The Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles (1) submitted the Congress on her session of 4 July 1861 with a report of the building of armored vessels abroad especially France and the United Kingdom. He recommended that the USA would built one of more of such ironclad-steamships or floating batteries. The Congress ordered him on 3 August to appoint the so-called Ironclad Board of 3 skilful naval officers to investigate plans and specifications of such steamships for which building 1,500,000 was available. The appointed officers were the commodores Joseph Smit (2) and Hiram Paulding (3) and the captain Charles H. Davis.(4) They were assisted by Assistant Secretary of the Navy Gustavus Fox.(5)
In an advertisement dated 7 August 1861 was asked for tenders “from parties who are able to execute work of this kind, and who are engaged in it, of which they willfurnish evidence with their offer, for the construction of one or more iron-clad steam vessels of war, either of iron or of wood and irón combined, for sea or river service, to be of not less thantennor over sixteen feet draught of water; to carry an armament of from eighty to one hundred and twenty tons weight, with provisions and stores for from one hundred and sixty-five to three hundred persons, according to armament, for sixty days, with coal for eight days. The smaller draught of water, compatible with other requisites, will be preferred. The vessel to be rigged with two masts, with wire-rope standing rigging, to navigate at sea. Ageneral description and drawings of the vessel, armor, and machinery, such as the work can be executed from, willbe required. The offer must state the cost and the time for completingthe whole, exclusive of armament and stores of all kinds, the rate of speed proposed, and must be accompanied by a guarantee for the proper execution of the contract, if awarded." The commission examined and commented all recived tenders. Recommended were the propositions of Bushnell & Co., New Haven, Connecticut; Merrick & Sons, Philadelphia, and J. Ericsson, New York, which would “absorb $1,290,250 of the appropriation of $1,500,000, leaving $209,750 yet unexpended. The commission recommended further that armor with heavy guns be placed on one of our river craft, or, if none will bear it, to construct a scow, which will answer to plate and shield the guns, for the river service on the Potomac, to be constructed or prepared by the government at the navy yard here for immediate use.”
In a resolution of the Senate dated 24 July 1868 asked she the Secretary of the Navy all facts necessary for a complete history of the origin and building of the ironclad Monitor. His letter dated the next day was to supply the asked information.
E. S. Renwick, New York, 335 Broadway, “presents drawings, specification and model of an iron-clad vessel of large capacity and powerful engines, with great speed, capable of carrying a heavy battery, and stated to be shot-proof and agood sea-boat. The form and manner of construction and proportions of this vessel are novel, and will attract the attention of scientific and practical men. She is of very light draught of water, and on the question whether she will prove to be a safe and comfortable sea-boat we do not express a decided opinion. Vessels of somewhat similar form, in that part of vessel which is immersed, of light draught of water on our western lakes, have, we believe, proved entirely satisfactory in all weathers. To counteract the effect of the waves, when disturbed by the winds, by producing a jerk, or sudden rolling motion of fiat, shoal vessels, it is proposed to carry a sufficient weight above the centre of gravity to counterpoise the heavy weight below, which is done in this ship by the immense iron armor. If, after afull discussionand examination by experts on this plan, it should be decided that she is a safe vessel for sea service, by experts on thisplan, it should be decided that she is a safe vessel forsea service, we would recommend the construction upon it of one ship at one of our dock-yards. The estimate cost of this ship, $1,500,000, precludes action upon the plan until further appropriations shall be made by Congress for such objects. Time not stated-length ofvessel 400 feet-breadth of beam, 60 feet-depth of hold 33 feet-draught of water 16 feet-displacement 6,520 tons speed per hour at least 18miles.” (6)
Source
Letter of the Secretary of the navy communicating, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 24th instant, information in relation to the construction ofthe iron-clad Monitor. 40th Congress 2d Session Senate ex. Doc. No. 86.
Notes
1. Gideon Welles (1 July 1802 Glastonbury, Connecticut, USA-11 February 1878 Hartford, Connecticut, USA), United States Secretary of the Navy 7 March 1861-4 March 1869.
2. Joseph Smith (30 March 1790, Boston, Massachusetts, USA-17 January 1877, Washington, D.C., USA), served in the US Navy between 1809-1871 ending in the rank of rear admiral.
3. Hiram Paulding (11 December 1797 Cortlandt, New York, USA-20 October 1878 Huntington, New York, USA), served in the UD Navy between 1811-1870 ending in the rank of rear admiral.
4. Charles Henry Davis (16 January 1807 Boston, Massachusetts, USA-18 February 1877 Washington, D.C., USA), served in the US Navy between 1823-1877 ending in the rank of rear admiral.
5. Gustavus Vasa Fox (3 June 1821 Saugus, Massachusetts, USA-29 October 1883 Lowell, Massachusetts, USA), Assistant Secretary of the Navy 1 August 1861-25 November 1866, served in the US Navy between 1838-1856 ending in the rank of lieutenant.
6. Identical to mechanical engineer, inventor and patent expert Edward Sabine Renwick (3 January 1823 New York, USA-19 March 1912 Milburn, New Jersey, USA)?
No comments:
Post a Comment