Statistics Midterm 2 Sheet (docx)

Statistics Midterm 2 Sheet (PDF)

As promised, here is my cheat sheet for my second introductory statistics midterm. It’s a bit more condensed than the first cheat sheet, so you might want to refer to that one also and amend this one if needed. If the font is too small or you want to add some formulas or sentences, feel free to use the docx version for editing. Please keep the credit to Intense Cogitation.

Some information about the file: 2153 words in Verdana size 8, with page margins of 0.39 inches (which are the smallest my printer can print without issues).

Topics covered:

1. Basic statistics definitions / qualitative vs. quantitative data
2. Measures of centre – range, median, mode, mean, variance, standard deviation. Some standard deviation rules – eg) Empirical Rule and Tchebycheff’s Theorem. Box plots.
3. Bivariate data, regression line calculations (eg. covariance, correlation coefficient)
4. Probability – definitions, permutations, combinations, union, independent, dependent, total probability, conditional probabilities, Bayes theorem
5. Probability distributions (mostly discrete) – binomial, Poisson, hypergeometric, continuous random variable
6. Continuous distributions, central limit theorem
7. Sampling – simple random, non-random. Sampling distributions
8. Confidence intervals – mean, binomial distribution proportion, difference between 2 means, difference between 2 proportions, control chart
9. Hypothesis testing – null hypothesis, alternate hypothesis, significance level

Common abbreviations I may have used:

• avg = average
• sd/std dev = standard deviation
• rel freq = relative frequency
• dist = distribution
• approx = approximation
• Ho = null hypothesis
• Ha = alternate hypothesis

Leave a comment!

May 2013 IB students: good luck on your IB exams!

Salutations from everyone at Intense Cogitation, the most popular IB student blogs on the Internet! We have a wide range of content, including university course notes, university course study guides, IB advice, IB notes, university help, technology-related posts, and much more. We’re always excited for content from our visitors, so if you want to contribute, just contact us via the Contact Us link at the top.

If you visit our site frequently and enjoy the services we provide, why not donate to us? Hosting the site is quite expensive, so any help would be appreciated! (you’re free to donate how much you want!) You can donate to us through the Paypal link on the bottom right.

Follow us on our Facebook fan page or send us a tweet on Twitter. Feel free to visit us on Stumbleupon, Reddit, Digg, and Delicious!

You can also subscribe to our RSS feed through  or subscribe to Intense Cogitation by Email.

Did you know? If you have difficulties remembering our website address, you can visit IBblog.net and it will redirect here!

I posted it on Intense Cogitation solely as an exemplar. Using ideas or words from this without acknowledgement is plagiarism. If you have any questions about this, please leave a comment.

The Canadian short story “Exiled” by Shizuye Takashima beautifully illustrates the tragic story of Japanese-Canadian internment during World War II. The protagonist, a female Japanese-Canadian child, describes this riveting tale through a series of journal entries from 1942. These journal entries are organized into three seasons: spring, summer and autumn. At the same time, the protagonist changes in terms of complexity. This causes one to wonder: what does the author achieve by linking character development to seasons? Takashima uses the seasons to reflect on the rise and fall of the complexity of the protagonist, which draws the reader into this captivating story. It also reinforces the theme that all good things come to an end. In terms of the protagonist, spring represents the birth of her identity, summer reflects the growth of her identity, and autumn highlights the slow decay of her identity. Essentially, each season illustrates a pivotal moment in the protagonist’s life.

Spring is a season of birth. It is the season where everything comes to life—plants and animals are born, and a temperate climate returns. This connotative meaning of spring makes it an excellent parallel for the birth of the protagonist’s identity.

The first journal entry from March 1942 exemplifies this idea; it documents the emergence of the protagonist. Although the child appears to be simple and flat at the beginning, Takashima does this to highlight the fact that there is room for progress. Near the beginning of the entry, she states, “Mass evacuation for the Japanese!” (44). This illustrates the simple mentality of the child, since she does not realize the severity of the situation. The internment process is referred to as an “evacuation” (44), which is extremely ironic. The child describes the forced relocation of Japanese-Canadians with a word that has a positive connotation, highlighting her simple understanding of the issue at hand. Her poor grasp of the world around here is exemplified through the disparity between her views on relocation and the views of others. She notes that “The older people are very frightened. Mother is so upset; so are all her friends. I, being only eleven, seem to be on the outside” (44). Evidently, the protagonist’s lack of depth manifests itself in her reaction to the situation at hand; she does not realize why everyone around her is acting this way. In addition, her use of simple diction in the passage above further reinforces her lack of complexity. Overall, the author portrays the protagonist as a rather clueless child, but this allows her to have room for growth.

Growth occurs in the following journal entry, much like the appearance of new leaves on a tree. The protagonist begins to develop a sense of self, which is a sign of sophistication. She watches her father board the train “at the train station” (44), and notices that her mother is silent. She reacts with firm determination: “I look at her. I see tears are slowly falling … I turn away, look around” (45). At last, the main character appears to be actively responding to events happening around her instead of merely listing the facts. In addition, she appears to be developing a sense of self. Takashima conveys this burgeoning self-identity with the repetition of the word “I” at the beginning of the sentences mentioned above. This is significant since she rarely referred to herself in the previous entry. Evidently, the protagonist is becoming increasingly complex, as demonstrated by her blossoming sense of self and hints of independent action. In essence, the author gives the reader some glimpses of the child’s complexity, which makes the story even more gripping.

Although both of these journal entries are relatively devoid of details of spring itself, the essential point still remains: the protagonist is becoming increasingly dynamic, which is consistent with the connotative meaning of spring. However, the lack of details about spring may be a literary feature. This lack of information about the setting likely reflects the protagonist’s flatness at the beginning of the story. Nevertheless, the protagonist begins as a simple, flat character, and later becomes a budding plant that is ready to develop into a truly complex character.

After spring comes summer, a season in which the hottest and longest days of the year occur. Since summer appears to be the season with the most intensity, it is possible that the epitome of character development may occur in this season for the protagonist.

The first journal entry in this season involves the destruction of the world around the protagonist, and her development regardless of that fact. She notes that David, her brother, is “taken away” (45). As he leaves, she wonders “what [David] thought as his time came to leave” (45). This clearly shows that the main character is able to comprehend what is happening around her, and that she is beginning to understand the plight of others, making her less egocentric relative to the previous section. Moreover, she mentions, “my house is empty. What we can sell, we do for very little money … We are not supposed to own anything! The government takes our home” (45). The repetition of “we” clearly shows that she is realizing her place in her family. Along with her reaction to David’s departure, it is evident that she now understands that the events happening in the world are having a direct effect on her and her family. The short, choppy sentences in the previous excerpt reinforce the description of the harsh environment around her, making her progress all the more remarkable. The destruction of the world around the child is intended by the author; it causes her to face difficult challenges, which forces her to adapt by being more knowledgeable and complex. Evidently, the author’s ironic use of a crumbling environment in a season of prosperity forces the protagonist to be more complex.

The author then proceeds to thrust her into an even more disturbing environment: the Exhibition grounds. Takashima’s powerful use of imagery highlights the protagonist’s growing complexity and limitations. The reader is immediately immersed in an atmosphere of despair; instead of “bright balloons and sugar candy”, the protagonist and her family are greeted with “tension and crying children… [along with] the unmistakable foul smell of cattle” (45). Japanese-Canadians are being detained on this site, which used to house animals. The sensory input overloads the protagonist, and she wants to “turn and run” (46). She likens the Exhibition grounds to “the hell-hole [her] Sunday school teacher spoke of with such earnestness” (46). Although the protagonist is becoming increasingly sophisticated, there is only so much that she can handle; Takashima uses this scene to illustrate the full extent of the child’s emotional capacity. At the same time, this shows how far she has progressed; in spring, she would not have acted in such a dynamic fashion. Afterwards, her encounter with Mrs. Abe makes her uncomfortable again. When “a curious head [poked] in from the drawn, frail curtain” (46), Mrs. Abe becomes extremely angry, and this rage accidentally manifests itself into a glare aimed at the child. As a result, she “[begins] to feel uncomfortable” (46) and leaves. Yet again, the growth of the protagonist is reflected in her reaction to uncomfortable situations; instead of being passive, like in spring, she now actively reacts to external stimuli and develops emotional responses. Takashima’s clever use of an unnerving environment clearly forces her to bring complex aspects of herself to the forefront.

Although both of these journal entries do not necessarily convey a sense of summer, there are still references to summer hidden in the background. The day of the Exhibition grounds visit is described as being a “very hot summer day” with a “strong, summer July sun” (45). This foreshadows the protagonist’s growth during that day. Like the sun, the child had an extremely strong day in terms of character development—her reaction to a strange environment was explored, and previously unknown aspects of her character were revealed, such as her emotional side. There is unmistakable growth in the development of the protagonist, and this growth is clearly mirrored by the fierceness of various aspects of summer, especially heat.

However, the protagonist begins to decline in complexity as autumn comes, since it is a season of slow, but gradual decay. The beginning of the end is foreshadowed: her family is waiting for “[their] notice to go to the camps.” (46). Likewise, a similar fate awaits the protagonist.

The first entry of autumn involves the protagonist’s escape from regular life. She joins her sister Yuki in watching a movie, which is an atypical event. The curfew mandates that “all Japanese have to be indoors by ten P.M.” (46), and she and Yuki have to hurry home when the movie finishes. As they sprint home, Yuki refers to her as “Shichan” (46). In Japanese, the suffix “chan” is a honourary term for females only. Thus, the protagonist is female. By revealing the gender of the character, Takashima removes a layer of complexity—no longer is the protagonist shrouded in a fog of uncertainty and mystique. After this riveting adventure, Shichan escapes reality yet again by retreating into isolation. She looks outside the window and notices that “one by one the lights in the city vanish” (47), which can be interpreted as a metaphor for her gradual decline into simplicity; lights are often associated with ideas or intelligence. In both these instances, Shichan relinquishes control, much like a leaf falling from a tree in fall. Clearly, her deterioration parallels the slow decay that happens in autumn.

By the last journal entry, titled “An end to waiting”, Shichan has come full circle in terms of character development—she is right back where she started. When she visited the Exhibition grounds, she saw firsthand how horrific the living conditions were at a Japanese internment camp. However, she is excited about going to an internment camp. She claims that it is due to her reunion with her father, since “families will be back together” (47) at the camp, and reassures herself with the thought of a scenic view from the camp. She feels “secretly happy for [she loves] the mountains” (47) and reassures herself that a lake will be a suitable replacement for “the roaring sea” (47). Her reaction to prison camps resembles her reaction to relocation in spring, suggesting that she has lost the complex identity that she has fostered. The sheer insanity of Takashima’s writing at this stage encourages the reader to read more, in order to rationalize what they have just read. This burst of optimism in the face of such an ominous fate is similar to the last gasp of air that a person takes before they die: only in this case, it is the complexity of the protagonist that is dying. Amazingly enough, this entire entry is still consistent with the season of fall: the protagonist’s complexity has decayed past the point of no return.

The idea of autumn is clearly conveyed in both of these entries, as the protagonist becomes increasingly simplistic until she comes full circle. However, autumn is nearly described as being similar to summer. According to Shichan, the “fresh autumn air feels nice” (47) and the “sun’s warm rays reach [them]“. Instead of descriptors that illustrate cold and decay, Shichan chooses to use words that illustrate warmth and happiness. This could be attributed to the fact that autumn is similar to summer in this story, since both seasons involved significant character development, albeit in different directions. Nonetheless, the general idea of fall is reflected in the character’s actions.

Although descriptions of the seasons themselves may not have reflected the character of Shichan very accurately, the idea behind each season still generally mirrored the character. The protagonist developed a rudimentary identity in spring, expanded that identity in summer, and lost that identity in fall. Essentially, the character came full circle, reinforcing the theme that all good things come to an end. This theme is reinforced by the destruction of the protagonist’s once-glorious environment and her eventual detainment at a Japanese internment camp. Overall, Takashima transforms a complex tale of Japanese internment into a simple and engaging story of a girl in British Columbia by using the seasons as a mirror of the characterization of the protagonist.

Just a quick post: I came across a wonderful English teacher’s website that has many resources and sample papers for IB English Paper 1 and Paper 2, for both HL and SL. If you click on Paper 1 or Paper 2 on the left side of his website, you will see grading rubrics, examiner’s reports, useful tips, step by step guides, and sample essays.

Here are some quick links to some resources you may find useful on Intense Cogitation:

• Tips for IB English Paper 2
• Writing a Commentary
• TPCASTT – A Method of Analyzing Poetry
• Qualities of an Aristotelian Tragic Hero
• (love song, with two goldfish) – analysis of May 2010 paper 1 commentary

Shakespearean play resources:

• Oedipus: The Tragic Hero Readers’ Theatre Script
• Hamlet by William Shakespeare: Act I Commentary Outline
• Analysis of the Significance of Cameo Appearances by Minor Characters in “Macbeth”

Death of a Salesman:

• Key Quotes, Ideas and Themes in Death of a Salesman
• Death of a Salesman Readers Theatre

Other plays/stories:

• Short story: The Chmarnyk: Water Imagery and Pathetic Fallacy
• Short story: Use of the Seasons as a Mirror of Character Development in “Exiled” – IOP script
• Poem: Sonnet XXVIII (My Letters!) by Elizabeth Barrett Browning — A Presentation
• Novel: A Candid Discussion on “The Handmaid’s Tale”
• Novel: A Political Novel: One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich [essay]
• Novel: Analysis of Anita Desai’s “Fasting, Feasting” [Readers Theatre script]

Comedy:

• The Keats Enigma
• How to Kill A Mockingbird

Introductory Statistics Midterm 1 Sheet (PDF)

Introductory Statistics Midterm 1 Sheet (docx)

This cheat sheet was for my first introductory statistics midterm. We were allowed to bring 1 page, double-sided (‘cheat sheet’) into the exam with any formula, example or definition. It’s somewhat condensed, so it might be a bit confusing to understand. Feel free to customize it for your class. Please keep the credit to Intense Cogitation.  It should be useful if you are studying for IB Maths (for the statistics portion of the syllabus) or a 1oo-level statistics course.

The sheet has about 1700 words at font size 8, with page margins of 0.25 inches. If your printer cannot print 0.25 inch margins, you may have to edit the sheet. If the text is too microscopic, you can make it larger, but do note that the text will exceed 2 pages. I have included both versions (PDF and docx) in case either file format doesn’t work.

Main topics covered:

1. Basic statistics definitions / qualitative vs quantitative data
2. Measures of centre – range, median, mode, mean, variance, standard deviation
3. Bivariate data, regression line calculations
4. Probability – definitions, permutations, combinations, union, independent, dependent, total probability, conditional probabilities, Bayes theorem
5. Probability distributions (mostly discrete)- binomial, Poisson, hypergeometric, continuous random variable

If you have any comments, let me know!

Macroeconomics Final Sheet (docx)

For my introductory macroeconomics final, we were allowed to bring in 4 pages of formulas and definition (‘cheat sheet’) for our final exam. The class was for Canadian macroeconomics, so there may be references and allusions to unfamiliar institutions. I’m not sure if you’ll find it helpful because I really condensed it for my needs, but feel free to customize the sheet so it it’s suitable for your class. Please keep the credit to Intense Cogitation link in the file.

Main topics covered:

1. What is economics?
2. Economic markets
3. Macroeconomic cycles and growth
4. Unemployment and inflation
5. Expenditure and production
6. The Multiplier
7. The Aggregate Supply, Aggregate Demand model
8. Understanding Growth, Unemployment, Inflation and Cycles
9. Finance, Saving and Investment
10. Money and the Financial System
11. Exchange rates and international finance
12. Government budgets and fiscal policy
13. Bank of Canada monetary policy

The sheet has about 8500+ words at font size 5.5-6 on 2 pages, double sided (4 pages) with 0.25 inch margins. If your printer cannot print 0.25 inch margins, you may have to edit the sheet. I also recommend printing it in colour so it’s easier to see some of the graphs. If the text is too microscopic, you can make it larger, but do note that the text will exceed 4 pages. I have included both versions (PDF and docx) in case either file format doesn’t work.

NB: The graphs in the file are property of their respective copyright owners. They are used for demonstration/educational purposes only. Any infringement is not intentional.

If you have any comments, let me know!

To IB or not to IB, that is the question

I hope everyone is studying for their IB exams next month!

Whilst you’re studying, here are some links that you might find helpful/interesting:

• Mr Simon Porter has a list of IB physics past papers and mark schemes from 2007-2010 for multiple timezones in SL and HL. Some years seem to have only mark schemes, so you might want to look around.
• IB Memes is the largest IB memes page on Facebook, so you might want to check out the page if you’re on a study break!
• Here’s an article that was published in the Washington Post about transfer credits for American universities, so some of you may find this relevant.

For those of you who are well into your revision, do you have any study tips? What’s your favourite method for revising for exams?

Here are some basic notes on the Aggregate Demand-Aggregate Supply (AD-AS) model. Once I’m finished my Introductory Macroeconomics courses, I plan on posting some more economics notes.

Thanks to Taras for supplying the notes.

• The AD-AS model tries to predict & explain fluctuations in aggregate economic activity and inflation
  • It works well in situations of full employment and unemployment, allowing it to explain long-term growth trends and corresponding fluctuations.
  • The AD-AS model is an extension of the microeconomic supply-demand model, using total output (GDP) and average price level (P) rather than individual market quantity and price.

Aggregate Demand

α = proportional/related to

• AD is the quantity of domestic GDP people want to purchase given:
  • Price (P α (1/AD))
  • Household Income (H α AD)
  • Government Spending (G α AD)
  • Exports (E α AD)
  • Interest Rate (I α (1/AD))
  • Exchange Rate ($C α (1/AD))
  • The AD curve is a negative relationship between average price level (P) and real GDP (Y)
    • Change in P causes a movement along the AD Curve
    • Change in other factors causes a AD Curve shift

Aggregate Supply

• The AS is the amount of GDP that all firms in the economy are willing to supply.
• It is mostly dependent on factor costs, the biggest of which is cost of labour.
  • In the short-run, factor costs are fixed
  • In the long-run, factor costs aren’t fixed
  • Anything that will change the cost of production will cause a shift in the supply curve.

For other articles on the Extended Essay on Intense Cogitation, please see our helpful articles on The Extended Essay Outline and Sample sources for an Extended Essay – The American Civil War

This is my Extended Essay in History of the Americas that I wrote to fulfill my diploma requirement. It received a final grade of A. Please use this only as an exemplar — any academic misconduct is frowned upon.  As a warning, please do not use any portion of this sample in any academic coursework; this is only to give you a general idea of what an extended essay is like. Usage without permission is strictly prohibited, and is a violation of relevant intellectual property laws.

STRATEGIC VALUE OF THE CONFEDERATE IRONCLAD Virginia IN THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR

Table of Contents

Abstract.. 1

1. Introduction.. 3

2. The Blockade.. 4

2.1 The Battle of Hampton Roads. 5

2.2 Strategic Analysis. 9

3. The Peninsular Campaign.. 10

4. The Defence of Norfolk.. 12

5. Conclusion.. 15

Appendix 1 – Map of the Area Around Hampton Roads. 19

1. Introduction

On April 12^th, 1861, the American Civil War began when Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter. This war would eventually produce “more carnage than any other war in American history, before or since” (Brinkley 399). In this bloody conflict, the sea soon became a contested area, primarily because the Union quickly blockaded Confederate ports. However, both the United States of America and the Confederate States of America struggled to create wartime navies at the beginning of the conflict. The Union Navy had only twelve vessels available for immediate use, whereas the Confederacy had virtually none (Commager 796). To combat this disadvantage, Confederate Secretary of the Navy Stephen R. Mallory developed an audacious plan.

His radical plan involved the construction of powerful armoured warships, known as ironclads. Soon after Fort Sumter, he wrote:

I regard the possession of an iron-armored ship as a matter of the first necessity. Such a vessel at this time could traverse the entire coast of the United States, prevent all blockades, and encounter, with a fair prospect of success, their entire navy . . . But inequality of numbers may be compensated by invulnerability; and thus not only does economy but naval success dictate the wisdom and expediency of fighting with iron against wood. (qtd. in Beringer 145-46)

Mallory believed that it would be a strategic move to build a small fleet of ironclads instead of a navy of wooden ships because of the invulnerable nature of the ironclad. Shortly after Mallory’s remarks, the Confederates enacted this plan by converting the Merrimack, a captured Union vessel, into the ironclad Virginia at the Gosport Navy Yard in Norfolk,Virginia (“Lincoln and His Admirals” 132).

The Virginia was evidently a critical naval strategic asset for the Confederate war effort, and thus had many expectations. These expectations naturally took the form of important Confederate strategic goals. This leads to the question: to what extent did the ironclad Virginia benefit the Confederacy by achieving strategic goals?

Although she was a remarkable vessel, the Virginia was ultimately unsuccessful in her quest to benefit the Confederacy strategically. She failed to achieve three vital strategic goals: the destruction of the suffocating Union blockade, the suspension of McClellan’s Peninsular Campaign, and the defence of the Gosport Navy Yard at Norfolk. Despite her efforts, the blockade fleet still remained at Hampton Roads, McClellan’s Peninsular Campaign still occurred, and the Union still managed to capture the ship yard at Norfolk. In essence, this ironclad was unable to make any significant difference in the war. Because she was unable to achieve the aforementioned strategic goals, the Virginia was of little strategic use to the Confederacy.

2. The Blockade

The destruction of the blockade quickly became a vital strategic goal for the Confederacy. The Union Navy’s blockade of Confederate ports had the potential to devastate the Confederate war effort. During the spring of 1861, General-in-Chief Winfield Scott developed a plan to slowly suffocate the Confederate States through a naval blockade, which would later be known as the “Anaconda Plan” (J. McPherson 334). On April 19^th, 1861, one week after Fort Sumter, the Anaconda Plan was partially adopted by the Union when President Abraham Lincoln officially blockaded all ports in the Confederate States (E. McPherson 149). This theoretically prevented the Confederacy from importing or exporting any goods, which allowed the Union to exploit its advantage in industrialization.

The South was far behind the North in terms of industrialization. In terms of manufacturing establishments, the South possessed a mere 18,026, while New York State alone possessed 23,236 (Blair 25). The Union factories were also more efficient than their Confederate counterparts; the factories in New York State alone produced about four times more manufactured products than the entire Confederacy (Paludan 105). The disparity between Union and Confederate factories in terms of quantities and efficiency naturally limited the amount of weapons that the South could produce. One county in Connecticut, for example, produced more firearms than the entire Confederacy (Paludan 105). Compared to the North, the South evidently lacked the necessary infrastructure to conduct warfare in an effective manner. Therefore, the Confederacy needed to trade with foreign countries to counter the Union advantage in industrialization. Hence the destruction of the blockade was a vital objective for the South.

In order to achieve this goal, the Confederacy turned to the Virginia. As mentioned in the introduction, Secretary Mallory believed that an ironclad could “prevent all blockades” (qtd. in Beringer 145-46). To accomplish this goal, the Virginia started by attacking the Union blockade fleet at Hampton Roads, which was fairly close to the Virginia‘s home base at Norfolk (see Appendix 1 for a map). In essence, Hampton Roads was a trial for the Virginia, since the outcome of the battle would demonstrate the power of ironclad ships. Despite Secretary Mallory’s faith in ironclad ships, the Virginia failed to achieve the strategic goal of the destruction of the blockade; she did not succeed at the Battle of Hampton Roads.

2.1 The Battle of Hampton Roads

Hampton Roads was home to a Union blockade fleet (Simpson 58), which made it extremely attractive for the Virginia to attack. Before the Virginia steamed towards Hampton Roads, Captain Franklin Buchanan sent a message to Secretary Mallory that read:

“I contemplate leaving here to appear before the Enemy’s Ships . . . I feel confident that the acts of the Virginia will give proof of the desire of her officers and crew to meet the views of the Department as far as practicable.” (qtd. in Konstam 137)

Evidently, the goal of the Virginia‘s attack on the ships at Hampton Roads was to demonstrate her potential by destroying the Union blockade fleet there, which would meet the expectations of the Department of the Navy. Although the Virginia initially experienced success at the Battle of Hampton Roads, she was ultimately unable to achieve the strategic goal of the destruction of the blockade; the strategic situation remained unchanged in the end.

On March 8^th, 1862, the Virginia steamed towards the Union fleet anchored in Hampton Roads. A telegram from John Wool, a Union general in the region, to Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton succinctly described the grim events of that day:

The Merrimack [the Union designation for the Virginia] came down from Norfolk to-day, and about 2 o’clock attacked the Cumberland and Congress. She sunk the Cumberland, and the Congress surrendered. The Minnesota is aground and attacked . . . the St. Lawrence just arrived and going to assist . . . Probably both will be taken . . . It is thought the Merrimack . . . will pass the fort to-night.

(“Official Records” 4-5)

Although the telegram presents the battle from a Northerner’s perspective, the telegram appears to be fairly objective. The facts of the battle are presented in a relatively neutral fashion, which makes it an intriguing piece of historical evidence in the aftermath of such violence, especially since it was among the first telegrams sent to the Union government in regards to the devastation at Hampton Roads.

As illustrated by the telegram, the situation was evidently grim: the Virginia routed Union forces at Hampton Roads on this day. However, the telegram mentions that the Minnesota was only aground, and not destroyed. Thus, the Virginia would have to return on the following day to complete her destruction of the Union blockade fleet stationed at Hampton Roads. Overall, the day appeared to have ended on a strongly positive note for the Confederacy; the Virginia was one step away from destroying the Union blockade.

Moreover, the Virginia was barely damaged, which reinforces Secretary Mallory’s claims that ironclads were invulnerable. Despite the intense battle that had happened at Hampton Roads, shots fired from Union ships and shore batteries rebounded “from her iron sides as if they had been of india (sic) rubber” (Rhodes 112). Thus, Secretary Mallory’s dream of ironclads destroying the Union fleet appeared to be coming true. In fact, only crew exhaustion and the falling tide prevented the Virginia from finishing off the Minnesota on that day (“Decision at Sea” 117). The Virginia was ostensibly close to achieving her strategic goal of decimating the Union blockade at Hampton Roads.

However, the Union also had an ironclad, which had the potential to counter the Confederacy’s perceived advantage in the aftermath of Hampton Roads. The Monitor arrived at Hampton Roads around 11 P.M. (Commager 806), just in time to see the Congress explode (“Decision at Sea” 117). The Union ironclad would undoubtedly serve to protect the Minnesota and the remaining remnants of the Union fleet from the Virginia, because the Union could not afford to let the Confederacy seize a massive strategic victory by annihilating an entire Union blockade base.

On the following morning, the Virginia returned to Hampton Roads to finish her mission. She soon found the “queer-looking Monitor guarding the stranded frigate [Minnesota]” (qtd. in Scharf 167). Despite the presence of the Monitor, the Virginia still intended to destroy the Minnesota. However, neither ironclad was able to inflict serious damage on the other. Union Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles received the following telegram from his subordinate, G.V. Fox, which describes the battle in a concise manner:

The Monitor met them at once and opened her fire, when all the enemy’s vessels retired, excepting the Merrimack. These two ironclad vessels fought part of the time touching each other, from 8 a.m. to noon, when the Merrimack retired. Whether she is injured or not it is impossible to say . . . The Minnesota kept up a continuous fire and is herself somewhat injured.

She was moved considerably to-day, and will probably be off to-night. The Monitor is uninjured and ready at any moment to repel another attack.

(“Official Records” 6)

Like the previous telegram, this one is also from a Union perspective, and is also included in the U.S. government’s official records of the war. However, this telegram also appears to be a valid historical resource, since the facts given are consistent with facts mentioned in secondary sources, such as the book Duel of the Ironclads. The historical significance of the second day of the Battle of Hampton Roads is the shattered image of the Virginia’s invulnerability, which casts doubt on the strategic effectiveness of the ironclad.

In the end, the tactical picture was fairly impressive. The Virginia managed to destroy the USS Cumberland and USS Congress, damage the USS Minnesota, and inflict an estimated 409 Union casualties, according to the Battle Summary page by the American Battlefield Protection Program. With these losses in mind, the Virginia remained the cause for the worst day in the history of the United States Navy until Pearl Harbor in 1941 (qtd. in Holzer and Mulligan 147). However, tactical success did not necessarily translate into strategic success, since the Union retained control of the region.

2.2 Strategic Analysis

The strategic picture was relatively unchanged after the battle. The Virginia was unable to complete her destruction of the blockade fleet, since the Minnesota still remained at Hampton Roads, and the arrival of the Monitor essentially replaced the tactical role of the two Union warships that were sunk on March 8^th. Essentially, the Virginia was unable to destroy the Union blockade fleet at this important Union base, which meant that she was unable to achieve her strategic goal. However, there is another historical interpretation of the events that transpired during this battle.

E. Merton Coulter, Professor of History at the University of Virginia, asserts that “the Confederacy gained potential control of [Hampton Roads and the surrounding] Bay and even theoretical control of the high seas” because the Virginia was “impervious to the most terrific punishment the Federal wooden ships could inflict” (306). This interpretation appears to exaggerate some aspects of the Virginia‘s capabilities. For instance, it claims that one ship—the Virginia—controlled the area around Hampton Roads because it was essentially invulnerable. However, this interpretation fails to account for the innate weaknesses of the Virginia. Lieutenant Jones, a member of the crew, wrote about the Virginia‘s condition prior to battle:

The lower part of her shield forward was only immersed a few inches instead of two feet as intended, and there was but one inch of iron on the (lower) hull . . . The Virginia was unseaworthy; her engines were unreliable, and her draft, over 22 feet, prevented her from going to Washington . . . (qtd. in Konstam 139)

The Virginia was clearly not suited for battle, much less controlling the high seas. This casts further doubt on the Virginia’s ability to achieve strategic goals. Thus, Coulter’s interpretation is rather limited for this battle.

In essence, the Virginia was unable to accomplish the strategic goal of destroying the Union blockade. She attempted to accomplish this goal by attacking the Union fleet stationed at Hampton Roads, but her attempt ultimately ended in failure—the Union blockade fleet was still stationed at Hampton Roads when the Virginia departed. Furthermore, her innate weaknesses, such as her deep draft, essentially restricted her to Hampton Roads, preventing her from attacking the Union blockade at different locations. Therefore, the Virginia was unable to benefit the Confederacy in this regard.

3. The Peninsular Campaign

Besides the blockade, the Union had another major strategic plan: the Peninsular Campaign. Led by General George B. McClellan, this plan proposed the capture of Richmond by moving up the Virginia Peninsula (Linedecker 199). Thus, the Confederates needed to interfere with this campaign.

Richmond, the Confederate capital, was an important Confederate industrial city. Important Confederate war industries were established in Richmond, including the famous Tredegar Iron Works. According to “A Guide to the Tredegar Iron Works Records” by the University of Virginia, Tredegar was “virtually the sole source of heavy guns, projectiles, gun carriages . . . wheels and axles for railroad rolling stock, furnace machinery, and a variety of other products for Confederate munitions factories and navy yards.” Moreover, this was the same industrial establishment that produced iron plating for the Virginia since it was the closest foundry to Norfolk. If it were captured by the Union, the Confederacy would face a weapons production dilemma and Secretary Mallory’s hopes of creating a small ironclad fleet would be dashed. Therefore, the protection of Richmond became a strategic objective because of the city’s industrial and political importance. By extension, the suspension of the Peninsular Campaign became a strategic goal of the Confederacy.

The principal means by which the Virginia interfered with this campaign was through intimidation. Lincoln’s government was too focused on the destruction that had happened on March 8^th after General Wool’s telegram arrived on March 9^th; in response to that telegram, President Lincoln met with Secretary of War Stanton, Secretary of the Navy Welles, Secretary of State William H. Seward, General McClellan and others in the President’s office (Davis 113). Lincoln’s secretary noted that Stanton was “fearfully stampeded. He said they would capture our fleet, take Ft. Monroe, [and] be in Washington before night” (qtd. in Thomas 179). He went on to say that the Virginia would “destroy every vessel in the service . . . disperse Congress, destroy the Capitol and public buildings” (qtd. in “Lincoln and His Admirals” 137). Even President Lincoln occasionally glanced outside, as if he were expecting the Virginia to attack Washington at any moment (Davis 133). This clearly highlights the psychological effect of the Virginia on the upper echelon of the Union government; these men believed that the Virginia could essentially change the strategic picture of the war.

Their continued fear of the Virginia is reinforced by the fact that Secretary Welles sent every usable ship to Hampton Roads to transport the Army of the Potomac down to Virginia, including ships designed to ram the Virginia (Tucker 175). It is interesting to note that the expedition occurred when the Virginia was undergoing repairs. Tucker also notes that McClellan requested that Flag Officer Goldsborough use his warships at Hampton Roads to attack Confederate defences, but naturally he declined: the Virginia could make an appearance at any time, and weakening his force would put his other ships in danger (176). Clearly, the Virginia‘s mere presence in the area negatively impacted the Union campaign.

However, the strategy of intimidation could not last forever. On April 11, 1862, the Virginia was finally ready for battle after spending weeks in dry dock for repairs, and Mallory ordered the Virginia to interfere with the Peninsular Campaign by attacking Union transport ships (Tucker 176). Once again, the Virginia steamed towards Hampton Roads. This time, Union forces did not challenge the Virginia because it could jeopardize the Peninsular Campaign. If the Virginia gained control of the area, then the Union’s Army of the Potomac would be cut off from its primary supply line. The Union therefore shifted to a strategy of avoidance because the North could not afford to lose valuable ships to the Virginia, such as the Monitor. This strategy essentially neutralized the Virginia. The Virginia had an average speed of 5 knots (Konstam 48), which meant that virtually any Union ship in the region could outrun her. Furthermore, she could not attack ships that were under the protection of the guns at the local fort, such as the Monitor (Tucker 176). In fact, a crewman on the Monitor stated that “I believe the Department [of the Navy] is going to build us a big glass case to put us in for fear of harm coming to us” (Konstam 182). By altering its strategy, the Union effectively prevented the Virginia from achieving the strategic goal of interrupting the Peninsular Campaign.

Since the Virginia was unable to attack any ship, she was therefore unable to interfere with the Peninsular Campaign. Therefore, there was very little for the Virginia to do, since she failed to break the blockade and delay the Peninsular Campaign. There was only one vital strategic goal remaining: the defence of Norfolk.

4. The Defence of Norfolk

Throughout this tumultuous time period, the city of Norfolk was home to one of the Confederacy’s most valuable naval assets: the Gosport Navy Yard. Besides its role as the Virginia‘s home port, Norfolk was also important to the Confederacy in other ways. The shipyard was the one of the largest naval construction and repair facilities in the entire country (J. McPherson 279). It was located close to the industrial centre of Richmond, which allowed quick transport of manufactured goods from Richmond to the shipyard. Furthermore, Gosport was one of only two shipyards located in the entire Confederacy; the other being New Orleans (Konstam 2). If Norfolk fell, then the Confederates would not have a major shipyard along their entire Atlantic coastline. Norfolk was clearly an important part of the Confederate war effort, and needed to be defended. Thus, the defence of Norfolk was an important strategic goal for the Confederacy. To this end, the Confederates enlisted the Virginia as a part of their defence plan, but she failed to defend the ship yard from being captured by the Union.

During the spring of 1862, the Peninsular Campaign did not make significant progress, as previously mentioned. McClellan managed to land his troops on Confederate soil while the Virginia was being repaired, but he was held up at Yorktown. From Lincoln’s view point, the Union had forgotten about the menace that was the Virginia (Oates 326). The only logical way to defeat the Virginia with minimal direct contact would be to attack the city of Norfolk, which, as mentioned above, contained the Gosport Navy Yard. Capturing the shipyard would deprive the ironclad of a home. However, the Virginia was unable to prevent this disaster for the Confederacy.

The Virginia had the potential to stop an attack. When Union forces began to attack locations near Norfolk not long after the Battle of Hampton Roads, the mere appearance of the Virginia caused the U.S. fleet attacking Sewell’s point (see Appendix 1 for map of area) to move away quickly (“Lincoln and His Admirals” 151). This is another clear example of the Virginia‘s psychological capability. While defending Norfolk, the Virginia‘s psychological effect had more power than it did during her attempt to thwart McClellan’s Peninsular Campaign; the Union could not simply run away if it wanted to attack Norfolk. Thus, the Virginia had the ability to defend the city of Norfolk from a naval assault through her psychological effect.

At around the same time, McClellan began to march up the Virginia Peninsula, and engaged Confederate forces at Yorktown. After being surrounded by an overwhelming number of Union troops, Confederate forces were strategically redeployed to Richmond on May 4th; this left Norfolk isolated (Oates 326). President Lincoln decided to visit the front lines and found out that no one had tried to attack Norfolk, home of the infamous ironclad. With this in mind, he soon led an amphibious assault on Norfolk, which was not obstructed in any shape by the Virginia. In fact, there was no Confederate response to the beach landing. Evidently, the Virginia, with all her potential, did not stop the Union force.

According to Professor Craig L. Symonds of the U.S. Naval Academy, the lack of response was due to a simple reason: the Confederates “had planned to abandon Norfolk in any case once the Confederate army had evacuated the Yorktown line” (“Lincoln and His Admirals” 155). This interpretation highlights the idea that the Confederates decided that the Virginia was ultimately less powerful than the Confederate Army. This illustrates the Virginia‘s slow decline; she was originally designed as a major strategic weapon, but by May 1862, she was just another ship that could not even defend her home. Thus, Symonds’ interpretation of the events at Norfolk appears to have merit.

In essence, the Virginia theoretically had the capability to defend Norfolk, but she was ultimately disregarded. This line of thought likely stemmed from her inability to break the blockade and delay McClellan’s campaign. Therefore, the Virginia‘s past ineffectiveness prevented the Confederates from considering her as an integral part of Norfolk’s defence, which prevented her from achieving this strategic goal. Granted, the odds of an overland attack were extremely high, but the Virginia may have had the potential to assist Norfolk. In the end, she failed to accomplish any of her strategic goals.

5. Conclusion

The story of the Virginia is indeed a most riveting one. Her journey began at a captured Union shipyard in Norfolk, and this journey reached its climax at the engrossing Battle of Hampton Roads. However, her adventure came to an end when she was destroyed by Confederate troops after the fall of Norfolk.

At one point, Secretary Mallory considered her to be a powerful strategic weapon. He claimed that after she attacked New York City, “peace would inevitably follow. Bankers would withdraw their capital from the city. The Brooklyn navy yard and its magazines and all the lower part of the city would be destroyed, and such an event, by a single ship, would do more to achieve our immediate independence than would the results of many campaigns” (qtd. in Davis 78). This quote illustrates the Virginia‘s initial expectations.

However, she ultimately failed to accomplish any of the strategic goals outlined in the introduction. Each of these goals was of vital importance to the Confederacy. She initially attacked the Union fleet at Hampton Roads, and finished the day with some measure of success, but she was ultimately prevented by the Monitor from completely destroying the blockade in that region. Afterwards, the Virginia attempted to halt McClellan’s Peninsular Campaign which threatened the Confederate capital. To avoid destruction, Union ships merely avoided her or outran her. Once again, she failed to accomplish a strategic goal. When all else failed, she attempted to defend her home base at Norfolk, but her disappointing performance in the past caused the Confederates not to consider her as a serious contender for the defence of Norfolk.

In all these events, the Virginia may have made a difference, but it was not to the extent that the Confederacy expected. After all, strategic goals have the potential to benefit one side significantly and potentially alter the course of a war. This brings Secretary Mallory’s statement in the introduction to mind yet again; however, the Virginia was unable to fulfill any of the expectations he outlined in his statement.

In fact, the Virginia may have detrimentally affected the Confederate war effort. Historian John Elwood Clark viewed the ironclad program as an expensive failure. He claims that the Confederacy foolishly “diverted one-quarter of . . . [its] iron production” (66), since the ironclads were “often underpowered . . . struggled to make headway against tidal or river currents . . . design flaws rendered many unseaworthy . . . only half saw action” (67). Even though the Virginia was unable to benefit the Confederacy in a meaningful fashion, the fact that multiple interpretations still exist a century and a half after the Virginia‘s birth suggests that this topic is worthy of continued exploration.

Works Cited

A Guide to the Tredegar Iron Works Records, 1801-1957. 2 September 2009 <http://vip.lib.virginia.edu:8080/cocoon/vivaead/published/lva/vi00494.bioghist>.

Battle Summary: Hampton Roads, VA. 31 July 2009 <http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/battles/va008.htm>.

Beringer, Richard E. Why the South Lost the Civil War. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1986.

Blair, Dr. William A. “Extremists at the Gate.” Sheehan-Dean, Aaron, et al. Struggle for a Vast Future. Oxford: Osprey Publishing Ltd., 2006.

Brinkley, Alan. The Unfinished Nation: A Concise History of the American People. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1997.

Clark, John Elwood. Railroads in the Civil War: The Impact of Management on Victory and Defeat. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2004.

Commager, Henry Steele. The Blue and the Gray. New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1950.

Coulter, E. Merton. A History of the South: The Confederate States of America 1861-1865. Vol. VII. Baton Rouge: Louisana State University Press, 1950.

Davis, William C. Duel Between the First Ironclads. Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1975.

Foote, Shelby. The Civil War, A Narrative: Fort Sumter to Perryville. New York: Vintage Books, 1986.

Holzer, Harold and Tim Mulligan. The Battle of Hampton Roads: New perspectives on the USS Monitor and CSS Virginia. New York: Fordham University Press, 2006.

Konstam, Angus. Duel of the Ironclads. Oxford: Osprey Publishing Ltd., 2003.

Linedecker, Clifford L. Civil War A to Z: The Complete Handbook of America’s Bloodiest Conflict. New York: Ballantine Books, 2002.

McPherson, Edward. The Political History of the United States of America, During the Great Rebellion. Washington, D.C.: James J. Chapman, 1882.

McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1988.

Oates, Stephen B. With Malice Toward None: The Life of Abraham Lincoln. New York: Mentor, 1977.

Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion, Series I. Vol. VII. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1898.

Paludan, Phillip Shaw. A People’s Contest: The Union & Civil War, 1861-1865. 2nd Edition. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1996.

Rhodes, James Ford. History of the Civil War. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1917.

Scharf, John Thomas. History of the Confederate States Navy from Its Organization to the Surrender of Its Last Vessel. New York: Rogers & Sherwood, 1887.

Simpson, Brooks D. America’s Civil War. Wheeling: Harlan Davidson, 1996.

Symonds, Craig L. Decision at Sea. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

—. Lincoln and His Admirals. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2008.

Tucker, Spencer. A Short History of the Civil War at Sea. Wilmington: SR Books, 2002.

Appendix 1 – Map of the Area Around Hampton Roads

Battle of Hampton Roads, VA. Digital image. Civil War Preservation Trust. 28 Nov. 2009

<http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/hampton-roads/maps/hampton-roads.jpg>.

It’s a work in progress, so users can contribute posts to the blog author and get their posts published. The owner can be contacted with email, Facebook, Google+ and Twitter as IB Screwed. Even if you don’t have a specific post to contribute, you could always send specific questions about information that you need.

As an IB student, one can never have too much information, so feel free to check out the blog!