Ten Passaic-class Monitors That Were Built During the American Civil War
1) USS Passaic gave its Name to a Class of Ericsson Batteries.
Sir Thomas Brassey, on page 131 of the first volume of The British Navy, claims that CSS Passaic and other members of its class were similar to USS Monitor but had larger dimensions. It is reported, on page 246 of the thirty-second volume of Cases Decided in the Court of Claims, that the Battle of Hampton Roads had persuaded the Navy Department of the United States to award John Ericsson a contract for an additional six ironclads. On the 9th of March, 1862, CSS Merrimac is claimed to have fought USS Monitor and the performance of the Ericsson battery is reported to have convinced the Navy Department to order more fighting vessels that were built to a similar design. USS Passaic, after which the new class of ironclad would be named, is claimed to have been included in the original order of six fighting vessels. William Conant Church, on page 8 of the second volume of The Life of John Ericsson, reports that the Passaic-class monitors were 200-feet in length and 46-feet in beam. Eight months, on page 37, are claimed to have passed between the time in which the first contracts were awarded for the construction of the latest generation of monitors and the date on which the first members of the class were tested in combat. It is reported, on page 69, that USS Passaic engaged the batteries of the Confederate States Army on twenty-eight occasions. Captain George Eugene Belknap, whose article about USS New Ironsides appears in the first volume of The United Service, describes the experiences of USS Passaic during its involvement in the expeditions along the Great Ogeechee River. A ten-inch mortar-shell, on page 66, is reported to have crushed the deck of the ironclad. It is implied that the projectile, prior to firing, had been filled with sand but it is possible that sand had entered the indentation in the deck of the Ericsson battery. Commander Percival Drayton, according to Belknap, claimed that the deck would have been perforated if the missile had missed the beam.
2) USS Patapsco was Sunk by a Torpedo at Charleston Harbor.
John Worth Carnahan, on page 210 of Manual of the Civil War and Key to the Grand Army of the Republic and Kindred Societies, lists the dates on which USS Patapsco engaged the batteries of Fort McAllister. It is reported that Fort McAllister, which is claimed to have been established on the banks of the Great Ogeechee River, was situated at Genesis Point. On the 1st of February, 1863, four Passaic-class monitors are reported to have exchanged fire with the batteries of Fort McAllister. USS Montauk, USS Patapsco, USS Nahant and USS Passaic are claimed to have participated in the second bombardment of the fort that had been established at Genesis Point. On the 3rd of March, 1863, USS Patapsco is reported to have been involved in the third engagement between the United States Navy and Fort McAllister. Admiral David Dixon Porter, on page 376 of The Naval History of the Civil War, states that USS Patapsco participated in the bombardment of Fort Sumter. Rear-admiral Daniel Ammen, on page 369 of The Old Navy and the New, claims that he was appointed to the command of USS Patapsco while the Ericsson battery was situated at Wilmington. It should be noted that Ammen was referring to Wilmington, which is located in the State of Delaware, rather than the Wilmington that was situated in the State of North Carolina. Rear-admiral John Adolphus Dahlgren, in a letter to Gideon Welles that is included in the sixteenth volume of the first series of Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion, informs the Navy Department of the United States of America that USS Patapsco had struck a torpedo. Information about the loss of the Ericsson battery can be found on pages 171, 172, 173, 174 and 175 while other reports are available within the compilation of naval documents. On the 16th of January, 1865, USS Patapsco is claimed to have struck the infernal machine while it was blockading Charleston Harbour and is reported to have sunk in less than a minute.
3) USS Nahant Drew the Fire of CSS Atlanta during the naval engagement at Wassaw Inlet.
William Conant Church, on page 19 of the second volume of The Life of John Ericsson, implies that the ten monitors of the Passaic-class were built in in two installments. USS Nahant, after the keels of the original six Passaic-class monitors had been laid, is identified as one of the four remaining members of its class to enter production. It is claimed that USS Nahant, USS Nantucket, USS Weehawken and USS Comanche were based on the model of USS Passaic while John Ericsson is reported to have provided the shipyards with the relevant plans. Harrison Loring, on page 153 of the first volume of the second series of Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion, are claimed to have received the contract to construct USS Nahant for the United States Navy. It is reported that Harrison Loring built USS Nahant in South Boston and it appears that the dimensions of the ironclad, which included a length of 159-feet, differed from those of the other members of its class. Admiral David Dixon Porter, who dedicates the thirty-third chapter of The Naval History of the Civil War to the activities of the South Atlantic Blockading Squadron that occurred at the beginning of 1863, claims that USS Nahant bombarded Fort McAllister and exchanged fire with Fort Sumter. Commander John Downes, during these operations, is reported to have commanded the ironclad. It is claimed, on page 372, that Rear-admiral Samuel Francis Du Pont had been compelled to test the defensive and offensive capabilities of the Passaic-class monitors against Fort McAllister. On the 3rd of March, 1863, USS Nahant is reported to have exchanged fire with the batteries of Fort McAllister for a duration of eight hours. CSS Atlanta, on page 384, is claimed to have engaged USS Nahant and USS Weehawken at Warsaw Inlet. On the 17th of June, 1863, USS Nahant is reported to have participated in the capture of CSS Atlanta while USS Weehawken is claimed to have gained the credit for the defeat of the insurgent ironclad.
4) USS Montauk Destroyed CSS Nashville within the Vicinity of Fort McAllister.
Samuel T. Browne, whose First Cruise of the Montauk constitutes the first document of the second series of Personal Narratives of Events in the War of the Rebellion, provides a personal account of life onboard the fourth monitor of the Passaic-class to be completed. USS Montauk, on page 6, is reported to have been the first of the Ericsson batteries to descend the Atlantic coast as far as the State of Georgia. It is claimed that USS Nahant was the first ironclad to engage a fort that was protected by earthworks as well as the first fighting vessel, in the American Civil War, to be struck by a torpedo. Professor James Russell Soley, on page 28 of the fourth volume of Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, claims that Rear-admiral Samuel Francis Du Pont sought to test the defensive and offensive capabilities of the latest generation of Ericsson batteries. Commander John Lorimer Worden, who is identified as the senior officer onboard USS Montauk, is reported to have been ordered to ascend the Great Ogeechee River. On the 27th of January, 1863, USS Montauk is claimed to have engaged the batteries of Fort McAllister for the first time. It is claimed that the Ericsson battery, in an engagement that lasted for a duration of four hours, withdrew after it had exhausted its supply of ammunition. Fort McAllister, on page 29, is reported to have received no serious injury during the engagement of the 27th of January while its batteries are claimed to have struck USS Montauk on forty-seven occasions. It is claimed, however, that the ironclad received no damage during the exchange of fire. On the 28th of February, 1863, the Ericsson battery is reported to have destroyed CSS Nashville after the insurgent cruiser had run aground. CSS Montauk, after CSS Nashville had exploded, is reported to have descended the Great Ogeechee River. It is claimed that the Ericsson battery struck a torpedo as the descended the watercourse but, after the ironclad ran aground, is reported to have saved by the ingenuity of Worden.
5) USS Sangamon was Present when USS Commodore Barney Struck at Torpedo on the James River.
Captain Guert Gansevoort, on page 146 as well as page 147 of the ninth volume of the first series of Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion, informs Gideon Welles that USS Sangamon had reconnoitered the James River with three unprotected consorts. On the 8th of August, 1863, Gansevoort claims that the United States Army cooperated with the United States Navy during the reconnaissance mission. USS Sangamon, which is reported to have been under the captaincy of Commander Somerville Richardson, is claimed to have been towed by USS Commodore Barney and USS Cohasset while USS John Farron is identified as the fourth member of the expeditionary force. Gansevoort is named as the commander of the naval vessels while Major-general John Gray Foster, who is reported to have travelled onboard USS John Farron, is identified as the leader of the riverine expedition. It is claimed that the expeditionary force departed from Newport News on the 4th of August, 1863, while USS Commodore Barney is reported to have struck a torpedo while USS Sangamon was anchored at Dutch Gap. On the 5th of August, 1863, USS Commodore Barney and USS Sangamon are claimed to have been ambushed by a detachment of the Confederate States Army and the Ericsson battery is reported to have towed the injured gunboat back to Newport News. USS Sangamon, during a second engagement, is claimed to have been struck by a projectile on the port side of the bow. Commodore Ralph Chandler, on page 28 of the twenty-ninth volume of Harper's Weekly, is reported to have commanded USS Sangamon during the final year of the War of the Rebellion. Admiral David Dixon Porter is claimed to have ordered Chandler, at the time in which he held the rank of Lieutenant-commander, to remove the torpedoes from the James River. USS Sangamon, in the closing stages of the insurrection, is reported to have cleared the navigable channel that led to Richmond without incident.
6) USS Weehawken Captured CSS Atlanta on the 17th of June.
Admiral Daniel Ammen, on page 371 of The Old Navy and the New, claims that USS Weehawken was fitted with a torpedo-catcher during the attack on Fort Sumter. Torpedo-catchers, to paraphrase Ammen, were attached to the bows of ships in the same manner that boot-jacks are affixed to shoes. USS Weehawken, on page 372, is claimed to have led the first column of ironclads that bombarded Fort Sumter on the 7th of April. USS Passaic, USS Montauk and USS Patapsco are reported to have followed USS Weehawken as it proceeded towards the seacoast fort. Admiral David Dixon Porter, on page 384 of The Naval History of the Civil War, claims that USS Weehawken and USS Nahant blockaded CSS Atlanta at the mouth of the Wilmington River. On the morning of the 17th of June, 1863, the Passaic-class monitors are reported to have engaged CSS Atlanta in combat. USS Weehawken, having slipped its cable, is claimed to have headed for the north-east corner of Warsaw Island while USS Nahant is reported to have drawn the fire of their mutual adversary. Captain John Rodgers is identified as the commander of USS Weehawken, Commander John Downes is named as the commander of USS Nahant while CSS Atlanta is reported to have been commanded by Commander William A. Webb. USS Weehawken, at a quarter-past five 'o clock in the morning, is claimed to have fired its first projectile at CSS Atlanta and the ensuing battle is reported to have lasted for a duration of fifteen minutes. Webb, after his ironclad had run aground on a sand-split, is claimed to have struck his colours. Horatio Loomis Wait, page 927 the fifty-sixth volume of The Century Illustrated Monthly Magazine, claims that USS Weehawken foundered at Charleston Harbor. On the 6th of December, 1863, the Ericsson battery is reported to have sunk while it was under the command of Commander Jesse Duncan. It is claimed that Duncan, at the time in which the ironclad sank in a north-east gale, was receiving orders onboard the flagship.
7) USS Nantucket Assisted in the Capture of PS Jupiter at Tybee Island.
Admiral David Dixon Porter, on page 662 of The Naval History of the Civil War, claims that USS Nantucket bombarded the coastal defenses of Charleston Harbor that were situated on Morris Island. USS Nantucket, between the July and the September of 1863, is reported to have engaged Fort Wagner on three occasions. On the 18th of July, 1863, USS Nantucket is reported to have been one of eleven fighting vessels that participated in the assault on Fort Wagner. USS Nantucket is reported to have bombarded Fort Wagner on the 22nd and the 24th of July, 1863, while five other monitors of the Passaic-class are claimed to have participated in the latter engagement. Commander John Colt Beaumont, on page 644 as well as page 645 of the fourteenth volume of the first series of Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion, describes the capture of PS Jupiter by the gunboats that were blockading Wassaw Sound. On the 13th of September, 1863, Beaumont informed Gideon Welles that a steamship had been sighted in the vicinity of Tybee Island. Beaumont, who is revealed to have been the commander of USS Nantucket, claims that he sent armed boats to intercept an undisclosed number of launches that were moving away from the steamer. PS Jupiter, which is described as an English steamer, is reported to have been attempting to run the blockade of Savannah. Commander Aaron Konkle Hughes, on the same day that Beaumont notified Welles about the capture of the blockade-runner, composed a detailed report on the capture of the merchantman. It is claimed that USS Cimmaron, while under the direction of Beaumont, captured PS Jupiter at the break of dawn while mariners from USS Nantucket are reported to have assisted in the proceedings. USS Nantucket, while the honour of capturing PS Jupiter belonged to USS Cimarron, had assisted in the naval operation while Beaumont had directed the actions of the gunboats that were blockading Wassaw Sound.
8) USS Catskill Engaged the Batteries in Charleston Harbor on the 17th of August.
Admiral Daniel Ammen, on page 371 of The Old Navy and the New, claims that USS Catskill was attached to the second division of ironclads that bombarded Fort Sumter on the 7th of April. USS Catskill, USS Nantucket, USS Nahant and USS Keokuk are reported to have formed the second division of iron-plated gunboats. Henry Clay Trumbull, who dedicates the second chapter of War Memories of an Army Chaplain to army chapels and religious services, relates an incident in which he conducted a prayer session for the mariners of the United States Navy. Commander George Washington Rodgers, on page 25, is reported to have asked Trumbull to perform a religious service for the crew of CSS Catskill while it was situated at Seabrook Island. It is reported that Trumbull conducted the prayer-meeting within the pilot-house that was situated on the roof of the turret while the mariners are claimed to have gathered below the deck of the Ericsson battery, which is described as a suffocating environment, and sang hymns. Trumbull, who dedicates the thirteenth chapter of his wartime memoir to his experiences with the United States Navy, provides more details about CSS Catskill as well as its commander. It is reported, on pages 337 and 338, that the Passaic-class monitor protected the Federal positions on Seabrook Island from the depredations of the Confederate States Army. It is claimed, on page 364, that Rodgers requested to command his ironclad in a final naval engagement before he adopted his new role as chief-of-staff to Rear-admiral John Adolphus Dahlgren. John Worth Carnahan, on page 211 of Manual of the Civil War and Key to the Grand Army of the Republic, states that fourteen warships attacked Fort Wagner in August. On the 17th of August, 1863, it is reported that seven ironclads and seven wooden ships attacked Fort Wagner. It is claimed that Rodgers, who is named as the commander of USS Catskill, died in the ensuing battle between the ironclads the seacoast batteries.
9) USS Lehigh was Attached to the Second Division of Ironclads during the Engagement of the 17th of April.
Captain Jacob Valentine, on page 740 as well as page 741 of the first part of the twenty-eighth volume of the first series of The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, informs Lieutenant E. C. Edgerton that USS Lehigh ran aground within range of the guns of Fort Moultrie. On the morning of the 16th of November, 1863, the garrison of Fort Moultrie is reported to have noticed that USS Lehigh had run aground within the vicinity of Morris Island. Valentine, who is identified as the commander of Fort Moultrie, claims that the guns which were under his command opened fire on the Ericsson battery. It is reported that USS Montauk, USS Nahant and USS Passaic responded to the signal of distress that had been transmitted by their beleaguered classmate. Lewis Randolph Hamersly, on page 92 as well as page 93 of the fourth edition of The Records of Living Officers of the U. S. Navy and Marine Corps, claims that Lieutenant-commander Francis B. Bunce was placed in command of USS Lehigh during the penultimate year of the American Civil War. Bunce, prior to this, is reported to have been in command of the picket boats of the South Atlantic Blockading Squadron. It is claimed that Bunce was appointed to the command of USS Lehigh on the 6th of April, 1864, and is reported to have remained with the South Atlantic Blockading Squadron for a duration of five weeks. Rear-admiral John Adolphus Dahlgren, on page 173 of the sixteenth volume of the first series of Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion, claims that USS Lehigh had been present on the evening that USS Patapsco had struck a torpedo. It is reported, on page 174, that USS Patapsco had drifted out of sight of its classmate before an explosion was heard. USS Lehigh, after it had sent its boats to investigate the commotion and weighed its anchor, is reported to have discovered that the ironclad had sunk within 800-yards of Fort Sumter.
10) USS Camanche Defended San Francisco from the Cruisers of the Confederate States Navy.
Frank Marion, on page 340 of The Steam Navy of the United States, claims that USS Camanche was prefabricated in Jersey City and reassembled at San Francisco. It is claimed that Secor Brothers manufactured the components of the ironclad at their shipyard while Donahue, Ryan and Secor are reported to have received the contract for the construction of the fighting vessel. USS Aquilla, via the Cape Horn of South America, is claimed to have transported the components of USS Camanche from Jersey City to San Francisco. It can be stated, therefore, that the tenth and final Passaic-class monitor was built in the State of New Jersey as well as the State of California. Peter Donahue, whose biography is included in Sketches of Leading and Representative Men of San Francisco, appears to have benefited from a previous contract that he had received from the Navy Department of the United States of America. Oscar T. Shuck, among other eminent authors and editors of California, is identified as the editor of the collection of articles. It is reported, on page 857, that Donahue was awarded the contract to build the machinery for USS Saginaw and the Navy Department is claimed to have been satisfied with the results. USS Aquilla, which is reported to have arrived at San Francisco in the fall of 1863, is claimed to have foundered on the night that it arrived at the wharf. A severe gale, which passed from the west to the east, is blamed for the loss of the ship. Donahue, however, is reported to have raised USS Aquilla and its contents from the water. CSS Camanche, after its disassembled parts had been rescued from the depths of San Francisco Harbor, is claimed to have been completed within the space of three months. San Francisco, during the American Civil War, is reported to have been vulnerable to the depredations of the cruisers of the Confederate States Navy. It is explained that CSS Camanche, which is reported to have been stationed at Mare Island, was expected to defend San Francisco from naval incursions.
On the 13th of February, 2026, the article was updated.
Comments
Post a Comment