Memories of USS Cumberland (Part 1 of 3): Perceptions and Observations About the Loss of Cumberland During the Battle of Hampton Roads

By William Clarkson
Educator

Much has been written about the Battle of Hampton Roads and the clash between the ironclads CSS Virginia and USS Monitor during the American Civil War. Few ships captured the popular imagination of the day quite like these two vessels. Accounts and depictions of the events of March 8th and 9th, 1862, began to appear almost immediately. However, another vessel involved in the action stirred nearly as much admiration and inspired a wealth of observations and creative works. USS Cumberland, the first vessel sunk by CSS Virginia on March 8th, 1862, roused the likes of Nathaniel Hawthorne, Herman Melville, and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, among many others, to pen works about the battle and Cumberland’s demise. In addition to newspaper articles, these works spread the tale of Cumberland’s heroic yet doomed struggle. March 8th, 2022, marks the 160th anniversary of the sinking of USS Cumberland. Throughout the month of March, we will explore some of these works, and how the story of USS Cumberland has been perceived and passed into the annals of U.S. history.

Sketch of USS Cumberland off Newport News, by Alfred R. Waud c. 1861 (Library of Congress)[i]

Interpretations of the Battle of Hampton Roads often were not entirely based in fact. How the story was reported and conveyed depended on which side the individual or organization supported. While various versions about the battle’s details exist across different accounts, USS Cumberland’s ramming and sinking by CSS Virginia is not in dispute. Where accounts do differ is the significance of Cumberland’s loss. The Richmond Enquirer (a Confederate newspaper) of March 11, 1862, proclaims the headline, “Great Success of the Confederate Iron-Clad Steamer Virginia - Large Number of Yankees Shot and Drowned.” The paper continues, “The object in first getting rid of the Cumberland was probably to destroy the very heavy armament which that frigate carried, it being the heaviest in the Yankee Navy.” While Cumberland had been fitted with more powerful guns in 1861, such a claim inflates the perceived victory. Another southern paper, the Staunton Spectator, also in its March 11th, 1862, edition, claims that Virginia sank six ships during the battle (not true), and caused a far greater amount of damage to the surviving vessels, including USS Monitor, than was actually the case.

Conversely, many newspapers supporting the Union sought to downplay the losses of March 8th, preferring to report a more matter-of-fact sequence of events. They focused on Monitor and the engagement of March 9th, even downplaying the loss of Cumberland and Congress. The March 11th, 1862, Chicago Daily Tribune asserts, “Aside from the loss of life attending the loss of the Cumberland and the Roanoke, there is little to regret.” It further proclaims that Cumberland was an old ship, in need of major overhaul and repair, being “…ill-adapted to the requirements of modern warfare.” Note that that the paper mistakenly identifies the second ship sunk as USS Roanoke instead of USS Congress.[ii] Not every pro-Union paper dismissed Cumberland’s loss so readily (more on this later). However, just as the southern papers proclaimed a major victory, so did many northern papers downplay Virginia’s fight with USS Cumberland, Congress, and Minnesota to focus on the appearance and performance of USS Monitor.

Portrait of Nathaniel Hawthorne c. 1861 (Library of Congress)

With such intense focus on the ironclads, Cumberland, as well as Congress, became unwitting symbols of what many considered (and still do), to be a major transition in naval warfare. In July 1862, Atlantic Monthly published an article by Nathaniel Hawthorne titled, “Chiefly About War Matters.” In this article Hawthorne recalls his travels from New England to Washington DC, and then to various points of interest in Virginia. One of these stops was at Fort Monroe, which had recently witnessed the Battle of Hampton Roads. It’s clear from Hawthorne’s account that seeing the aftermath of the battle affected him deeply. In his words, “It was the sight of the few sticks that are left of the frigate Congress, stranded near the shore, — and still more, the masts of the Cumberland rising midway out of the water, with a tattered rag of a pennant fluttering from one of them,” that affected him most of all. Having toured both USS Minnesota and USS Monitor, as well as seeing the carnage wrought by the ironclad CSS Virginia, Hawthorne puts forth a sentiment, echoed by contemporaries and future writers alike, in saying, “[t]hat last gun from the Cumberland, when her deck was half submerged, sounded the requiem of many sinking ships. Then went down all the navies of Europe, and our own…” He further states that, “…human strife is to be transferred from the heart and personality of man into cunning contrivances of machinery, which by and by will fight out our wars with only the clank and smash of iron, strewing the field with broken engines.” No longer would Sailors serve as part of the living whole of a ship, but as pieces in one great machine, at least in Hawthorne’s view.

These opinions were shared widely, including by John Taylor Wood, an officer aboard Virginia during the battle and later commander of the commerce raider CSS Tallahassee. He states some 22 years after the battle, in the Nov. 1884-Apr. 1885 edition of The Century Illustrated Monthly Magazine, “Line-of-battle ships… were at once universally condemned as out of date. Rams and iron-clads were in future to decide all naval warfare.” However, wooden ships and ships of sail continued to serve in various roles far beyond the famous battle of the ironclads. While technology may provide some advantage in a naval engagement, it is still the ship’s crew that provides the knowledge, bravery, and dedication necessary to operate their vessel in combat. In this respect, the crew of USS Cumberland serves as an example of Sailors performing their duty, even in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds, and with the likelihood of injury or death. This example was recognized and extolled by contemporaries and continues into the present.

Events of the battle and sinking of Cumberland were covered internationally, as can be seen in this April 1862 editions of The Illustrated London News, showing CSS Virginia ramming USS Cumberland (Library of Congress)

While some northern papers downplayed the momentous struggle of USS Cumberland, others praised the steadfast determination of its crew. A reporter for the Baltimore American wrote (and their words were reprinted in papers across the north), “She went down with her flag still flying, and it still flies above the mast, above the waters that overwhelmed her, a memento of the bravest, most daring, and yet hopeless defense that has ever been made by any vessel belonging to any navy in the world.” Indeed, even while despairing the future of naval action, Nathaniel Hawthorne, in his article, likened the bravery of Cumberland’s crew to the storied battles between sailing ships past, invoking names like Blake, Nelson, and Trafalgar.

Admiration was not limited to northern sources. On March 20, 1862, the Richmond Christian Advocate reprinted a March 10th article from The Norfolk Day Book which read, “A gallant man fought that ship – a man worthy to have maintained a better cause. Gun after gun he fired, lower and lower sunk his ship, his last discharge comes from his pivot gun, the ship lurches to starboard, now to port, his flag streams out wildly, and now the Cumberland goes down on her beam ends, at once a monument and an epitaph of the gallant men who fought her.” One might presume that the reporter was referring wholly to the ship’s commander, but it was the actions of the whole crew that inspired such recognition, even amongst their enemy. In the words of Virginia officer John Taylor Wood, “The crew were driven by the advancing water to the spar-deck, and there worked her pivot-guns until she went down with a roar, the colors still flying. No ship was ever fought more gallantly.”

Line engraving published in Leslie's Weekly, c. 1862, depicting USS Cumberland continuing to engage CSS Virginia, even as the ship sinks (NHHC)

The image of USS Cumberland continuing to fight, until the ship sank beneath the waves, its flag still flying, became a symbol of inspiration for the Union. Many years after the battle, Cumberland’s surgeon, Dr. Charles Martin, remarked in a speech, “Instead of defeat, it is a victory. The whole camp is rushing to meet them (Cumberland’s crew) with cheers [and] with embraces.” Currier and Ives issued their famous print of the Cumberland’s sinking, with the phrase “Destroyed but not Conquered,” printed below the image. These words and the deeds of Cumberland’s crew would live on throughout the war, with accounts of their heroism printed and reprinted across the nation. The praise and memorializing of Cumberland’s crew wasn’t limited to newspapers, magazines, and speeches. As we shall see in part two of this three-part series, many of the era’s most famous poets put ink to paper to ensure USS Cumberland’s actions and story would not be forgotten.


Notes:
[i] Alfred Rudolph Waud was an artist and illustrator who created hundreds of sketches during his time traveling with the army of the Potomac, including several sketches of USS Cumberland in 1861.
[ii] USS Roanoke was also a Merrimack-class steam frigate that was converted into an ironclad by the Union Navy soon after the Battle of Hampton Roads. To see a model of the ship in person, visit the Hampton Roads Naval Museum, or reference https://hamptonroadsnavalmuseum.blogspot.com/2013/01/ironclad-uss-roanoke-ship-model.html.