Civil War Wiki
Battle of Hampton Roads
Part of the American Civil War
File:Battle of Hampton Roads 3g01752u.jpg
Battle Between the Monitor and Merrimac
by Kurz and Allison.
Date March 8–9, 1862
Location Off Sewell's Point, near the mouth of Hampton Roads, Virginia
Result Indecisive, both sides claim victory
File:US flag 34 stars.svg United States (Union) File:CSA FLAG 28.11.1861-1.5.1863.svg CSA (Confederacy)
Louis M. Goldsborough (not present)
John Marston (senior officer present)
Franklin Buchanan
Catesby ap Roger Jones
1 ironclad
5 wooden frigates
1 ironclad
2 wooden warships
1 gunboat
2 tenders
Casualties and losses
261 killed
108 wounded
1 frigate sunk
1 sloop-of-war sunk
1 frigate damaged
7 killed
17 wounded
1 ironclad damaged

The Battle of Hampton Roads, often referred to as the Battle of the Monitor and Merrimack (or Merrimac), was the most noted and arguably most important naval battle of the American Civil War from the standpoint of the development of navies. It was fought over two days, March 8–9, 1862, in Hampton Roads, a roadstead in Virginia where the Elizabeth and Nansemond Rivers meet the James River just before it enters Chesapeake Bay. The battle was a part of the effort of the Confederacy to break the Union blockade, which had cut off Virginia's largest cities, Norfolk and Richmond, from international trade.[1]

The major significance of the battle is that it was the first meeting in combat of ironclad warships. The Confederate fleet consisted of the ironclad ram CSS Virginia (the Merrimack) and several supporting vessels. On the first day of battle, they were opposed by several conventional, wooden-hulled ships of the Union Navy. On that day, Virginia was able to destroy two ships of the Federal flotilla and threaten a third, USS Minnesota, which had run aground. The action was halted by darkness and falling tide, so Virginia retired to take care of her few wounded — which included her captain, Flag Officer Franklin Buchanan — and repair her minimal battle damage.[2]

Determined to complete the destruction of the Minnesota, Catesby ap Roger Jones, acting as captain in Buchanan's absence, returned the ship to the fray the next morning, March 9. During the night, however, the ironclad USS Monitor had arrived and had taken a position to defend Minnesota. When Virginia approached, Monitor intercepted her. The two ironclads fought for about three hours, with neither being able to inflict significant damage on the other. The duel ended indecisively, Virginia returning to her home at the Gosport Navy Yard for repairs and strengthening, and Monitor to her station defending Minnesota. The ships did not fight again, and the blockade remained in place.[3]

The battle received worldwide attention, and it had immediate effects on navies around the world. The preeminent naval powers, Great Britain and France, halted further construction of wooden-hulled ships, and others followed suit. A new type of warship was produced, the monitor, based on the principle of the original. The use of a small number of very heavy guns, mounted so that they could fire in all directions was first demonstrated by Monitor but soon became standard in warships of all types. Shipbuilders also incorporated rams into the designs of warship hulls for the rest of the century.[4]

The blockade at Norfolk[]

File:Battle of Hampton Roads Map.png

Map of events of the Battle of Hampton Roads

On April 19, 1861, shortly after the outbreak of hostilities at Charleston Harbor, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a blockade of ports in the seceded states. On April 27, after Virginia and North Carolina had also passed ordinances of secession, the blockade was extended to include their ports also.[5] Even before the extension, local troops seized Norfolk and threatened the Gosport Navy Yard. The commandant there, Captain Charles S. McCauley, though loyal to the Union, was immobilized by advice he received from his subordinate officers, most of whom were in favor of secession. Although he had orders from (Union) Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles to move his ships to Northern ports, he refused to act until April 20, when he gave orders to scuttle the ships in the yard and destroy its facilities. Nine ships were burned, among them the screw frigate USS Merrimack. One (the old frigate Cumberland) was towed away successfully.[6] Merrimack burned only to the waterline, however, and her engines were more or less intact. The destruction of the navy yard was mostly ineffective; in particular, the large drydock there was relatively undamaged and soon could be restored.[7] Without firing a shot, the advocates of secession had gained for the South its largest navy yard, as well as the hull and engines of what would be in time its most famous warship. They had also seized more than a thousand heavy guns, plus gun carriages and large quantities of gunpowder.[8]

With Norfolk and its navy yard, the Confederacy controlled the southern side of Hampton Roads. To prevent Union warships from attacking the yard, the Confederates set up batteries at Sewell's Point and Craney Island, at the juncture of the Elizabeth River with the James. (See map.)[9] The Union retained possession of Fort Monroe, at Old Point Comfort on the Virginia Peninsula.[10] They also held a small man-made island known as the Rip Raps, on the far side of the channel opposite Fort Monroe, and on this island they completed another fort, named Fort Wool.[11] With Fort Monroe went control of the lower Peninsula as far as Newport News.[12]

Forts Monroe and Wool gave the Union forces control of the entrance to Hampton Roads. The blockade, initiated on April 30, 1861, cut off Norfolk and Richmond from the sea almost completely.[13] To further the blockade, the Union Navy stationed some of its most powerful warships in the roadstead. There, they were under the shelter of the shore-based guns of Fort Monroe and the batteries at Hampton and Newport News and out of the range of the guns at Sewell's Point and Craney Island. For most of the first year of the war, the Confederacy could do little to oppose or dislodge them.[14]

Birth of the ironclads[]

When steam propulsion began to be applied to warships, naval constructors renewed their interest in armor for their vessels. Experiments had been tried with armor during the Crimean War, just prior to the American Civil War,[15] and the British and French navies had each built armored ships and were planning to build others. In 1860, the French Navy commissioned La Gloire, the world's first ocean-going ironclad warship. Great Britain followed a year later with HMS Warrior.[16][17] The use of armor remained controversial, however, and the United States Navy was generally reluctant to embrace the new technology.[18]

CSS Virginia[]

File:CSS Virginia, wash drawing by Clary Ray (Photo - NH 57830).jpg

CSS Virginia (ex-USS Merrimack)

When the Civil War broke out, Confederate Secretary of the Navy Stephen R. Mallory was an early enthusiast for the advantages of armor. As he saw it, the Confederacy could not match the industrial North in numbers of ships at sea, so they would have to compete by building vessels that would be individually superior to those of the Union. The edge would be provided by armor.[19] Mallory gathered about himself a group of men who were able to put his vision into practice, among them John M. Brooke, John L. Porter, and William P. Williamson.[20]

When Mallory's men searched the South for factories that could build engines to drive the heavy ships that he wanted, they found no place to do it immediately. At the best facility, the Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond, building engines from scratch would take at least a year. Upon learning this, Williamson suggested taking the engines from the hulk of Merrimack, recently raised from the bed of the Elizabeth River.[21] His colleagues promptly accepted his suggestion and expanded it, proposing that the design of their projected ironclad be adapted to the hull. Porter produced the revised plans, which were submitted to Mallory for approval. On July 11, 1861, the new design was accepted, and work began almost immediately.[22] The burned-out hull was towed into the graving dock that the Union Navy had failed to destroy. During the subsequent conversion process, the plans were further modified to incorporate an iron ram fitted to the prow. Her offense in addition to the ram consisted of 10 guns: six 9 in (230 mm) smooth-bore Dahlgrens, two 6.4 in (160 mm) and two 7 in (180 mm) Brooke rifles.[23] The armor plating, originally meant to be 1 in (25 mm) thick, was replaced by double plates, each 2 in (51 mm) thick, backed by 24 in (61 cm) of iron and pine. The armor was pierced for 14 gunports: four on each broadside, three forward, and three aft.[24] The revisions, together with the usual problems associated with the transportation system of the South, resulted in delays that pushed out the launch date until February 3, 1862, and she was not commissioned until February 17, bearing the name CSS Virginia.[25]

USS Monitor[]

File:USS Monitor at sea.jpg

USS Monitor

Intelligence that the Confederates were working to develop an ironclad caused consternation for the Union, but Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles waited for Congress to meet to request permission to consider building armored vessels; Congress gave this permission on August 3, 1861. Welles appointed a commission, which came to be known as the Ironclad Board, of three senior naval officers to choose among the designs that were submitted for consideration. The three men were Captains Joseph Smith[26] and Hiram Paulding, and Commander Charles Henry Davis.[27] The board considered seventeen designs, and chose to support three. First of the three to be completed, even though she was by far the most radical in design, was Swedish engineer and inventor John Ericsson's USS Monitor.[28].

Ericsson's Monitor, which was built at Ericsson's yard on the East River in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, incorporated new and striking design features, the most significant of which were her armor and armament. Instead of the large numbers of guns of rather small bore that had characterized warships in the past, Ericsson opted for only two guns of large caliber; he wanted to use 15 in (380 mm) guns, but had to settle for 11 in (280 mm) guns when the larger size were unavailable.[29] These were mounted in a cylindrical turret, 20 ft (6.1 m) in diameter, 9 ft (2.7 m) high, covered with iron 8 in (200 mm) thick. The whole rotated on a central spindle, and was moved by a steam engine that could be controlled by one man. A serious flaw in the design was the pilot house from which the ship would be conned, a small structure forward of the turret on the main deck. Its presence meant that the guns could not fire directly forward, and it was isolated from other activities on the ship. Despite the late start and the novelty of construction, Monitor was actually completed a few days before her counterpart Virginia, but Virginia was activated first.[30]



The Confederate chain of command was anomalous. Lieutenant Catesby ap Roger Jones had directed much of the conversion of Merrimack to Virginia, and he was disappointed when he was not named her captain.[31] Jones was retained aboard Virginia, but only as her executive officer. Ordinarily, the ship would have been led by a captain of the Confederate States Navy, to be determined by the rigid seniority system that was in place. Secretary Mallory wanted the aggressive Franklin Buchanan, but at least two other captains had greater seniority and had applied for the post. Mallory evaded the issue by appointing Franklin, head of the Office of Orders and Detail, flag officer in charge of the defenses of Norfolk and the James River. As such, he could control the movements of Virginia. Technically, therefore, the ship went into the battle without a captain.[32]

On the Union side, command of the North Atlantic Blockading Squadron was held by Flag Officer Louis M. Goldsborough. He had devised a plan for his frigates to engage Virginia, hoping to trap her in their crossfire.[33] In the event, his plan broke down completely when four of the ships ran aground (one of them intentionally) in the confined waters of the roadstead. On the day of battle, Goldsborough was absent with the ships cooperating with the Burnside Expedition in North Carolina.[34] In his absence, leadership fell to his second in command, Captain John Marston of USS Roanoke. As Roanoke was one of the ships that ran aground, Marston was unable to materially influence the battle, and his participation is often disregarded. Most accounts emphasize the contribution of the captain of Monitor, John L. Worden, to the neglect of others.[35]

File:Cumberland rammed by Merrimac.png

Sinking of Cumberland by the ironclad Virginia

March 8: Virginia wreaks havoc on wooden Union warships[]

The battle began when the large and unwieldy CSS Virginia steamed into Hampton Roads on the morning of March 8, 1862. Captain Buchanan had tried to lead everyone but a trusted few to believe that this was merely a shakedown run, but most of the crew were aware that he intended to attack as soon as possible.[36] Virginia was accompanied from her moorings on the Elizabeth River by Raleigh and Beaufort, and was joined at Hampton Roads by the James River Squadron, Patrick Henry, Jamestown, and Teaser. When they were passing the Union batteries at Newport News, Patrick Henry was temporarily disabled by a shot in her boiler that killed four of her crew. After repairs, she returned and rejoined the others.[37]

At this time, the Union Navy had five warships in the roadstead (see map), in addition to several support vessels. The sloop-of-war USS Cumberland and frigate Congress were anchored in the channel near Newport News. Frigate St. Lawrence and the steam frigates Roanoke and Minnesota[38] were near Fort Monroe. The latter three got under way as soon as they saw Virginia approaching, but all soon ran aground. St. Lawrence and Roanoke took no further important part in the battle.[39]

Virginia headed directly for the Union squadron. The battle opened when Union tug Zouave fired on the advancing enemy, and Beaufort replied. This preliminary skirmishing had no effect.[40] Virginia did not open fire until she was within easy range of Cumberland. Return fire from Cumberland and Congress bounced off the iron plates without penetrating. Virginia rammed Cumberland below the waterline and she sank rapidly, "gallantly fighting her guns as long as they were above water," according to Buchanan.[41] She took 121 seamen down with her; those wounded brought the casualty total to nearly 150.[42]

Ramming Cumberland nearly resulted in the sinking of Virginia as well. Virginia's bow ram got stuck in the enemy ship's hull, and as Cumberland listed and began to go down, she almost pulled Virginia under with her. At the time the vessels were locked, one of Cumberland's anchors was hanging directly above the foredeck of Virginia. Had it been let loose, the two ships might have gone down together. Virginia broke free, however, her ram breaking off as she backed away.[43][44]

Buchanan next turned Virginia on Congress. Seeing what had happened to Cumberland, Lieutenant Joseph B. Smith, captain of Congress, ordered his ship grounded in shallow water. By this time, the James River Squadron, commanded by John Randolph Tucker, had arrived and joined Virginia in the attack on Congress. After an hour of unequal combat, the badly-damaged Congress surrendered.[45] While the surviving crewmen of Congress were being ferried off the ship, a Union battery on the north shore opened fire on Virginia. In retaliation, Buchanan ordered Congress fired upon with hot shot, cannon balls heated red-hot. Congress caught fire and burned throughout the rest of the day. Near midnight, the flames reached her magazine and she exploded and sank.[46] Personnel losses included 110 killed or missing and presumed drowned. Another 26 were wounded, of whom ten died within days.[47]

Although she had not suffered anything like the damage she had inflicted, Virginia was not completely unscathed. Shots from Cumberland, Congress, and Union troops ashore had riddled her smokestack, reducing her already low speed. Two of her guns were disabled and several armor plates had been loosened. Two of her crew were killed, and more were wounded. One of the wounded was Captain Buchanan, whose left thigh was pierced by a rifle shot.[48]

Meanwhile, the James River Squadron had turned its attention to Minnesota, which had left Fort Monroe to join in the battle and had run aground.[49] After Virginia had dealt with the surrender of Congress, she joined the James River Squadron despite her damage. Because of her deep draft and the falling tide, however, Virginia was unable to get close enough to be effective, and darkness prevented the rest of the squadron from aiming their guns to any effect. The attack was therefore suspended. Virginia left with the expectation of returning the next day and completing the task. She retreated into the safety of Confederate-controlled waters off Sewell's Point for the night.[50]

March 9: Monitor engages Virginia[]


Ironclads engaged in terrific combat by Currier and Ives

Both sides used the respite to prepare for the next day. Virginia put her wounded ashore and underwent temporary repairs. Captain Buchanan was among the wounded, so command on the second day fell to his executive officer, Lieutenant Catesby ap Roger Jones. Jones proved to be no less aggressive than the man he replaced. While Virginia was being prepared for renewal of the battle, and while Congress was still ablaze, Monitor, commanded by Lieutenant John L. Worden, arrived in Hampton Roads. The Union ironclad had been rushed to Hampton Roads in hopes of protecting the Union fleet and preventing Virginia from threatening Union cities. Captain Worden was informed that his primary task was to protect Minnesota, so Monitor took up a position near the grounded Minnesota and waited.[51]

The next morning, at dawn on March 9, 1862, Virginia left her anchorage at Sewell's Point and moved to attack Minnesota, still aground. She was followed by the three ships of the James River Squadron.[52] They found their course blocked, however, by the newly arrived Monitor. At first, Jones believed the strange craft to be a boiler being towed from the Minnesota, not realizing the nature of his opponent. Soon, however, it was apparent that he had no choice but to fight her.[53] The first shot of the engagement, was fired at Monitor by Virginia. The shot flew past Monitor and struck Minnesota, which answered with a broadside.

After fighting for hours, mostly at close range, neither could overcome the other. The armor of both ships proved adequate. In part, this was because each was handicapped in her offensive capabilities. Buchanan, in Virginia, had not expected to fight another armored vessel, so his guns were supplied only with shell rather than armor-piercing shot.[54] Monitor's guns were used with the standard service charge of only 15 lb (6.8 kg) of powder, which did not give the projectile sufficient momentum to penetrate her opponent's armor. Tests conducted after the battle showed that the Dahlgren guns could be operated safely and efficiently with charges of as much as 30 lb (14 kg).[55]

The battle finally ceased when a chance shell from Virginia struck the pilot house of Monitor and exploded, driving fragments through the viewing slits into Worden's eyes and temporarily blinding him. As no one else could see to conn the ship, Monitor was forced to draw off. The executive officer, Lieutenant Samuel Dana Greene, took over, and Monitor returned to the fight. In the period of command confusion, however, the crew of Virginia believed that their opponent had withdrawn. Although Minnesota was still aground, the falling tide meant that she was out of reach. Furthermore, Virginia had suffered enough damage to require extensive repair. Convinced that his ship had won the day, Jones ordered her back to Norfolk. At about this time, Monitor returned, only to discover her opponent apparently giving up the fight. Convinced that Virginia was quitting, with orders only to protect Minnesota and not to risk his ship unnecessarily, Greene did not pursue. Thus, each side misinterpreted the moves of the other, and as a result each claimed victory.[56]

File:Ironclads battle 7.jpg

First Battle of Iron Ships of War by Henry Bill. Shown are the USS Monitor, CSS Virginia, USS Cumberland, CSS Jamestown, USS Congress, and USS Minnesota

Confederate Secretary of the Navy Stephen Mallory wrote to Confederate President Davis of the action:[57]

The conduct of the Officers and men of the squadron … reflects unfading honor upon themselves and upon the Navy. The report will be read with deep interest, and its details will not fail to rouse the ardor and nerve the arms of our gallant seamen. It will be remembered that the Virginia was a novelty in naval architecture, wholly unlike any ship that ever floated; that her heaviest guns were equal novelties in ordnance; that her motive power and obedience to her helm were untried, and her officers and crew strangers, comparatively, to the ship and to each other; and yet, under all these disadvantages, the dashing courage and consummate professional ability of Flag Officer Buchanan and his associates achieved the most remarkable victory which naval annals record.

In Washington, belief that Monitor had vanquished Virginia was so strong that Worden and his men were awarded the Thanks of Congress:[58]

Resolved . . . That the thanks of Congress and the American people are due and are hereby tendered to Lieutenant J. L. Worden, of the United States Navy, and to the officers and men of the ironclad gunboat Monitor, under his command, for the skill and gallantry exhibited by them in the remarkable battle between the Monitor and the rebel ironclad steamer Merrimack.

Spring 1862 — a standoff at Hampton Roads[]

Virginia remained in drydock for almost a month, getting repairs for battle damage as well as minor modifications to improve her performance. On April 4, she was able to leave drydock. Buchanan, still recovering from his wound, had hoped that Catesby Jones would be picked to succeed him, and most observers believed that Jones's performance during the battle was outstanding. The seniority system for promotion in the Navy scuttled his chances, however, and the post went to the 67-year old Commodore Josiah Tattnall.[59] Monitor, not severely damaged, remained on duty. Like his antagonist Jones, Greene was deemed too young to remain as captain; the day after the battle, he was replaced with Lieutenant Thomas O. Selfridge. Two days later, Selfridge was in turn relieved by Lieutenant William Nicholson Jeffers.[60]

Each side considered how best to eliminate the threat posed by its opponent, and after Virginia returned each side tried to goad the other into attacking under unfavorable circumstances. Both captains declined the opportunity to fight in water not of their own choosing; Jeffers in particular was under positive orders not to risk his ship.[61] Consequently, each vessel spent the next month in what amounted to posturing. Not only did the two ships not fight each other, neither ship ever fought again after March 9.

Destruction of the combatants[]

File:Destruction of Merrimac, May 11, 1862.png

Destruction of the rebel monster Merrimac off Craney Island, May 11, 1862, by Currier and Ives

The end came first for Virginia. Because the blockade was unbroken, Norfolk was of little strategic use to the Confederacy, and preliminary plans were laid to move the ship up the James River to the vicinity of Richmond. Before adequate preparations could be made, the Confederate Army under Major General Benjamin Huger abandoned the city on May 9, without consulting anyone from the Navy. Virginia's draft was too great to permit her to pass up the river, which had a depth of only 18 ft (5.5 m), and that only under favorable circumstances. She was trapped and could only be captured or sunk by the Union Navy. Rather than allow either, Tatnall decided to destroy his own ship. He had her towed down to Craney Island, where the crew were taken ashore, and then she was set afire. She burned through the rest of the day and most of the following night; shortly before dawn, the flames reached her magazine, and she blew up.[62]

File:USS Monitor after Battle of Hampton Roads.png

Stereograph of Monitor after the battle, July 1862

Monitor likewise did not survive the year. She was ordered to Beaufort, North Carolina, on Christmas Day, to take part in the blockade there. While she was being towed down the coast (under command of her fourth captain, Commander John P. Bankhead), the wind increased and with it the waves; with no high sides, the Monitor took on water. Soon the water in the hold gained on the pumps, and then put out the fires in her engines. The order was given to abandon ship; most men were rescued by USS Rhode Island, but 16 went down with her when she sank in the early hours of December 31, 1862.[63]

Who won?[]

The victory claims that were made by each side in the immediate aftermath of the Battle of Hampton Roads, based as both were on misinterpretations of the opponent's behavior, have been dismissed by present-day historians. They agree that the result of the Monitor-Merrimack encounter was victory for neither. As the combat between ironclads was the primary significance of the battle, the general verdict is that the overall result was a draw.[64] All would acknowledge that the Southern fleet inflicted far more damage than it received, which would ordinarily imply that they had gained a tactical victory. Compared to other Civil War battles, the loss of men and ships for the Union Navy would be considered a clear defeat. On the other hand, the blockade was not seriously threatened, so the entire battle can be regarded as an assault that ultimately failed.[65]

Evaluation of the strategic results is likewise disputed. The blockade was maintained, even strengthened, and Virginia was bottled up in Hampton Roads. Because a decisive Confederate weapon was negated, some have concluded that the Union could claim a strategic victory.[66] Confederate advocates can counter, however, by arguing that Virginia had a military significance larger than the blockade, which was only a small part of the war in Tidewater Virginia. Her mere presence was sufficient to close the James River to Federal incursions. She also imposed other constraints on the Peninsula Campaign then being mounted by the Union Army under General George B. McClellan, who worried that she could interfere with his positions on the York River. Although his fears were baseless, they continued to affect the movements of his army until Virginia was destroyed.[67]

Impact upon naval warfare[]

Both days of the battle attracted attention from almost all the world's navies. USS Monitor became the prototype for the monitor warship type.[68] Many more were built, including river monitors, and they played key roles in Civil War battles on the Mississippi and James rivers. The US immediately started the construction of ten more monitors based on Ericsson's original larger plan, known as the Passaic-class monitors. However, while the design proved exceptionally well-suited for river combat, the low profile and heavy turret caused poor seaworthiness in rough waters. Russia, fearing that the American Civil War would spill into Russian Alaska, launched ten sister ships, as soon as Ericsson's plans reached St. Petersburg. What followed has been described as "Monitor mania".[69] The revolving turret later inspired similar designs for future warships, which eventually became the modern battleship.

The vulnerability of wooden hulls to armored ships was noted particularly in Britain and France, where the wisdom of the planned conversion of the battle fleet to armor was given a powerful demonstration.[70] Another feature that was emulated was not so successful. Impressed by the ease with which the Virginia had sunk the Cumberland, naval architects began to incorporate rams into their hull designs. The first purpose-built ram in the modern era was the French armored ram Taureau (1863), whose guns were said to have "the sole function of preparing the way for the ram."[71] The inclusion of rams in warship hull design persisted almost to the outbreak of World War I, despite improvements in naval gunnery that quickly made close action between warships almost suicidal, if not impossible.[72]

Commemorating the battle: Virginia[]

The name of the warship that served the Confederacy in the Battle of Hampton Roads has been a continuing source of confusion and some contention. She was originally a screw frigate in the United States Navy carrying the name USS Merrimack. All parties continued to use the name after her capture by secessionists while she was being rebuilt as an ironclad.[73] When her conversion was almost complete, her name was officially changed to Virginia.[74] Despite the official name change, Union accounts persisted in calling the Merrimack by her original name, while Confederate sources used either Virginia or Merrimac(k).[75] The alliteration of Monitor and Merrimack has persuaded most popular accounts to adopt the familiar name, even when it is acknowledged to be technically incorrect.

A CSS Merrimac[76] did actually exist. She was a paddle wheel steamer named for the victor (as most Southerners saw it) at Hampton Roads. She was used for running the blockade until she was captured and taken into Federal service, still named Merrimac. Her name was a spelling variant of the river, namesake of USS Merrimack. Both spellings are still in use around the Hampton Roads area.

A small community in Montgomery County near the location where the iron for the Confederate ironclad was forged is now known as Merrimac. Some of the iron mined there and used in the plating on the Confederate ironclad is displayed at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth. The anchor of the Virginia sits on the lawn in front of the Museum of the Confederacy[2] in Richmond.

Commemorating the battle: Monitor[]

After resting undetected on the ocean floor for 111 years, the wreck of Monitor was located by a team of scientists in 1973. The remains of the ship were found upside down 16 mi (26 km) off Cape Hatteras, on a relatively flat, sandy bottom at a depth of about 240 ft (73 m). In 1987, the site was declared a National Marine Sanctuary, the first shipwreck to receive this distinction.[77]

Because of Monitor's advanced state of deterioration, timely recovery of remaining significant artifacts and ship components became critical. Numerous fragile artifacts, including the innovative turret and its two Dahlgren guns, an anchor, steam engine, and propeller, have been recovered. They were transported back to Hampton Roads to the Mariners' Museum in Newport News, Virginia, where they were treated in special tanks to stabilize the metal. The new USS Monitor Center at the Mariners' Museum officially opened on March 9, 2007, and a full-scale replica of USS Monitor, the original recovered turret, and artifacts and related items are now on display. Some artifacts from CSS Virginia are also on display.[78]


Abbreviations used in these notes:

ORA (Official records, armies): War of the Rebellion: a compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate Armies.
ORN (Official records, navies): Official records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion.
  1. Musicant 1995 pp. 134–178; Anderson 1962 pp. 71–77; Tucker 2006 p. 151.
  2. Anderson 1962 pp. 71–75.
  3. Anderson 1962 pp. 75–77.
  4. Tucker 2006 p. 175. Luraghi 1996 p. 148.
  5. Civil War naval chronology, pp. I-9, I-12.
  6. Cumberland and Merrimack, the latter renamed CSS Virginia, would meet again on 8 March 1862.
  7. Musicant 1995 pp. 26–40.
  8. Luraghi 1996 pp. 34–35, 42.
  9. ORA I, v. 2, pp. 782–783.
  10. Fort Monroe was one of three major forts in seceded states that were still held by the Union; the others were Fort Zachary Taylor and Fort Pickens, both in Florida.
  11. The fort was named Fort Calhoun when construction was started before the outbreak of the war. It was completed only after the war started, and was then renamed for the general who directed the defense of the region. Browning, From Cape Charles to Cape Fear, p. 41.
  12. Joseph B. Carr, "Operations of 1861 about Fort Monroe," Battles and leaders, v. 2, pp.144–152.
  13. Wise 1988 p. 25.
  14. Davis 1975 pp. 69, 71.
  15. Gibbon 1983 p. 13.
  16. Gibbon 1983 pp. 28–31.
  17. Contemplation of armor was not confined to Europe. The United States had spent a lot of money supporting the development of the Stevens Battery, with nothing to show for it. (Davis, Duel between the first two ironclads, p. 5.) Also, a river boatman at New Orleans, John A. Stevenson, early in the war had converted a tugboat into an armored vessel. As CSS Manassas, she was actually the first armored vessel to go into combat in the war. (Still, Iron afloat, pp. 46–51.)
  18. Anderson 1962 p. 67.
  19. Still 1985 p. 10.
  20. After the war, Brooke and Porter engaged in an unseemly fight for recognition as the originator of the Virginia design. In the controversy, the contributions of the engineer Williamson have often been overlooked. Still 1985 pp. 11–13. Davis 1975 p. 141.
  21. This is a more telling comment on the handicaps faced by the South than it may appear. The reason that Merrimack was in the Gosport yard was to repair her notably balky engines.
  22. Still 1985 p. 15.
  23. Still 1985 p. 22.
  24. Anderson 1962 pp. 36, 71.
  25. Still 1985 pp. 19–23.
  26. Smith's son, Joseph Smith, Jr., who was also a naval officer, would be killed at Hampton Roads.
  27. Anderson 1962 pp. 67–68.
  28. The other two ships were the rather conventional New Ironsides and the experimental Galena. Anderson 1962 p. 68.
  29. Davis 1975 p. 51.
  30. Davis 1975 pp. 17–19.
  31. Still, Iron afloat, p. 23.
  32. Still, Iron afloat, p. 24.
  33. Davis, Duel of the first ironclads, p. 72
  34. Browning, From Cape Charles to Cape Fear, pp. 42, 45.
  35. Davis, Duel between the first ironclads, p. 72. Browning, From Cape Charles to Cape Fear, p. 45, does not name Marston at all.
  36. Still, Iron afloat, p. 26.
  37. Davis, Duel between the first ironclads, p. 97. ORN I, v. 7, p. 44.
  38. Minnesota and Merrimack, upon whose hull Virginia was built, were sisters.
  39. Davis,Duel between the first ironclads, p. 98.
  40. Davis, Duel between the first ironclads, pp. 86–87.
  41. ORN I, v. 7, p. 44.
  42. Davis, Duel between the first ironclads, p. 109
  43. Davis, Duel between the first ironclads, pp. 90–92.
  44. Nelson, Reign of iron: the story of the first battling ironclads, the Monitor and the Merrimack, p. 229-230
  45. Smith, captain of Congress, had been killed by a shot that blew off his head, so the decision to surrender was made by her executive officer, Austin Pendergrast. See Davis, Duel between the first ironclads, p. 100.
  46. Davis, Duel between the first ironclads, pp. 98–104.
  47. Davis, Duel between the first ironclads, p. 109.
  48. Davis, Duel between the first ironclads, pp. 103, 105.
  49. Davis, Duel between the first ironclads, p. 98.
  50. Still, Iron afloat, p. 32.
  51. ORN I, v. 7, p. 25.
  52. Still, Iron afloat, p. 33.
  53. Davis, Duel between the first ironclads, p. 121.
  54. Musicant, Divided waters, p. 171.
  55. Schneller, "A state of war is a most unfavorable period for experiments," retrieved 24 August 2009.[1]
  56. Davis, Duel between the first ironclads, pp. 121–134.
  57. ORN I, v. 7, p. 43.
  58. ORN I, v. 7, p. 39.
  59. Davis, Duel between the first ironclads, p. 142.
  60. Davis, Duel between the first ironclads, p. 147.
  61. Anderson, By sea and by river, p. 77.
  62. Luraghi, A history of the Confederate Navy, pp. 164–167.
  63. Davis, Duel between the first ironclads, pp. 160–164.
  64. Simson, Naval strategies of the Civil War, p. 86.
  65. Browning, From Cape Charles to Cape Fear, p. 45. Tucker, Blue and gray navies, p. 175.
  66. Musicant, Divided waters, p. 176.
  67. Browning, From Cape Charles to Cape Fear, pp. 45–52. Simson, Naval strategies of the Civil War, p. 87.
  68. She thus became one of two ships whose names were applied to entire classes of their successors. The other was HMS Dreadnought.
  69. G. Smirnov, V. Smirnov (1984). "БРОНЯ, БАШНИ И ТАРА" (in Template:Ru icon). Моделист-Конструктор (Moscow) (1): 31–32. Retrieved 2009-02-10. 
  70. Luraghi, History of the Confederate Navy, p. 148.
  71. Ropp, Theodore, and Stephen S. Roberts. The Development of a Modern Navy: French Naval Policy, 1871-1904. Naval Institute Press, 1987; p. 13.
  72. Rose, Lisle Abbott, Power at sea: the age of navalism, 1890–1918 (vol. 1 of a three-volume set). Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2007. ISBN 0826216838; p. 45.
  73. USS Merrimack DANFS at
  74. CSS Virginia DANFS record of Confederate ships at
  75. For examples of each: Jones, A Rebel war clerk's diary, v. 1, p. 115; Wood, "The first fight of ironclads," Battles and leaders, v. 1, p. 692.
  76. USS Merrimac DANFS at
  77. USS Monitor Center
  78. Mariner's Museum


  • Template:Vcite book
  • Template:Vcite book
  • Template:Vcite book
  • Template:Vcite book
  • Template:Vcite book
  • Template:Vcite book (translation by Paolo E. Coletta of Marina del Sud: storia della marina confederate nella Guerra Civile Americana, 1861-1865. Rizzoli, 1993.)
  • Template:Vcite book
  • Template:Vcite book
  • Template:Vcite book
  • Template:Vcite book
  • Template:Vcite book
  • Template:Vcite book
  • Template:Vcite book
  • Template:Vcite book
  • This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain.

External links[]

ca:Batalla de Hampton Roads da:Slaget ved Hampton Roads de:Schlacht von Hampton Roads es:Batalla de Hampton Roads fr:Combat de Hampton Roads ko:모니터와 메리맥 해전 it:Battaglia di Hampton Roads he:קרב המפטון רודס nl:Slag bij Hampton Roads ja:ハンプトン・ローズ海戦 pl:Bitwa w zatoce Hampton Roads pt:Batalha de Hampton Roads fi:Hampton Roadsin taistelu sv:Slaget vid Hampton Roads vi:Trận Hampton Roads zh:漢普頓錨地海戰