Talk:Battle of Hampton Roads

message: :The name of the warship which served the Confederacy in the famous Battle of Hampton Roads eventually became a continuing source of confusion, to the present day. 
:Of course, she was commissioned by the Confederacy as CSS Virginia. However, even after she was rebuilt, the Union preferred to call the Confederate ironclad warship by its earlier name, "Merrimack." Perhaps because the Union won the US Civil War, the history of the United States generally records the Union version wherever there is a name discrepancy with Confederate naming. However, in an apparent quirk in history, at some later time, the name commonly used was shortened to drop the final "-k", hence "the Battle of the Monitor and the Merrimac". 
:The small community in Montgomery County near the location where the iron for the Confederate ironclad was forged is now known as Merrimac, Virginia. The name of the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel, built in Hampton Roads in the general vicinity of the famous engagment, with both Virginia and federal funds, reflects this more recent version. 
;This section got cut out, but some version of needs to be restored, to explain why this battle is so commonly called "the Battle of the Monitor and the Merrimac"--as is demonstrated by the name of the bridge. The euphonious alliteration was probably a factor.
;—wwoods 11:07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it over to the article on the CSS Virginia, since it's mainly about that ship, rather than about the battle.  If you want to put a simplified version back in, feel free. --Carnildo 19:42, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical names: ''Merrimack, Virginia, Merrimac''

message: I happened across these records from the DANFS, and updated the section accordingly.
Virginia 
Merrimack 
Merrimac 
Anynobody 08:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 continuation 

message: Here are a bunch of public domain pictures I've found for use in this article.  Place them where you like.  --brian0918™ 02:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: Thanks, |brian0918! The new color painting and box look very nice. I will try to work on articels for the red links (int links to non-existant articles), as these are often a stumbling block to fac status. Vaoverland 20:07, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
:If you want info, this would probably be the place to get it.  All the info on that site is public domain, so you could simply copy and paste it if you wanted to, making sure to put a battlebox in for each of those articles.  I know that Wikipedia doesn't like people copying and pasting, but I've never agreed with them on it, especially in the case of public domain material.  Everytime something is paraphrased, some information is most likely lost, and unless the toughest critics are actually going to check all the facts in every article to make sure that info wasn't paraphrased/summarized incorrectly, they need to keep quiet.  It's better to provide the public with the most correct information than with some inadequate alternative for originality's sake. (now I'm starting to ramble...)  --brian0918™ 12:08, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates

message: I'm sure you all are aware this is a featured article. Kudos, it is an excellent article. Stirling Newberry 18:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stirling Newberry didn't erase what you wrote.  Besides, it made no sense and was more like vandalism than anything else.  How was school today? --brian0918™ 21:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thumbs up 

message: After seeing the nonsensical edit that resulted in "tactically inconclusive, tactical Confederate victory," I changed this to be simply Inconclusive. The previous version, which said strategic Union victory, was an overstatement. Although the Monitor was able to neutralize the immediate threat of the Virginia against the Union wooden fleet in the vicinity, the U.S. Navy was affected sufficiently by the threat of Virginia to cause Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan to change his strategic plan for the invasion of the Virginia Peninsula (the Peninsula Campaign). Although this battle is widely recognized as a turning point in the history of naval warfare, we should have citations from secondary sources to document whether it was in fact a strategic or tactical victory for either side. Hal Jespersen 01:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the battle, the strategic goal of the Confederacy was to break the Union blockade.  Anything less than that is a defeat.  The strategic goal of the Union was to maintain the blockade.  Doing so is a victory. --Carnildo 02:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  victory 

message: I did not attempt to change it, due to the fact that this page was a featured article, but in the last paragraph it talks about how fragile items were raised from the Monitor's wreck, including "the turret and the two Dahlgren cannons."  The word "gun" should be used instead of "cannon" when it comes to naval vessals of all types; it's been in use by sailors for generations and should be the prefered term in Wikipedia regarding warship articles.  Carajou 21:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Very minor correction

message: I have noticed that in this article, the Virginia retreats, thus ending the fight.  However, both the Victoria and the Monitor article claim that the Monitor retreated (the captain being blinded by some gunpowder).  While we can debate on the impact of the battle and who one, who retreated should be a more straightforward issue, and I am a bit annoyed that they do not match... I hope someone who is more knowledgeable than I can fix it! (and reference it, of course) Observer31 02:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both retreated.  The Monitor backed off to check the pilot house for damage after it was hit by a shot from the Virginia (the captain, being blinded by gunpowder, thought that the pilot house armor had been blown completely off).  The captain of the Virginia interpreted this as a retreat, and headed back to restock on coal and gunpowder.  After it was determined that the damage was less than feared, the acting captain of the Monitor turned his ship back to re-engage, and interpreted the Virginia's actions as a retreat. --Carnildo 04:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who retreated?

message: This article isn't up to current Featured Article standards, mainly due to a lack of citations. Anyone else up for fixing it? The Land 18:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs some work 

message: On two occassions, the article calls the Virgina a "rebel" vessel. I am not that familiar with the US Civil War; is it political correct (in both senses of the word) to do so, or is "rebel" POV? 212.149.48.43 08:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rebel"? 

message: the article now states that the Merrimac is often misnamed the Virginia. Isn't it the other way around? 72.213.183.178 (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I question whether it is really mislabeled or was it remaned.  I think that the ship was called the Merrimac, but when the Confederates rebuilt it with irn they named it the Virginia.  (Steve (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merrimac-Virginia 

message: My revision of the result of the battle was not intended as vandalism, and should not have been reverted. I contend that the result was indeed equivocal, that each side had a valid reason to claim victory. The 'tactical draw' verdict refers to only the second day; if the first day is included, the result would be regarded as a Southern victory by almost any accounting. Incomplete, to be sure, but still a victory. It is true that Virginia had not broken the blockade, but that was not the only reason for her existence, and there is very little evidence that it was on Buchanan's mind when he initiated the battle.
The arguments that each side can give to justify its claims to victory seem to be these:
:For the North: Although the cost was high, the blockade remained in place, and was never seriously threatened.
:For the South: The blockade was not the target. Rather, the Southern war effort was aimed at making the war too expensive (not only in economic terms) for the Northern people to endure. The relative losses of the battle (including the second day), if they could have been repeated, would have been applicable in this regard.
The "strategic victory" claim, which I believe is rather new (that is, not advanced until recent years), is also a one-sided reading. Just as the blockade was not Buchanan's only target, so it was not the only purpose for the Federal ships in Hampton Roads. The mere presence of Virginia was enough to distort General George McClellan's strategy for the Union Army advance on Richmond. The movement up the James River was stymied as long as she was still in existence, and the James became McClellan's base only after she was destroyed (through no fault of her own).
The problem here, so far as Wikipedia is concerned, is that the infobox tries to reduce the complexity of reality to a one- or two-word verdict. Somewhere up above on this page, Hal Jespersen referred to this as a "soundbite," an apt description. Bickering over these capsule judgments is both futile and fatuous. It is better to dispense with the line altogether. PKKloeppel (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's an interesting compromise. :-) My arguments over this kind of thing are always about removing adjectives such as decisive or Pyrrhic. My usual solution is to cite the NPS CWSAC summary, the original source for this article way back when, which in this case is the suitably neutral "Inconclusive." Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Coincidentally, this very issue has come up on the MilHistory Project main page, where I have proposed deletion of the "Results" section from all infoboxes. If my feeling for public opinion is valid, the tide is running against my proposal, but I still think it is the better solution. When the result is ambiguous, as it often is, to label it in any of the available categories is a disservice to the reader. It either conveys misinformation, or it is unnecessary. PKKloeppel (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Bowing (grudgingly) to what I perceive to be overwhelming public opinion, I have reinserted the "Result" item in the infobox. (Jesperson: I submit this as evidence that I am not as stubborn as you think.) I would like it to be linked directly to the section it refers to, but my effort to provide a Wikilink didn't work. If someone can show me how to do it, I will be very happy. Well, moderately happy. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox; result of battle

message: I have removed the editorial changes inserted by 67.142.161.20, but not necessarily because I disagree with them. I have two objections: (1) The citation is inadequate. As it does not appear in the list of references, the citation must contain full bibliographic information, plus the page number. (2) The assertion that it was the second worst defeat ever suffered by the US Navy cannot be sustained. I can think of at least two other World War II battles that were even worse: Savo Island and Java Sea. Even if it can be somehow argued that Hampton Roads was worse than both of these, such ranking is a matter of opinion that, absent unanimity among historians, is not permitted in Wikipedia. PKKloeppel (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I attended a conference with Craig L. Symonds and he said that it was the worst U.S. Navy defeat before Pearl Harbor, which seems more reasonable. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Agreed. But it still must be documented. PKKloeppel (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Who won?

message: The Dictionary of American fighting ships states that USS Cumberland was a frigate. Is there more reliable information that she was actually a sloop of war? PKKloeppel (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Frigate or sloop of war?

message: I think this section needs to be revised and perhaps retitled.  I've added detail about the many new ships that the Union brought into the blockade during late March and April 1862.  After the initial engagement, the conflict really should not be viewed as a Monitor/Virginia duel.  By the time Virginia was repaired, the balance of power had completely changed.  Letters from Commodore Tattnall state that he didn't think Virginia could escape during the day or night because of the new Union ships.  Of course, all these ships were brought into play because of the shock of Virginia's success on March 8.   Mac John Concord (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spring 1862 — a standoff at Hampton Roads 

message: In Chapter March 9: Monitor engages Virginia is written:
During the two-day engagement, the U.S.S. Minnesota shot off 78 rounds of 10-inch solid shot; 67 rounds of 10-inch solid shot with 15-second fuse;
this is even written in the reference. But IMO there doesn't exist solid shot with 15-second fuse.
Does anyone oppose to cange this to shells with 15-second fuse?
Yours --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed that error, and was about to open a new section. Articles should contain only reliably sourced content, but we're not therefore obliged to perpetuate obvious errors derived from otherwise (presumably) reliable sources. Before any change is made, however, better to check whether this should be fused shell or solid shot. Perhaps another, more thoroughly proof-read source could be found? I've searched the internet for such a thing, without success. No information is probably better than outright misinformation Haploidavey (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ammunition usage 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Hampton Roads. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101008145234/http://ijnhonline.org/volume2_number3_Dec03/article_schneller_dahlgren_dec03.htm to http://www.ijnhonline.org/volume2_number3_Dec03/article_schneller_dahlgren_dec03.htm#_edn73
*Added  tag to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/cfa10/virginia.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090501213805/http://www.monitorcenter.org:80/preserving/ to http://www.monitorcenter.org/preserving/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041017025755/http://www.havenworks.com:80/military/uss-monitor/ to http://www.HavenWorks.com/military/uss-monitor
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111117003521/http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/abpp/Battles/va008.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/va008.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Hampton Roads. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090123070651/http://mkmagazin.almanacwhf.ru/mor_col/mc_bo/mc_bo_06.htm to http://mkmagazin.almanacwhf.ru/mor_col/mc_bo/mc_bo_06.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Hampton Roads. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20061003042749/http://cssvirginia.org/ to http://cssvirginia.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The line overstates things.  It actually spends five lines establishing a metaphor of two ships trying to beat the crap out of each other, but failing to do significant damage because their defenses are too strong and then spends the remainder of the song applying that to personal relationships. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titus Andronicus track 

message: The article states that while Confederates were ferrying soldiers off of Congress after it waved the white flag, shore batteries opened fire on Virginia, and in retaliation, Franklin Buchanan ordered Congress be destroyed by hot shot and incendiary shell. According to Franklin Buchanan's actual battle report, however, shore batteries opened fire, yes, but it was when Congress herself opened fire on Flag-Lieutenant Minor when he volunteered to take a boat to burn Congress that actually led to the order to destroy Congress with incendiary shell. I think this should be represented in the article. 76.78.207.33 (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retaliation to Congress