This is a study of the strategic and tactical use of ironclad warships during the American Civil War. The project seeks to examine why the naval administration on both sides (led by
Gideon Welles for the Union and Stephen Mallory for the Confederacy) decided to give such vessels an opportunity in combat, their reaction to early operations (such as the famous battle at
Hampton Roads on 8-9 March 1862), and how they learned to deploy the ships as the war progressed--accounting for difficulties with terrain, fortified opposition, learning curve for
personnel, and weaknesses of the weapon system technology. The study also encompasses history of science and technology concepts such as gatekeeper theory and social construction of
technology. The military gatekeepers, Union and Confederate, had to adopt weapons that suited their strategic needs as a part of their overall objective. The Confederate's need to maintain
open ports and fend off the Union Navy's superior numbers made superior quality of ships a viable recourse. The Union's need to defeat the Confederate Navy, including overcoming any of the
South's technological leaps, made inclusion of ironclad warships a valid plan. However, both sides of the conflict had to deal with different socially constructed backgrounds. The South's
agricultural heritage and lack of industrial development hindered its ability to build or improve naval technology at home—forcing it to look abroad for assistance at a time when major
nations would not recognize the Confederacy's official existence. The Union's entrenched naval traditions and cumbersome bureaucracy slowed approval of new and often unproven technologies.
The result of these forces, military and technological, was an unforgiving trial by fire for the ironclad armored warship in the American Civil War. / A Dissertation submitted to the Department of History in partial fulfillment of the Doctor of Philosophy. / Fall Semester 2015. / November 3, 2015. / Civil War, Confederacy, Innovation, Ironclad, Navy, Union / Includes bibliographical references. / Michael Creswell, Professor Directing Dissertation; Mark Souva, University Representative; Ron Doel, Committee Member; Kristine Harper, Committee
Member; Kurt Piehler, Committee Member.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:fsu.edu/oai:fsu.digital.flvc.org:fsu_291384 |
| Contributors | Stern, Gregory N. (Gregory Nathaniel) (authoraut), Creswell, Michael H., 1958- (professor directing dissertation), Souva, Mark A. (university representative), Doel, Ronald Edmund (committee member), Harper, Kristine (committee member), Piehler, G. Kurt (committee member), Florida State University (degree granting institution), College of Arts and Sciences (degree granting college), Department of History (degree granting department) |
| Publisher | Florida State University |
| Source Sets | Florida State University |
| Language | English, English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Text, text |
| Format | 1 online resource (191 pages), computer, application/pdf |
Page generated in 0.0028 seconds