From: Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Volume III, 1968;

Navy Department, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Naval History 

Division, Washington, DC.



Page 749



Appendix II



MONITORS



In its own way, the 19th century was a time of change as remarkable and 

far reaching in its effect as that of today. This change not only 

entered into power at sea to make it even more potent than in its great 

past, but much of the change originated in or gained its impulse from 

the Navy.



Each era has produced several types of warships that of necessity range 

from small, fast ships to the heaviest and most powerful. The Ship-of-

the-Line, short for Ship-of-the-Battleline, was the "Battleship" of the 

age of sail-the mightiest of warships that could give the most 

punishment and take the most. It was the citadel of seapower.



Steam propulsion, large rifled cannon and other developments brought a 

revolution. This slowly gathered headway up to the Civil War. Then 

almost overnight the world was startled into awareness of a new era by 

the dramatic events in Hampton Roads that culminated in the battle 

between MONITOR and VIRGINIA (MERRIMACK), 9 March 1862.



On that day the Ship-of-the-Line passed into history as the first 

strength of navies. No one type was on hand to replace it.



The net generation would witness much experimentation and wide diversity 

of thought concerning the new champion of the seas. Interestingly, as it 

evolved, both MONITOR and VIRGINIA provided key elements. They were 

grandparents of the mighty battleship that steamed majestically upon the 

stage of history as the 20th century opened.



Because of the success of Monitor, the United States built a large 

number of this heavily armored, turreted, low freeboard type-which 

gained the generic title "monitors". The appendix that follows is the 

first thorough and deeply researched study covering all of them. It is 

the result of deep interest and assiduous application by Lt. Richard H. 

Webber, USNR-R.



Lieutenant Webber began this study while serving in the Naval History 

Division on a full tour of duty. When he finished his time in uniform 

and returned to the rough seas of civil life, he continued to work on 

this appendix even though swamped by law studies. He has completed this 

gem and shaped it for this volume during short tours of Naval Reserve 

training duty and civilian assignment with the Division.



I have read the manuscript in its various stages of development. Each 

time I have been impressed that what could have been simply a prosaic, 

statistical study has instead, while maintaining accuracy, become one 

filled with vivid interest. It is an ornament to our work and to 

Lieutenant Webber as a developing historian.



After the Civil War the Nation let its Navy decline beyond the danger 

point as it has imprudently after most wars. Yet even in these doldrum 

days wise leaders in the Navy achieved progress. This fine study brings 

out some of it.



As he peruses it, the reader will see some of the diversity of concept 

as naval thinkers sought to achieve the champion of the sea that would 

best serve the United States as she sped toward world leadership. 

Steadily there is growth toward a combination of MONITOR and VIRGINIA. 

As a few monitors were modernized or new ones laid clown beginning in 

the 1870's, these monitors added freeboard and superstructure to develop 

toward the true ship type of hull represented by VIRGINIA. With their 

centerline turrets and usually single caliber battery they were the true 

forerunners of the DREADNOUGHT.



This evolution and many other changes in the "new Navy" of the 1880's-

90's resulted in the battleship which served our Nation well in its 

brief span of predominance. Today we live in another period of 

evolutionary change. It races at jet speed but in many respects is like 

that of the century ago. Of four battleships still in reserve, New 

Jersey recently recommissioned. Happily, as



Page 750



another appendix covers, four States have preserved their namesakes as 

stirring mementos of the courage, skill and devotion of the men who 

manned them.



This handful of surviving champions of another era sees three types of 

warships now contesting for the honor of supremacy-the aircraft carrier, 

the heavy guided-missile ship, the Polaris submarine. Will they evolve 

into a single type Or with the vast expansion of capabilities air and 

underwater operations have brought navies in this century, will we have 

co-champions, each serving in its medium  This and many other 

interesting thoughts will come from Lieutenant Webber's fine study that 

follows. E.M.E.



The original MONITOR, designed by John Ericsson and built under his 

supervision, was only the first of her type to serve in the U.S. Navy. 

Between 4 October 1861, the date that the contract for MONITOR was 

signed, and 1937, the year in which CHEYENNE (ex-WYOMING) was stricken 

from the Navy List, 71 monitors were ordered for the Navy, of which 

about 50 actually saw commissioned service. Many ships completed after 

the close of the Civil War in 1865-66 ran their trials and were 

immediately laid up at various Navy yards, never to be commissioned. For 

example, of the 20 ships of the CASCO class only eight were 

commissioned, and of these, three were converted to torpedo boats before 

completion.



Between 1861 and 1865 the U.S. Navy made great strides in the design of 

turreted ironclads. The MONITOR was a relatively small, single-turreted 

vessel mounting two XI-inch Dahlgren smooth bores as her main armament. 

Her size, low power and speed, and certain design defects limited her to 

service on protected waters such as harbors and rivers. On her second 

excursion into the North Atlantic, in December 1862, she foundered off 

Cape Hatteras. The four ships of the KALAMAZOO class laid down in 1863-

64, on the other hand, were to have been true ocean-going "battleships." 

The largest ships ordered by the Navy during the Civil War except for 

the casemated ironclad DUNDERBERG, their designed displacement being 

about 5,700 tons, their armament of four XV-inch Dahlgren smoothbores, 

would have presented a formidable challenge to any of the European 

ironclads built during the same period. The experiences gained from the 

combat operations of the earlier monitors were incorporated into the 

KALAMAZOOs in the form of an improved ventilation system heavier armor, 

higher speed, and improved habit ability. Perhaps unfortunately for the 

growth and development of the Navy during the latter third of the 19th 

century, appropriations for the completion of this class were not 

forthcoming and construction was suspended to all intents and purpose in 

November 1865, when none of the ships had even been launched. Thus the 

Navy would not have an armored ship capable of matching her European 

counterparts until 1895 when MAINE and TEXAS commissioned.



Monitors were not only built for coastal service Nine, specifically 

designed for use on the Mississippi River and its tributaries, were laid 

down in the Midwest during the Civil War. Of these, six NEOSHO and 

OSAGE, and the four ships of the MILWAUKEE class, were built to the 

designs of James B. Eads under his personal supervision. The four



Page 751-53



(Reproduced documents)



Page 754



MILWAUKEEs, built at the Union Iron Works outside St. Louis, each 

mounted a turret designed by Eads, as opposed to the Ericsson turrets of 

all other Civil War monitors. The Eads turret, handled by steam 

machinery, was probably the most sophisticated of the period. Other 

monitors, particularly certain of the CASCO class, were built in the 

Midwest but were not designed specifically for river warfare.



After the Civil War, the ironclad fleet was allowed to deteriorate for 

want of sufficient funds to operate or adequately maintain the ships. In 

1874-75, Secretary of the Navy Robes began to rebuild selected monitors 

under the guise of repairs. In order to finance this effort, many of the 

old monitors were sold and it was during this period that the entire 

CASCO class was disposed of. The five monitors upon which reconstruction 

efforts were concentrated were the four ships of the MIANTONOMOH class 

and PURITAN. Although MIANTONOMOH recommissioned briefly during 18883, 

she was not complete, and none of the ships actually completed 

modernization until 1891 when MIANTONOMOH was commissioned; modernized, 

these monitors were new steel ship with lines characteristics of the 

monitors ordered during the last two decades of the 19th century.



In 1889 MONTEREY was laid down, to be followed in 1899 by the four 

monitors of the ARKANSAS class. However, conditions which had made the 

monitors so formidable during the Civil War had changed. Captain W. L. 

Rodgers, USN, in paper entitled "The Influence of National Policies on 

Ships' Design," said:



"The development was entirely suited to peculiar conditions, the outcome 

of a pre-existing political situation . . . The country at large and 

indeed the Navy . . . concluded that the ships which had given 

satisfaction once, necessarily would do so again . . . That very summer 

of the War (1898) Congress authorized the last monitors, obsolete before 

they were commenced."



Page 755



Alexander C. Brown wrote probably the most trenchant epitaph for 

American monitors in his "MONITOR-Class Warships" where he noted:



"Monitors found their final employment as submarine tenders in World War 

I for which their low freeboard hulls made them well-suited. It is 

significant to note, however, that in this humble role they were 

ministering to the needs of that type of craft which had logically 

replaced them for as originally envisaged, monitors were designed to 

combine heavy striking power with concealment and the presentation of a 

negligible target area . . ."



The scope of this study is a relatively narrow one, concentrating as it 

does upon monitors of the U.S. Navy. It is further limited by the 

criteria used to determine what ships were monitors. The principal 

criteria was that a ship so designated mount one or more revolving 

turrets. This excluded such a ship as KEOKUK, a casemated iron-



Page 756



clad of the Civil War, and KATAHDIN, an ironclad ram of the "new Navy." 

Another criteria was that the ship have low freeboard and a low length 

to beam ratio. The latter excluded early American battleships such as 

Oregon which could be argued to meet other criteria. ROANOKE, a razeed 

steam frigate converted to a turreted ironclad during the Civil War, has 

been grouped with the monitors although, technically speaking, her finer 

lines should disqualify her. The reason for her inclusion is that 

ROANOKE was an early outgrowth of the "monitor" concept and seems to fit 

best in this group.



Design statistics have been supplied in most cases and, wherever 

possible, actual builder's dimensions have been included. The length is 

length overall as opposed to length between perpendiculars and the beam 

is extreme beam vice molded beam. Armament is that which the ship 

mounted when commissioned or, in cases of ships not completed, the 

designed armament. In this latter case, the dimensions are taken from 

the last series of plans found. The KALAMAZOO class, for example, went 

through several revisions of design in which their dimensions were 

changed. Service speed has been taken from ships' logs or reports of 

trials whereas designed speed was drawn from contract specifications, 

where found, or other sources reporting on the projected capabilities of 

a particular ship or class of ships. Service speed has been defined, for 

purposes of this study, as maximum sustained speed in service, although, 

where available, trial speed has been substituted.



This study, begun as a hobby, could not have been completed but for the 

kindness of Rear Admiral Ernest M. Eller, USN (Ret), and Captain F. Kent 

Loomis, USN (Ret), who made it possible for me to complete the research 

and writing during a tour of active duty and whose able comments and 

advice were invaluable. Credit must also be given to Lt. John C. 

Roberts, USNR, who collaborated with me on much of the research relative 

to James B. Eads and warship construction on the Mississippi River and 

its tributaries. Dr. William J. Morgan, Head of the Historical Research 

Section of the Naval History Division, Commander Clayton F. Johnson, 

USN, Head of the Ship's History Section of the Naval History Division, 

and Mr. James L. Mooney, editor of the Dictionary of American Naval 

Fighting Ships, were always willing to assist me with helpful comments 

and suggestions during the writing phase in particular. Other members of 

the Naval History Division who were most generous in their assistance 

were, Mr. Frederick S. Hicks, Miss Jo Ann Eluse, Mr. Frederick S. Meigs, 

and Mr. Richard A. Von Doenhoff. Thanks are also due to the numerous 

people at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, the National Archives, 

the Library of Congress, and many other museums and historical societies 

who so graciously assisted me in the preparation of this study.