USA > Virginia > City of Portsmouth > City of Portsmouth > A record of events in Norfolk County, Virginia, from April 19th, 1861, to May 10th, 1862, with a history of the soldiers and sailors of Norfolk County, Norfolk City and Portsmouth, who served in the Confederate States army or navy > Part 35
USA > Virginia > City of Norfolk > City of Norfolk > A record of events in Norfolk County, Virginia, from April 19th, 1861, to May 10th, 1862, with a history of the soldiers and sailors of Norfolk County, Norfolk City and Portsmouth, who served in the Confederate States army or navy > Part 35
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37
" On the 10th of June, 1861, Lieutenant Brooke was directed to aid the department in designing an iron-clad war vessel, and framing the necessary specifications, and, in a few days, submitted to the department rough drawings of a casemated vessel with sub- merged ends and inclined plated sides, the ends of the vessel and the eaves, to be submerged two feet, and a light bulwark, or false bow was designed to divide the water and prevent it from bank- ing up on the forward part of the shield with the vessel in motion, and also to serve as a tank to regulate the ship's draft. His de- sign was approved by the department, and a practical mechanic was brought from Norfolk to aid in preparing the drawings and specifications.
"This mechanic aided in the statement of details of timber, etc., but was unable to make the drawings, and the department then ordered Chief Engineer Williamson and Constructor Porter from the Navy Yard at Norfolk, to Richmond, about the 23d of June, for consultation on the same subject generally and to aid in the work.
"Constructor Porter brought and submitted the model of a flat bottomed, light draft propeller, casemated battery, with inclined iron covered sides and ends, which he deposited in the depart- ment. Mr. Porter and Lieutenant Brooke have adopted for their casemate a thickness of wood and iron, and an angle of inclination nearly identical.
"Mr. Williamson and Mr. Porter approved of the plan of hav- ing submerged ends to obtain the requisite flotation and invulner- ability, and the department adopted the design, and a clean draw- ing was prepared by Mr. Porter of Lieutenant Brooke's plan, which that officer then filed with the department.
343
THE "VIRGINIA" (MERRIMAC.)
" The steam frigate Merrimac was burned and sunk, and her engines greatly damaged by the enemy, and the department di- rected Mr. Williamson, Lientenant Brooke and Mr. Porter to con- sider and report upon the best mode of making her useful. The result of their investigation was their recommendation of the sub- merged ends and the inclined casemates for this vessel, which was adopted by the department."
The following is the report upon the Merrimac. [See ante.]
"Immediately upon the adoption of the plan, Mr. Porter was di- rected to proceed with the constructor's duties. Mr. Williamson was charged with the engineer's department, and to Mr. Brooke was assigned the duties of attending to and preparing the iron and forwarding it from the Tredegar Works, the experiments neces- sary to test the plates and to determine their thickness, and devis- ing heavy rifled ordnance for the ship, with the details pertaining to ordnance.
" These gentlemen labored zealously and effectively in their sev- eral departments. Mr. Porter ent the ship down, submerged her ends, performed all the duties of constructor, and originated all of the interior arrangements by which space was economized and he has exhibited energy, ability and ingenuity. Mr. Williamson thoroughly overhauled her engines, supplied deficiencies, and re- paired defects, and improved greatly the motive power of the vessel.
" Mr. Brooke attended daily to the iron, constructed targets, as- certained by actual tests, the resistance offered by inclined planes of iron to heavy ordnance, and determined interesting and impor- tant facts in connection therewith, and which were of great im- portance in the construction of the ship; devised and prepared the models and drawings of the ship's heavy ordnance, being guns of a class never before made, and of extraordinary power and strength.
"The novel plan of submerging the ends of the ship and the eaves of the casemate, however, is the peculiar and distinctive fea- ture of the Virginia. It was never before adopted. * * * * We were without accurate data and were compelled to determine the inclination of the plates and their thickness and form by ac- tual experiment. The department has freely consulted the three excellent officers referred to throughout the labors on the Vir- ginia, and they have all exhibited signal ability, energy and zeal."
This report of Secretary Mallory was made from his recollec- tions of what took place nearly a year before. How he obtained his information of what took place in the meeting of the board of June 25th, 1861, does not appear, nor does it coincide with the recollections of Mr. Williamson and Mr. Porter, or with the re- port made by the board, or the orders of the Secretary himself to proceed with the work. Memory is not always reliable after a lapse of time.
344
NORFOLK COUNTY, 1861-5.
First .-- After speaking of Mr. Brooke's efforts to design an irou clad and his failure to accomplish anything, even after a practical mechanic had been sent from the Navy Yard to assist him, he says : "The department ordered Chief Engineer Williamson and Constructor Porter from the Navy Yard at Norfolk, to Rich- mond, about the 23d of June, (1861), for consultation on the same subject generally and to aid in the work."
It is unfortunate that that order was not found. Messrs. Porter and Williamson denied that they were summoned to con- fer about any plans of Lieutenant Brooke, and the order could have determined the matter if it was among the Navy Depart- ment records. It was not produced. The 23d of June, 1861, was Sunday, and the Department was not "open for business" on that day.
Second .- The Secretary says: "Constructor Porter brought and submitted the model of a flat-bottomed, light draft, propeller, casemated battery, with inclined iron-covered sides and ends, which he deposited in the Department. Mr. Porter and Lieu- tenant Brooke have adopted for their casemate a thickness of wood and iron, and an angle of inclination almost identical."
Hence, from the Secretary's recollection of Mr. Brooke's rough drawings they were similar to Mr. Porter's model, then in his office, as to the shield of the vessel. Mr. Porter's model was tan- gible and practical, Mr. Brooke's "rough drawings" were ideal and imaginative. Can any one draw from this a conclusion that the board directed that the Merrimac be changed into an iron- clad after the rough drawings of Mr. Brooke and not the matured model of Mr. Porter.
Third .- The Secretary says : " Mr. Porter originated all of the interior arrangements, by which space has been economized, and has exhibited energy, ability and ingenuity."
It seems, therefore, even from the recollections of Secretary Mallory, that Mr. Porter not only carried to Richmond with him a model of a vessel with the Merrimac's shield on it, but he origi- nated all of the interior arrangements of the vessel
Fourth .- The Secretary says : "Mr. Porter cut the ship down, submerged her ends," &c.
Her ends were submerged by the Federal authorities who burned her. There was no submerging of her ends as contemplated in Mr. Brooke's idea of water-tight tanks to regulate her draft. She was built upon a straight line from stem to stern.
Fifth .-- He says the Department directed Mr. Williamson, Lieutenant Brooke and Mr. Porter to report upon the best mode of making the Merrimac useful. The result of their investiga- tions was the recommendation of the submerged ends and the in- clined casemates for this vessel, which was adopted by the De- partment."
345
THE " VIRGINIA" ( MERRIMAC.)
Their report, which is published in full in this chapter, contains nothing of that character. It speaks for itself and contradicts the Secretary. When the question of the consideration of the Merri- mac was submitted to the board does not appear, and all three of the members of the board have stated that the conversion of the Merrimac into an iron-clad was purely accidental, and the result of circumstances, not of original design.
Sixth .- The Secretary says: "We were compelled to deter- mine the inclination of the plates by actual experiment."
The Secretary's memory is greatly at fault here, too. The an- gle of inclination of the plates was marked in Mr. Porter's drawings when he submitted them to the Secretary at the time the order was given to begin the work, and was not altered. Those drawings are now in the possession of the author, and are an un- questionable proof that the angle of inclination was designed by Mr. Porter, from his own judgment, when he prepared the draw- ings of the vessel, and not as the result of any experiments made by Lieutenant Brooke subsequent to that date. The shield was built upou an angle of 35 degrees, just as is delineated in the original drawings which were submitted to Secretary Mallory July 11th, 1861.
Seventh .- The Secretary says: "Mr. Brooke's plan was adopted by the Department." Well, suppose the Department did adopt Mr. Brooke's plan, which, up to that time, consisted only of some rough drawings, that. plan was not considered by Mr. Williamson and Mr. Porter, and was not in the mind of the Secretary him- self when he ordered the work to be commenced on the Merri- mac, for he wrote an autograph order to Commodore Forrest di- recting him to proceed with all practicable dispatch to make the changes in the Merrimac, and to build, equip and fit her in all respects according to the designs and plans of the Constructor und Engineer, Messrs. Porter and Williamson.
These discrepancies between Secretary Mallory's report and cer- tain facts which have been so well established as to become axiomatic, are referred to simply to show the unreliability of an offi- cial report which is based upon memory, without regarding cotempo- raneons documents.
Lientenant Brooke has borne testimony in behalf of Construc- tor Porter. At the session of Congress of 1862-3 a joint commit- tee of the Senate and House of Representatives was appointed to investigate Mr. Mallory's management of the Navy Department, and on the 26th of February, 1863, Lieutenant Brooke testified before the committee. See their published report, page 410. He said :
"The Constructor brought with him a model. I should have said the name of the Constructor was J. L.'Porter. This model is one of the models now in the Secretary's room. It consisted
23
346
NORFOLK COUNTY, 1861-5.
of a shield and hull," &c. * * "The Secretary directed the Constructor, Chief Engineer Williamson and myself to meet him at my office here. We met there and this model was exam- ined by us all, and the form of the shield was approved. It was considered a good shield, and for ordinery purposes a good boat for harbor defence." * "Mr. Williamson proposed to put the shield on the Merrimac, Mr. Porter and myself thought the draft was too great, but were nevertheless of the opinion that it was the best thing that could be done with our means." Mr. Brooke further says, after telling of the adoption of Mr. Porter's shield, "the Secretary then called the attention of Mr. Porter and Mr. Williamson to the drawing giving a general idea of the vessel I proposed."
Therefore, from Lieutenant Brooke's own testimony, the shield of the Merrimac was Mr. Porter's shield, and it was at Mr. Wil- liamson's suggestion that it was put on that vessel, and further- more, the shield was adopted before his plans were submitted to the board. How, then, could the vessel have been converted into an iron-elad after Mr. Brooke's plans? Was there anything about her pertaining to an iron-clad except her shield ? Was there any- thing about her except her shield which could be dignified into the name of a plun ?
The article previously referred to, written by Lieutenant Cates- by Jones, has been referred to by friends of Lieutenant Brooke as a proof of his claim. Lieutenant Jones said :
"The Merrimac was raised and on June 23d following the Hon. S. R. Mallory, Confederate Secretary of the Navy, ordered that she should be converted into an iron-clad on the plan pro- posed by Lieutenant John M. Brooke, C. S. N."
Following the same views expressed by Lieutenant Jones, Cap- tain John Taylor Wood wrote to the Century Magazine:
" During the summer of 1861 Lieutenant George [John] M. Brooke proposed to Secretary Mallory to raise and rebuild this ship as an iron-elad. His plans were approved and orders were given to carry them out."
Those two gentlemen give Lieutenant Brooke more credit than he claims. He testified under oath before the Congressional committee that the proposition to make an iron-elad of the Mer- rimae first came from Chief Engineer Williamson, and that he himself opposed it. Nor were any orders ever issued by Secretary Mallory to make an iron-clad of her after Mr. Brooke's plans. The order to make her an iron-clad distinctly specified " the plans of the Constructor and Engineer, Messrs. Porter and William- son," and an order issued six weeks later proposed to hold those two officers " personally responsible " for their success. The order was issued July 11th, 1861, and not (on Sunday) June 23d, 1861. Lieutenant Jones seems to have had no authority for his version,
347
THE "VIRGINIA" (MERRIMAC.)
Mr. JOHN L. PORTER'S Model. JUNE 1861
-
348
NORFOLK COUNTY, 1861-5.
nor could he produce any such order as he refers to, and Captain Wood seems to have based his article upon Lieutenant Jones'. But such is history !
As soon as the report of Secretary Mallory was made public Constructor Porter, with the sanction of Chief Engineer Wil- liamson, replied to it as follows through the Richmond Exam- iner :
NAVY YARD, GOSPORT, April 8th, 1862.
To the Editor of the Examiner :
Sir .- I find in the Examiner of the 4th instant a report of the Secretary of the Navy to Congress, giving a detailed statement of the origin of the iron-clad Virginia. I feel sorry to have to re- ply to this report, inasmuch as it is published over the signature of the Secretary, * * but justice to myself requires that I should reply to it.
The report commences by stating that "on the 10th of June Lieutenant Brooke was directed to aid the Deparment in design- ing an iron-clad war vessel and framing the necessary specifica- tions, and in a few days submitted to the Department rough drawings of a casemated vessel with submerged ends and inclined plated sides, the ends of the vessel and the eaves te be submerged two feet." I do not doubt the statements of the Secretary, but no such plans were submitted to the board, and, from the fact that the master carpenter had returned to this yard without con - pleting any plans, and myself being sent for immediately, and from the further fact that the Secretary presented us no plans from this source, I stated in my last communication that Lienten- ant Brooke failed to produce anything, after a week's trial, and I am still of that opinion, so far as anything tangible is concerned. The report states that " the practical mechanic who was brought up from Norfolk was unable to make the drawings for Lieutenant Brooke, and that the Department then ordered Chief Engineer Williamson and Constructor Porter from the Navy Yard at Nor- folk to Richmond about the 23d of June, for consultation on the same subject generally and to aid in the work."
I do not understand this part of the report exactly, but if it is intended to convey the idea that we were to examine any plan of Lieutenant Brooke I never so understood it, neither did we act in accordance with any such idea, as our report will show.
The report next refers to my model, which I carried up with me, the shield and plan of which is carried out on the Virginia, but the report seems to have lost sight of the fact that the eaves and ends of my model were submerged two feet, precisely like the Virginia. The ship was cut down on a straight line fore and aft. to suit this arrangement, and the shield extended over her just as far as the space inside would admit and leave room to work the
-
349
THE "VIRGINIA" (MERRIMAC.)
guns. A rough breakwater was built on it to throw off the water forward.
The report states that I " made a clean drawing of Lieutenant Brooke's plan, which that officer then filed with the Department." The only drawing that I ever made of the Virginia was made at my office in this Navy Yard, and which I presented to the De- partment on the 11th of July, just sixteen days after the board adjourned. This drawing and plan I considered my own, and not Lieutenant Brooke's. As soon as I presented this plan the Secre- tary wrote the following order while everything was fresh in his mind concerning this whole matter :
NAVY DEPARTMENT, RICHMOND, July 11th, 1861.
Flag Officer F. Forrest :
Sir .- You will proceed with all practicable dispatch to make the changes in the Merrimac, and to build, equip and fit her in all respects according to the designs and plans of the Constructor and Engineer, Mesers. Porter and Williamson. As time is of the ntmost importance in the matter, you will see that the work progresses without delay to completion.
S. R. MALLORY, Secretary Confederate States Navy.
What, I would ask, could be more explicit than this letter, or what words could have established my claim stronger, if I had dictated them ?
The concluding part of this report says: "The novel plan of submerging the ends of the ship and the caves of the casemate, however, is the peenliar and distinctive feature of the Virginia." This may all be true, but it is just what my model calls for, and if Lientenant Brooke presented " rough drawings" to the Depart- ment carrying out the same views it may be called a singular co- incidence, and here I would remark that my model was not cal- enlated to have much speed, but was intended for harbor defence only, and was of light draft, the eaves extending over the entire length of the model and submerged all around two feet, end and sides, and the line on which I ent the ship down was just in ac- cordance with this, but if Lieutenant Brooke's ideas, which were submitted to the Secretary in his rough drawings, had been car- ried ont, to cut her ends down low enough to build tanks on to regulate the draft of the vessel, she would have been mneh lower than my plan required, for all the water which now covers her ends would not alter her draft three inches if confined in tanks. All of the calculations of the weights and displacements, and the line to cut the ship down, were determined by myself, as well as her whole arrangements.
350
NORFOLK COUNTY, 1861-5.
That Lieutenant Brooke may have been of great assistance to the department in trying the necessary experiments in determin- ing the thickness of the armor, getting up her battery and attend- ing to the shipping of the iron, &e., I do not doubt, but to claim for him the eredit of designing the ship is a matter of too much interest to me to give np. Engineer Williamson discharged his duties with great success. The engines peformed beyond his most sangnine expectations, and these, with the improvements in her propeller, increased her speed three miles per hour. The % Secretary of the Navy has not only been my friend in this Gov- ermnent, but was a true and serviceable one under the U. S. Gov- ernment, and has rendered me many acts of kindness for which I have always esteemed him, but the present unpleasant controversy involves a matter of so much importance to me that I shall be ex- ensed for defending my claim, not only as the constructor, but the originator of the plan of the Virginia.
JOHN L. PORTER, Confederate States Naval Constructor."
There seems to have been a difference of recollection as to what became of Lieutenant Brooke's rough drawings. He says Sec- retary Mallory laid them before the board. Messrs. Williamson and Porter say they were not before the board, or considered by it, and Mr. Mallory is silent on the subject. He says the board adopted Mr. Brooke's plan of submerged ends, but does not say how he obtained the information, nor does he claim to have been present at the conference.
Messrs. Williamson and Porter say the plans of Mr. Porter were adopted, and that it was decided to build a new vessel after his model and Mr. Porter first made the proposition to adapt them to the Merrimac, after finding out the impracticability of getting an engine for a new boat. Mr. Brooke says Mr. Porter's shield was adopted and Mr. Williamson first proposed to apply it to the Merrimac.
Chief Engineer Williamson gave to Mr. Porter a letter certify- ing to the fact that the Merrimae was converted into an iron-elad after his plans and not after plans of Mr. Brooke. That letter was burned up in Mr. Porter's office in Richmond, but there are witnesses living at this writing who have read it. There are wit- nesses too, living who were on intimate terms with Chief Engi- neer Williamson, and to whom he expressed himself freely on the subject of the Merrimac, and to those he always said Mr. Porter was her projector. Mr. Williamson's death prevented Mr. Porter from getting a duplicate of his letter, but its contents and his views upon the subject can be substantiated by living witnesses. The following letters will bear out what has been said on this subject. The first was sent to the author by Captain Win. R. Singleton :
351
THIE "VIRGINIA" (MERRIMAC.)
VIRGINIA (MERRIMAC)
2
352
NORFOLK COUNTY, 1861-5.
WASHINGTON, D. C., June 15th, 1891.
DEAR SIR- * In 1857, when I was constructing engin- eer in charge of the Pensacola Navy Yard, Mr. John L. Porter was the naval constructor and Lieutenant John Newton, (since then General and Chief Engineer) was in charge of Forts Pickens, McCrea and Barrancas. As we were, all three, from Norfolk and Portsmouth, Virginia, and, in early days, school boys together, we frequently met at the Navy Yard. On one occasion in my office, the conversation turned upon defences of harbors, &c. Mr. Por- ter explained to us by diagrams, his method of constructing a ves- sel, which he said originated with him at the time he was con- structing the naval ship at Pittsburg, in 1846. ** * I can re- member the sketches made at the Pensacola Yard in 1857. The Merrimac was altered to suit the broad idea so far as she could be in her then condition. I believe subsequently the Richmond was constructed from the beginning, as was his original idea.
Hoping that Mr. Porter will get the credit to which I always insisted that he was justly entitled, I am,
Very respectfully yours,
WM. R. SINGLETON, Late Constructing Engineer U. S. Navy.
Chief Engineer Schroeder, in the following letter, bears testi- mony to the existence and character of Mr. Porter's iron-clad, de- signed in Pittsburg in 1846, and also to the views of Chief En- gineer Williamson as to the projector of the Virginia :
NORFOLK, VA., January 8th, 1892.
DEAR SIR-During the late war my duties took me frequently to the Bureau of Steam Engineering in Richmond, and I often heard, while there, Major Wm. P. Williamson, the Engineer in Chief, say that the design of the Merrimac's shield was that of Mr. John L. Porter, who was the Chief Constructor of the C. S. Navy. Major Williamson was a member of the board which re- commended making an iron-clad of the Merrimae. I distinctly remember sketches and plans, similar in design to the shield of the Merrimae, which Mr. Porter had made in Pittsburg years prior to the war.
Yours truly, .
CHAS. SCHROEDER.
These two letters, together with the plans of the vessel in Con struetor Porter's sketch book of naval designs, establish very clearly the fact that in 1846, fifteen years before Mr. Porter ever saw Lientenant Brooke, he designed an iron-clad vessel in Pitts- burg, the shield of which was of the same design as the shield he put on the Merrimae. This was ten years before England and France began experimenting on the subject of iron-clads, hence there is no good reason to question that the first iron-clad vessel
353
THE "VIRGINIA" (MERRIMAC.)
ever designed, was the work of a native and citizen of Ports- month.
That Chief Engineer Williamson, over his own signature, has certified that Constructor John L. Porter was the projector of the vessel, will be seen from the following letter :
NORFOLK, VA., January 9th, 1892.
SIR-During the late war I was chief clerk in the office of Chief Constructor John L. Porter, Confederate States Navy, cor- ner of Main and Eleventh streets, Richmond. The office of Chief Engineer Wm. P. Williamson, of the Bureau of Steam Engineer- ing, was in an adjoining room, and scarcely a day passed withont his coming in Mr. Porter's office for consultation. We frequently talked on the subject of the Merrimac, and he told me repeatedly that she was made into an iron-clad after the plans of Mr. John L. Porter, and that there was no ground whatever for the claim which Lieutenant Brooke had set up to being her projector. I also remember having read a letter to that effect which Mr. Wil- liamson gave to Mr. Porter, and which was, in all probability, burned with the other papers in Mr. Porter's office, at the evacu- ation of Richmond by the Confederates in April, 1865. Mr. Porter was, at that time, absent from Richmond, having gone to North Carolina on business for the Navy Department, and the building in which his office was located, was burned in the general conflagration. -
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.