This source was vital to our research as a historical document. It gives insight into the construction of the Monitor and shows that despite the plans that they had to construct it, in the end Ericsson was playing it by ear and hoping that the design would work.
Stimers, Alban. "Letter to John Ericsson."The Rebellion Record. Ed. Putnam 9 Mar 1862. Web. 21 Apr. 2013.
This letter is from the Chief Engineer of the Monitor to Ericsson. This source was one of our most important because it showed how Ericsson was revered by many in the Union as the savior of Hampton Roads. It also shows in good detail the conflict between the Monitor and the Virginia.
“Telegraphic” The Semi-Weekly Shreveport News 18 Mar 1862. Page 37. Web. 14 May. 2013.
This belated report was important because it revealed that the ironclads had remained in a state of stalemate since the battle. This source was retrieved from Chronicling America.
“Terrible Work among the Iron-Clads” Macon Daily Telegraph 10 Jan 1863. Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This newspaper chronicles the life of the Monitor and the Virginia and notes that they have had a major military impact during their brief service.
“The War. From Fortress Monroe.” Vermont Phoenix [Brattleboro] 13 Mar 1862. Web. 14 May. 2013.
This source was important because it not only speaks of the naval battle but shows how forces on land attempted to provide artillery support to the Union Navy at the Battle of Hampton Roads. This source was retrieved from Chronicling America.
“Where Does the Laugh Come In?” Daily Commercial Register [Sandusky] 11 Mar 1862, Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
This sobering newspaper article was helpful in our research because it showed that even the appearance of the monitor couldn’t detract from the losses on board the Cumberland and the Virginia.
Williamson, William, John Brooke, and John Porter. The Virginia or Merrimac: Her Real Projector. 25 Jun 1862. Southern Historical Society Papers, XIX. Richmond, 1891. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.
These letters were vital to our research because they were the only [rimary sources that discussed with accuracy the construction of the CSS Virginia.
Worden, J L. Monitor Logbook. National Archives: 9 Mar 1862. Web. 10 Feb. 2013
The Monitor logbook was absolutely necessary in our research because it gave us an accurate chronology regarding the battle and the events that preceded it.
Wright, H. G. "Expedition to the Norfolk navy-yard, Va., and attempt to blow up the dry-dock." Civil War Home, 20 Apr 1861. Web. 10 Feb 2013
This source is an extremely helpful first-hand account. It shows how the Merrimac was burned and how the Union attempted to blow up the dry-dock at the Norfolk Naval Yard.
Secondary Sources:
Amadon, George F. Rise of the Ironclads. Missoula, MT: Pictorial Histories Pub., 1988. Print.
This book was useful because it gave us many pictures about ironclads both during and after the Civil war. This book also showed the scope with which ironclads were used throughout the Civil War, and showed how the ironclad is the descendant of the modern-day battle ship.
Anderson, Bern. By Sea and by River: The Naval History of the Civil War. Boston: De Capo, 1962. Print.
This source outlines the general history of the naval battles of the Civil War. This source showed how the Monitor impacted the strategy of the North in blockading the Confederacy. Through this source we were able to look at how other ships were based off of the Monitor.
Bathe, Greville. Ship of Destiny; a Record of the U.S. Steam Frigate Merrimac, 1855-1862. St. Augustine, FL: n.p., 1951. Print.
This source shows the importance of the Merrimac before her transformation. This source was useful in that it provided us with a backdrop for the Virginia.
Barthell, Edward. The Mystery of the Merrimack. Web. 22 Jan 2013.
This secondary source was useful because it discussed how the Virginia came to have so many wrong names, especially the Merrimack, which unlike the Merrimac is entirely wrong.
Baxter, James Phinney. The Introduction of the Ironclad Warship. Hamden: Archon, 1968. Print.
This book gives an outline of the development of the ironclad from the Crimean War to the Spanish-American war. This source led us to many other sources through its bibliography.
Bennett, Frank M. The Monitor and the Navy under Steam. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and, 1900. Print.
This book was unusual in the time in which it was written. It was written during the Spanish-American and showed how steam power and ironclads were still being used then. The author connected the Monitor to the Spanish-American war clearly, showing how its design could still be seen at that point in time.
Berent, Irwin M. The Crewmen of the USS Monitor. N.p.: Department of Cultural Resources, 1982. Print.
This source listed the Monitor’s crew and talked about their lives. It was useful to us because it gave us background on the lives of the people involved as well as leading us to sources written by the crewmen of the USS Monitor.
Besse, Sumner Bradford. C.S. Ironclad Virginia and U.S. Ironclad Monitor: With Data and References for Scale Models. Newport News, VA: Mariners Museum, 1978. Print.
This source gave the raw data of the Monitor and the Virginia, giving blueprints and cross-sections. This source was useful because it allowed us to directly compared the two ships and showed their advantages and disadvantages.
Black, Wallace B. Blockade-runners and Ironclads: Naval Action in the Civil War. New York: F. Watts, 1997. Print.
This source compared the naval strategy of the south with that of the North. This source was useful because it led us to more books and gave a broader view of Civil War naval actions.
Black, Wallace B. Blockade-runners and Ironclads: Naval Action in the Civil War. New York: F. Watts, 1997. Print.
This source compared the naval strategy of the south with that of the North. This source was useful because it led us to more books and gave a broader view of Civil War naval actions.
Bradley, Chester D. President Lincoln's Campaign against the Merrimac. [Springfield]: n.p., 1958. Print.
This source shows how the US Government responded to the construction of the Merrimac by making the Ironclad Commission.
Burnett, Constance Buel. Captain John Ericsson, Father of the "Monitor" New York, NY: Vanguard, 1960. Print.
This book talked about overall process of the making of the USS Monitor and the specifications made by Captain Ericsson. We used this source to get a better grasp on how the ship was made and used in battle.
Calhoun, Gordon. "The First Annual Bamboozle Awards." Day Book. 3.6 (1997): Web. 22 Jan 2013.
This interesting source claims that the naming of the Virginia is the most confusing dilemma in naval history. The source helped us to gain a better understanding of the issue of the naming of the Virginia and other boats associated with the battle.
Canfield, Eugene B. Civil War Naval Ordnance. Washington: Naval History Division, Navy Dept. 1969. Print.
This book gives descriptions of the weapons used in the Civil War. Showing how they progressed in response to ironclad ships.
Canney, Donald L. The Old Steam Navy: The Ironclads, 1842-1885. Vol. 2. Annapolis: Naval Institute, 1993. Print.
This book gives outlines on the Ironclad ships between the years listed. We as a group used it as a guide to how the ships of that time looked and operated.
Chaffin, Tom. Sea of Gray: The Around the World Odyssey of the Confederate Raider Shenandoah. 1st. Union Square West, New York: Hill and Wang, 2006. Print.
This book gave us a more realistic view on the Union naval blockade and on how ship navigation played a role in many sea battles.
Chase, Salmon P., and David Donald. Inside Lincoln's Cabinet: The Civil War Diaries. New York: Kraus Repr., 1970. Print.
This book was about the members of Lincoln's cabinet and their roles as well as their response to the day of march 8th. We used some of this information to show how the leaders of the Union responded to the Hampton Roads engagement.
"CSS Virginia." Dictionary of American Fighting Ships. 1959. Web.
This source gave us statistics on the CSS Virginia, which was useful in comparing with first person accounts.
Eisenschiml, Otto, Bruce Catton, and Ralph Newmann. The Civil War: An American Iliad, as Told by Those Who Lived It. New York: Konecky & Konecky, 1956. Print.
This source was useful to us because it led us to many other primary sources and gave us many useful quotes.
Flanders, Alan B. The Merrimac. The Story of the Conversion of the U.S.S. Merrimac into the Confederate Ironclad Warship, C.S.S. Virginia. N.p.: A.B. Flanders, 1982. Print.
This source tracks the construction of the Virginia and shows the difficulties encountered during construction. It was useful to us because it gave us information on the skeptics of the Virginia in the South.
Halloway, Anne, perf. So Ends this Day. Perf. Paul Levengood. Virginia Historical Society, 2011. Web. 8 Apr 2013.
This Lecture was important because it tracked the Monitor from its inception to its sinking to its discovery.
Hicks, Brian and Schuyler Kropf. Raising the Hunley: The Remarkable History and Recovery of the Lost Confederate Submarine. New York: Ballantine, 2002. Print
This book is mainly about the development of the submarine, but was useful because it traced the developments back ultimately to the Battle of Hampton Roads.
Holland, Rupert. Historic Poems and Ballads. Philidelphia: George W. Jacobs & Co, 1912. Print.
This secondary source was useful because it contained poems by Longfellow regarding the Battle of Hampton Roads.
Mabry, William S. Brief Sketch of the Career of Captain Catesby Ap R. Jones. Selma, Ala.: [s.n.], 1912. Web.
This source showed how Catesby Jones was important as a General in the Battle of Hampton Roads. This source showed how the Virginia specifically impacted the South.
Martin, Charles. Personal Reminiscences of the Monitor and Merrimac Engagement, and Destruction of the Congress and Cumberland. A Paper Read before the Commandery of New York, Military Order, Loyal Legion, United States, May 5, 1886,. New York: McGowan &Slipper, 1886. Print.
This primary source shows how people in the Union viewed the Battle after the War had ended. It showed that even after the war when technology had advanced the Monitor and Virginia were still remembered as great ships.
McMaster, Silbert Trotten. A Little Unwritten History of the Original U.S.S. Monitor. Annapolis.: USNIP, 1901. Print.
This source shows some of the criticisms of the Monitor. It was useful because most books focus on the glory of the Monitor, not its downfalls.
McPherson, James M. War on the Waters: The Union and Confederate Navies. University of North Carolina, 2012. Print
This source was an excellent secondary source because it tracked the transformation of the navies toward ironclad steamers.
Mokin, Arthur. Ironclad: The Monitor and the Merrimack. Novato, CA; Presidio, 1991.Print
This book was full of letters and writings that allowed us to get more of the sailors, officers and government officials; feelings and strategies of and for the Hampton roads battle.
Parsons, Iain. The Encyclopedia of Sea Warfare: From the First Ironclads to the Present Day. New York: Crowell, 1975. Print.
This source factually outlines the timeline of the Ironclad, showing how it transformed from the Gloire to modern Nuclear Submarines.
Peterkin, Ernest W. Drawings of the U.S.S. Monitor: A Catalog and Technical Analysis. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, 1985. Print.
This large book gives an exhaustive amount of blueprints and drawings of the USS Monitor, analyzing every component within the ship.
Pollard, Edward Alfred. The Lost Cause; a New Southern History of the War of the Confederates. Comprising a Full and Authentic Account of the Rise and Progress of the Late Southern Confederacy--the Campaigns, Battles, Incidents, and Adventures of the Most Gigantic Struggle of the World's History. Drawn from Official Sources, and Approved by the Most Distinguished Confederate Leaders. New York: Bonanza, 1974. Print.
This source gives an account of the later years of the Confederacy, clearly showing the effects of ironclads on Southern life, economy, and campaigns.
Potter, Katherine. Personal Interview. 13-05-2013.
Pratt, Robert E. The Battle of Hampton Roads Virginia, March 8-9 1862. Graphic. The Civil War Trust. Web. 10 Feb 2013.
This extremely useful because it tracked the movement of ships during the battle hour by hour.
Quarstein, John, perf. The Battle of the Ironclads. Perf. Paul Levengood. Virginia Historical Society, 2011. Web. 8 Apr 2013.
This Lecture gave us many good multimedia additions to our site. In addition to being historically relavant, this lecture is important to us because it showed how the Merrimac survived being burned.
Quarstein, John V., G. Richard Hoffeditz, and J. Michael Moore. C.S.S. Virginia: Mistress of Hampton Roads. Appomattox, VA: H.E. Howard, 2000. Print.
This source was extremely useful because it showed the relationship between the Virginia and the people of the Confederacy by tracking public opinion throughout her life. This source also gives biographies of each of the crewmembers.
Rogers, William Edgar. The First Battle of the Iron Clads as Seen by an Eye Witness: Printed from a Talk by Colonel William E. Rogers to the Mount Pleasant Citizens' Association, Washington, D.C., October, 1923. [Washington, D.C.]: Association, 1923. Print.
This source gives an account of the battle from a soldier on the land. This gives a different perspective, focusing a lot on the movement of the ships and the location of other nearby ships.
Scharf, J. Thomas. History of the Confederate States Navy from Its Organization to the Surrender of Its Last Vessel.: Its Stupendous Struggle with the Great Navy of the United States; the Engagements Fought in the Rivers and Harbors of the South, and upon the High Seas; Blockade-running, First Use of Iron-clads and Torpedoes, and Privateer History. [New York]: Fairfax, 1977. Print.
This was an extremely valuable that tracked the developments of the Confederate Navy and its strategies and leaders. This source was useful to us because it showed how the Confederacy responded to the Battle of Hampton Roads.
Scott, Robert N., H. M. Lazelle, George B. Davis, Leslie J. Perry, Joseph W. Kirkley, Fred C. Ainsworth, John S. Moodey, and Calvin D. Cowles. The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Washington, D.C., 1880. Print.
This exhaustive source outlined the War, giving meticulous attention to every detail, including Hampton Roads. This source is very unbiased and offers a good look at why the Confederacy lost the War.
Selfridge, Thomas. "The Merrimac and the Cumberland." Cosmopolitan. XV. (1893): 176-184. Print.
This article, written just thirty years after the battle, revealed how legendary it had already become. However, it also dispelled many of the myths made about the Monitor and the Virginia.
Smith, Gene A., and Grady McWhiney. Iron and Heavy Guns: Duel between the Monitor and Merrimac. Fort Worth: Ryan Place, 1996. Print.
This source gives a common viewpoint of the Battle of Hampton Roads. However, its value lies in its bibliography, which is very extensive and led us to many sources.
Trotter, William R. Ironclads and Columbiads: The Coast. Winston-Salem, NC: J.F. Blair, 1989. Print.
This source shows how both coastal defenses and ironclads developed throughout the Civil War in response to each other.