The Confederate States lacked the resources enjoyed by their northern foe and could not afford to be as conservative. From the onset of hostilities, Confederate authorities proved to be more creative, at least as far as the new iron protected vessels were concerned. Several weeks before the attack on Fort Sumter, for example, the “Charleston raft” was built in Charleston Harbor. The idea was that the floating battery would be pushed forward to serve as a launching platform for an assault party who equipped with ladders would scale the fort. With its near vertical iron plate sides and sand bag protection the battery resembled a bizarre misshapen building more than it did a ship or a boat. In fact, it towed a separate floating hospital that looked like a log cabin awash in a flood. Though armed with two 32-pounder and two 42-pounder artillery pieces, many of its crew remained skeptical of its utility and feared it would capsize and sink. [38] In the months that followed even more ambitious projects were attempted. In May, Colonels Bonner and Flemming began building a self-propelled “steam floating battery”. [39] Six weeks later, the Boston Journal reported that the Rebels had fortified a large tugboat with railroad iron and built another vessel, known as the New Orleans Battery Ram. The size of a steamboat, its cabin had slanted sides covered with railroad iron so that any round shot that struck would be deflected. It also had a very sharp iron prow to ram enemy shipping. For offensive armament, hoses were attached to its boilers to spray boiling hot water onto anyone attempting to board her. Both the converted tug and the ram were to hunt Federal ships then blockading New Orleans. [40] These were necessarily impromptu affairs. Around the same time, the Confederate Navy, however, formally decided to build a true iron-protected ship that ultimately would become known as the C.S.S. Virginia. There are a number of possible antecedents to the Virginia. On June 1, 1861 John L. Porter, a navy “constructor,” arrived in Richmond to help Chief Engineer W. P. Williamson and Lieutenant J.M. Brooke draw up plans for the intended vessel. He brought with him a model of an iron-protected vessel he had built in 1846, [41] when the Stevens Floating Battery was still in the public’s eye. The Virginia could have been influenced by two other developments. Scientific American claimed that in 1814 when applying for a patent Thomas Gregg provided the patent office with a model that was an “almost exact model of the Merrimac” (i.e., the Virginia) During 1860-61 some Northern newspapers publicized an Austrian gunboat that had belatedly taken part in the Italian War of 1859 and an illustration of the vessel appeared in Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Magazine on Feb. 9, 1860. [42] Though lacking any motive power, it appeared to be very similar to the Merrimac. The original plan for the Virginia called for the iron protected angled walls above the hull to stretch the length of the entire vessel. However, the ensuring weight meant that the length and beam of the vessel had to be greatly limited. Lt. Brooke who drew up the designs realized that part of the vessel below the waterline was much less vulnerable to artillery and the iron-cased armor only had to cover the exposed areas above the surface. [43] Porter, Williamson, and Brooke immediately encountered another critical problem that almost cancelled the project: there were no new engines available for the proposed vessel in the entire Confederacy. A solution was quickly found, however. The U.S.S. Merrimac had been set afire by Union forces before they evacuated the Norfolk naval yards. Its main steam engine had survived intact and it was decided to use its hull and engine instead of that specified by the original design. This change would have one critically important consequence, not foreseen at the time of construction. Its 22-foot draw was almost double of that specified by the original design. This relatively deep draw had had little practical effect on the U.S.S. Merrimac, an ocean going vessel, but would greatly limit the ironclad’s maneuverability in the shallow channels at Hampton Roads where it was destined to encounter its nemesis, the U.S.S. Monitor. In the present emergency, however, there was no choice but to use what was available. The 263-foot vessel was to weigh 3200 tons and accommodate a 320-man crew. It was to have 4-inch iron plate armor sloped at 35 degrees and backed by 24-inch pitch-pine. [44] It was armed with two 7-inch rifled artillery pieces, two 6-inch rifles, and six 9-inch smoothbore cannon. It was also equipped with a four-foot cast-iron prow secured to the bow that served as a ram. It is possible that southern spies in Brooklyn provided information that lead to an unfortunate redesign of this prow. Hearing that it was not long enough to penetrate the Monitor’s overhanging armor, it was lengthened without regard to strength. The resulting weakness not only influenced the tactics that the Virginia could employ but possibly predetermined the very result of the struggle with the Monitor at Hampton Roads on March 9. Despite the urgency, progress was slow. There was but one source for iron sheathing – the Tredegar Iron Works and the needed sheathing was delivered at what seemed an excruciatingly slow pace. Those working on the Monitor labored to complete the vessel in the shortest time possible. The launching of the Virginia, however, appears to have been influenced by strategic considerations. Confederate naval authorities wanted to wait until the Monitor appeared at Hampton Roads. The Virginia would come out and sink the Union ironclad and then all of the other vessels in the area. However, public opinion in northern Virginia forced the Confederates’ hand. The Virginia was ordered to set off on March 8, before the arrival of the Monitor. [45] The Virginia got underway and steamed down the Elizabeth River around noon where it encountered and defeated a number of ocean-going Union naval vessels. The fate of the sloop Cumberland and the frigate Congress is well known enough not to be repeated here. Ironclads Their Development and Use During the Civil War Introduction and Background The Monitor The C.S.S. Virginia The C.S.S. Virginia versus the U.S.S. Monitor The Attack of Fort Henry and Fort Donelson Gaming ACW Naval Actions Back to Table of Contents -- Courier # 89 To Courier List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 2003 by The Courier Publishing Company. This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com