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.

Recent Reads: "Our Little Monitor" is a Big Deal

A slightly enhanced view of the front and back of a copper token in the Hampton Roads Naval Museum collection commemorating "OUR LITTLE MONITOR," with one-inch rule included for size reference. (M.C. Farrington)

"Our Little Monitor":The Greatest Invention of the Civil War

By Anna Gibson Holloway and Jonathan W. White (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 2018)
   
Reviewed by Joseph Miechle
Hampton Roads Naval Museum Educator

The most recent addition to the long historiography of the USS Monitor comes from two authors with a history in Hampton Roads. Dr. Anna Gibson Holloway was curator of the USS Monitor Center at the Mariners Museum in Newport News, Virginia. She has also served as the maritime historian for the National Parks Service Maritime Heritage Program in Washington D.C. Dr. Jonathan White is an associate professor of American Studies at Christopher Newport University in Newport News, and he has eight successful books on the American Civil War and President Abraham Lincoln under his belt. He has published more than one hundred articles, essays and reviews, and is the winner of the Abraham Lincoln Institute’s 2015 book prize. A better duo to collaborate about a book on one of the most famous ships to ever serve in the US Navy would be difficult to conceive. 


The 283-page book is itself structured with two main parts. Part one, The Monitor in History and Memory, lays out the history of the ship from conception to sinking and even includes a brief section on her most well-known enemy, CSS Virginia. The building of Monitor and the prejudices John Erickson had to overcome to have the Navy accept his ship are well presented. From launching in New York, to the turbulent voyage south to Hampton Roads, to the monumental battle with Virginia, numerous primary sources coupled with the two authors own expertise on the subject present an amazingly compelling narrative. It is not often one is able to describe a work of historical non-fiction as a page turner, but in this instance the shoe certainly fits. The story of one of Americas favorite ships winds down as the authors describe the vessel post Battle of Hampton Roads, and the strenuous conditions on which the crew worked, fought, and lived until the tragic sinking in December, 1862. The authors weave the story using the accounts of crew members as well as those from people “outside looking in.” The reader really walks away with a sense of how the public felt about the Monitor, and why she became so endearing to them, despite a short service life. The last chapter of Part one concludes with the recovery of Monitor’s turret, conservation efforts at The Monitor Center, new findings, and interment of the remains of crewmen who perished when the vessel foundered off the coast of North Carolina.

A bird's eye view illustration of the fight between USS Monitor and CSS Virginia looking south roughly from Fort Monroe based upon an eyewitness to the Battle of Hampton Roads printed in Harper's Weekly a month after the battle. (Hampton Roads Naval Museum collection)

Part two, A Documentary Record of the USS Monitor, provides us with a substantial number of germane primary resources yet manages not to overwhelm the reader. Of particular interest is a section on letters sent to President Lincoln by citizens who desired to improve Monitor with often absurd modifications, so that the ship might be better equipped to sink her foe, CSS Virginia. Many of the ideas sent to Lincoln also contained diagrams or drawings. Some ideas are very detailed, some could possibly have worked, other are quite comical, many of them are reproduced in this book in full color. Partial deck logs from USS Currituck and letters from Monitor, First Engineer Isaac Newton Jr. round out the less often seen primary sources from Part two. 

“Our Little Monitor” would look just as at home with lavishly illustrated coffee table books as it would with other important scholarly volumes. It contains well over a hundred full color, detailed photographs that help really solidify how contemporary observers viewed Ericsson’s Monitor. Nestled amongst the images are lesser known primary accounts of the Battle of Hampton Roads, songs and poems written about the ship and her crew, as well as drawings and paintings that celebrated the “Greatest Invention of the Civil War.” This book will undoubtedly set a standard for Monitor research in the future and should be included in any serious historiography. It ought to be considered a “must” for any serious student of the American Civil War and would be an entertaining read to even those with just a casual interest.  

That's News to Me! An Armstrong Gun on CSS Virginia?

By Elijah Palmer & Joseph Miechle
Hampton Roads Naval Museum Educators

A short time ago, while researching a different project, a colleague ran into an interesting vignette which mentioned CSS Virginia several days after the Battle of Hampton Roads. Our interest was piqued by an assertion made within the March 12, 1862 Richmond Dispatch article seen below:

"The Virginia, it is intimated, while up here, has changed her forward and aft pivot guns for two of the celebrated Armstrong guns, which lately found their way into this vicinity."

This statement quickly raised many questions. But first, what was so special about Armstrong guns to make them "celebrated?" Early Armstrong cannon from the mid-1850s were a unique British design that was breech-loading. As was popular technology at the time, there were bands on the breech to reinforce the cannon when it fired, as sometimes the guns burst (as happened onboard USS Princeton in 1843). These guns had an advantage over muzzle loading, smooth-bore cannon as they had a higher rate of fire, greater accuracy, and longer range. By the time of the Civil War, there were naval variants of the Armstrong guns, as can be seen on HMS Warrior. Clearly these cannon were seen as advanced technology, most likely due to the aforementioned advantages.

We knew that the Confederates could have been well aware of Armstrong guns, but the real question was whether it was even possible for the South to have acquired them. Could some of these new cannon have made their way through the blockade to Norfolk? Could these guns have done more damage to the Monitor in a future fight? And if this article were true, why had we not heard of this before? If it was not true, was this an honest mistake or was it propaganda building on the events of the Battle of Hampton Roads? To add to our uncertainty was a report from one of the postwar salvage operations of the wreck of CSS Virginia which mentioned a "large Confederate banded rifled gun."

Could this have been an Armstrong? Or was it a Brooke gun? From The Daily Journal (Wilmington, NC), June 23, 1867. Special thanks to Dr. Anna Holloway for providing this article. 

 Any new guns would have had to come through the blockade, which was an unlikely possibility.  Was there a chance that any Armstrong cannon were at Gosport Navy Yard when it was captured? An examination of the list of guns captured and their disposition quickly put that theory to rest. Strike one! If somehow they had made it through the blockade and been put on the Confederate ironclad, it would not have made much of a difference in a future fight against USS Monitor. Tests from the time showed that, owing to the relatively small gunpowder charge necessary, the Armstrong shell could not penetrate much iron. This would have been especially true of the Monitor's turret, which was protected by 8-inch-thick iron plating. Strike two! But this knowledge was likely not widespread at the time, so reports of the "celebrated Armstrong guns" would have still carried weight.

So could the newspaper report have been an honest mistake? CSS Virginia did replace damaged cannons after the battle, but it seems to be a stretch that someone could have mistaken these guns for the other. While a later triple-banded variant of the Brooke rifle might be confused at first glance, the rounder edges of the Armstrong seem to be quite unique and the Brooke gun was not produced until months after the article. Adding to this doubt was the fact that no Armstrong guns should have been available for purchase. The inventor of the Brooke gun, John Mercer Brooke (also one of the designers of CSS Virginia) wrote in a July 1862 letter that the Confederates did not have any breech-loading guns (alluding to the Armstrong). He continued that "their manufacture is confined to the government shops of England." Strike three! 

An illustration of a single banded Brooke rifle.

A double-banded Brooke rifle mounted on fortifications. (Photo by Joseph Miechle)

Judging from the inspirational language in the rest of the paragraph from the Richmond Dispatch, it appears likely that this was a propaganda piece. Considering that the Armstrong gun was only manufactured in Great Britain, could this have been a trick to show Northern (& Southern) readers that the Confederacy had British support? Indeed, as a New York Times article discussed after the fall of Fort Fisher in January 1865, there were questions about how a large Armstrong cannon was in Confederate possession when the "English Government claims the exclusive right to use [them]."** While the Times writer went on to lay the blame directly on Armstrong himself, he also said that an investigation was needed to fully lay the matter to rest. If there were still questions near the end of the war, how much more so before the Emancipation Proclamation or the Union victories in July 1863? At the very least, the guns were known as new technology, so any Southern reader would likely be excited, while a Northern reader would possibly be dismayed.

In the end, our research put a quick death to some tantalizing possibilities. While perhaps we did not make any significant new discoveries to add to the historiography, we did come away from the experience both more knowledgeable and perhaps a bit wiser. Sometimes the fun of researching history is all about the hunt.

* Letter from John M. Brooke to Stephen Mallory, July 16, 1862, in Ironclads and Big Guns of the Confederacy: The Journal and Letters of John M. Brooke, ed. George M. Brooke, Jr. (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2002), 102.
**"Armstrong Gun at Fort Fisher." New York Times, January 29, 1865.

The 5th Annual Brick by Brick: LEGO Shipbuilding Event

Visitors at the 2015 LEGO Shipbuilding event work on building a ship for the contest. (Photo by HRNM Educator Diana Gordon.)

The Hampton Roads Naval Museum is proud to announce that the fifth annual Brick by Brick: LEGO Shipbuilding event will be held from 10 am to 5 pm on Saturday, February 6, at the Half Moone Cruise and Celebration Center, right next to Nauticus at One Waterside Drive in Norfolk. This year's “blockbuster” LEGO Shipbuilding event promises to be the biggest one ever because it will take place in a venue that provides three times the space than in years past. This FREE program invites LEGO shipbuilders of all ages to share their creations with fellow enthusiasts on one exciting day – and compete for fabulous prizes!

This popular signature event is presented in partnership with the Hampton Roads Naval Historical Foundation, the Historic Naval Ships Association, the Naval Historical Foundation, and Nauticus. Children and adults alike can bring their pre-constructed LEGO ships to display and enter in the contest prior to 2 pm on February 6th. There are two separate contests: one for those who make ships at HRNM, and one for those who build their ships at home. HRNM will award prizes for five winning age categories in each competition, along with our fan favorite, voted on by YOU!

HRNM educators will be on hand to share the science behind building ships. In addition, visitors can create historic naval ships from HRNM’s own diagrams. Each year, staff members add new ships to the on-site brick fleet. New ships this year include USS Maine, USS Seawolf, USS Liberty, USS Monitor, and CSS Virginia.

USS Maine in a historic image and in the LEGO version.

This year, we will also be offering STEM activities for elementary and middle school children. First Lego League of Virginia will be on-deck for a LEGO robotics demonstration, to include some hands-on programing, and Engineering for Kids will be providing hands-on LEGO robotics activities as well. Finally, SeaPerch will have a demonstration table for their remotely operated underwater vehicle competitions.

Several LEGO-related activities will accompany the event, so be sure to bring your creativity to the Hampton Roads Naval Museum. We have activities available for all age ranges--from toddlers to adults. Crafts, free-play areas, and more will be open from 10 am to 5 pm on the 6th.

Advance registration is available on Eventbrite. You can also purchase t-shirts to support this and future LEGO Shipbuilding events. Contact 757-322-3168 or donald.darcy@navy.mil with any questions. We'll see you here on February 6th!

The Many Inventions of John Ericsson

By Jerome Kirkland 
Hampton Roads Naval Museum Educator

John Ericsson may best be remembered as the designer of the Civil War ironclad USS Monitor, which set off a revolution in ship design with its revolving turret. The fame he gained with his “floating battery” resulted in the creation of songs such as the “Ericsson Gallop,” the “Monitor Polka,” and “Give Us a Navy of Iron.” Ericsson and his Monitor certainly deserved being immortalized in songs of the day, but many people do not remember the other contributions Ericsson made throughout his life.

John Ericsson and his invention, USS Monitor

After six years as a surveyor in the Swedish Army, John Ericsson left his native Sweden and moved to England to pursue his interest in mechanics. While there, he teamed up with John Braithwaite to develop a steam locomotive to compete in trials for a contract. Their entry, Novelty, quickly became the crowd favorite, sustaining the high speed of 28 miles per hour, but boiler problems developing late in the competition saw them take second place. The winner of the competition, the Rocket, is now considered the first “modern” steam locomotive.

Braithwaite and Ericsson went on to improve steam engine designs that were used in locomotives and fire engines. Their steam-powered fire engine gained notoriety while fighting the “Argyll Rooms fire” in London, on a cold February night, by outlasting all other fire engines on the scene by five hours.

Ericsson and Braithwaite's steam-powered fire engine and a period add for Ericsson’s Caloric engine.

While in England, Ericsson fine-tuned an invention he first made in Sweden, the “Caloric Engine.” This engine worked much like a steam engine, but instead of heating water to produce steam under pressure (a very dangerous operation in those days), it used heated air to work the piston. This arrangement was less effective but far safer, making it popular for less demanding work, such as pumping water. This invention became successful enough to supply Ericsson a steady income throughout his life.

One of Ericsson’s other major inventions was a screw propeller, meant to replace the side wheel paddle for steam boats and ships. The screw propeller was more efficient, less prone to damage, and allowed the steam engine powering the craft to sit lower in the hull. For river boats, this made the boat more stable and allowed more upper deck space for cargo and passengers. For military boats and ships, a steam engine below the water line allowed the ship to be protected from enemy shells, and the propeller could not be hit like a side paddle wheel could. Despite all the advantages of his design, Ericsson was unable to convince the conservative British Admiralty to use his designs on military vessels. As Ericsson was losing hope for selling this design, he met Captain Robert Stockton from the United States. Stockton convinced Ericsson to build him a screw propeller steamship and sail it to America, where his designs would receive more attention. Thus, Ericsson built the Robert F. Stockton, a propeller-driven steamship, and sailed it to America. 

By the time Ericsson arrived in the United States, he already had fourteen patents to his name. Shortly after his arrival, Ericsson began work on what should have been one of his greatest accomplishments, the USS Princeton. Princeton was a twin propeller steam-powered sloop. Ericsson designed and supervised the construction of most of the ship, its engine, and one of its two 12-inch cannons. Stockton, with his focus on political gain and prestige, claimed most of the credit. Upon launching, Princeton took on the British paddle steamer SS Great Western, considered the fastest steamer on the seas, and easily beat it. Princeton returned to port in Philadelphia and completed outfitting, eventually making it to New York to receive her two 12-inch guns.

After receiving her guns, Princeton took on hundreds of dignitaries for a demonstration cruise. The list included President John Tyler and most of his Cabinet. During a demonstration of the 12-inch guns, the "Peacemaker," the gun designed by Stockton, exploded. Luckily, the president was belowdecks at the time and was not harmed; however, eight men were killed, including the Secretary of State and Secretary of the Navy. Despite having claimed most of the credit for Princeton, as well as designing and supervising the construction of the gun that had blown up, Stockton tried to blame Ericsson. Using his political connections, Stockton was able to shift most of the responsibility to Ericsson and even blocked the Navy from paying Ericsson for the ship, which went on to outperform the rest of the U.S. Gulf Fleet during the Mexican-American War.

This bad experience with Stockton and the Navy almost stopped Ericsson from working with the Navy again. Luckily, a group of Ericsson’s friends convinced him to submit his design for a revolving turret “floating battery” to the Navy. This design, which became the USS Monitor, was accepted and completed just in time to meet the CSS Virginia (formerly the USS Merrimack) in the Battle of Hampton Roads.

After the Civil War, Ericsson could have retired financially secure and with his fame assured, but he still had more to offer. In the 1880s, he developed a warship that was fast, armored, low in the water, and fired an “underwater rifle.” Calling his ship the Destroyer, he claimed it could take on any ship of the day. Destroyer was never accepted by the Navy, largely because the “underwater rifle” had to be aimed by pointing the ship in the direction you wanted to fire and the shell was not self-propelled, so it had a limited range.

(top left) The low-riding Destroyer with a round coming out of the underwater rifle. (top right) A view inside the hull of the watertight cannon with a shell ready to load. (bottom) A cut-away view of the ship's hull and underwater cannon.

With the Navy turning down Destroyer, Ericsson later developed a self-propelled and guidable torpedo. Although able to change direction and depth, it was bulky and unable to compete against the much faster Whitehead torpedo. Ericsson also helped John Holland in his early submarine work by providing technical support.

These are but a few samples of Ericsson’s many contributions to engineering and naval science.

Fort Norfolk and the U.S. Navy

Fort Norfolk was one the original coastal fortifications Congress approved funding for and President George Washington signed into existence, and the only one still around. In 1794 Washington signed the bill Congress had passed for the construction of 19 coastal fortifications to protect the fledgling nation. Like most fortifications of the time it was small and made mostly of trenches and earthwork mounds to protect the troops and guns. Personnel duties during its early years consisted of stopping and checking ships heading into port, for contraband and, more importantly, yellow fever. By 1802, the fort had been abandoned and stripped of anything useful, but tensions with Great Britain would see its rebirth.

By 1810, tensions with Great Britain had reached the point where the United States government decided to reinvest in coastal defense.  This next round of construction would see masonry defenses as well as officer and enlisted quarters built on the fort. Although it did not play a very active role during the War of 1812, Fort Norfolk’s presence protected the area by discouraging British ships from trying to penetrate further up the Elizabeth River. With the completion of Fort Monroe in the 1830s, and the protection it rendered at the entrance to Hampton Roads, Fort Norfolk would once again be seen as unneeded. This time it would be the Navy that saved it.

The rapidly degrading condition of Gosport Navy Yard (later named Norfolk Naval Shipyard) would prove to be Fort Norfolk’s salvation. The Navy got control of Fort Norfolk in 1849 as an annex to Gosport Navy Yard.  By 1852, Gosport was in bad shape from neglect, and it was too small for the expanded fleet.   More importantly, its magazine was too close to where the fleet anchored. To solve this latter problem, by 1854, the Navy built a powder magazine at Fort Norfolk and converted some of the existing buildings to produce munitions.  Although the fort would continue as an ordnance depot until the 1880s, its biggest contribution may have happened during the Civil War.

The Confederacy took control of Gosport Navy Yard in 1862, and Fort Norfolk may have been the biggest beneficiary.  Union troops had tried to destroy as much of the yard as it could, particularly the equipment and naval stores, but a lot was left behind.  Many of the guns at Gosport were moved by the Confederacy to other points across the south, including neighboring Fort Norfolk.  Fort Norfolk played a key role in the ironclad battle between USS Monitor and CSS Virginia (formerly USS Merrimack).  The fort operated as a supply point for the Confederate ironclad, and supplied troops from the state militia unit, which had been manning the fort, to supplement Virginia’s crew and man her guns.  After Union troops took control of Norfolk, the Army used the fort as a prison for the remainder of the war.  After the Civil War, Fort Norfolk transferred back to the Navy until the 1920s, when the Army Corps of Engineers took control.  From the 1880s until its transfer to the Corps, the fort served little purpose for the Navy.

Fort Norfolk now stands on the grounds of the Army Corps of Engineers Norfolk District Headquarters.   The Corps of Engineers used the fort’s buildings until the current headquarters building was completed in 1983.  Over the last several years, restoration work has been done to preserve the buildings and grounds, and now much of it is preserved to its nineteenth century condition.  Now officially on the National Register of Historic Places, the grounds and building exteriors of Fort Norfolk are open to the public.  For access, the general public needs to first check in at the front gate to the Corps headquarters.  The Norfolk Historical Society conducts guided tours during the summer every Sunday from noon to 4 p.m.  For more information about visiting the fort, go to the Historical Society’s website.

Fort Norfolk was around long before it became a naval ordnance depot.  It’s still here, long after the depot closed, and efforts continue to keep it around for decades into the future.

Story by Hampton Roads Naval Museum Educator Jerome Kirkland