uss frolick

So its time to begin. I have removed the two blank ends from the hull leaving me with the rough shape to begin with. (I should have done a before photo, sorry) but here are the two ends now.
 
  
 
Then moved on to making the hull templates
 

 
and as you can see there will be a bit of work to be done on the hull shape when I begin
 
  
 
Deep breath and off we go. 

Hi all. I have a lot of woodwork experience but this is my first model build. I know I am in the deep end of the pool but I am hoping I can learn to swim with some help please. 
 
My first impressions out of the box are two complaints that neither hull planks or copper plates are included in the kit. When you do add them in it brings the cost up quite a bit but ok we are here now and that is my whinge over. 
 
I have lined out the solid hull blank and cut out a couple of the station sections from the manual and my first concern is that it seems like I will have to remove a lot of wood to get the hull down to the proper shape. Not a large thickness but a lot of adjustment throughout. Has anyone completed this build before and what do you think. I don't want to start carving off wood without some pointers. 
 
Thanks in advance. 
 
Ger 

Great Yankee super-ships, to be sure, but they were not unique. Let's give credit where it is due ...
 
The 24-pounder French Sister-frigates La Forte and L'Egyptienne predated Humphries frigates by about a half dozen years. They were of the same dimensions, force (thirty 24-pounders on the main deck) and design (flush decked, about 170 feet on the gundeck) and they were not only very successful, but Forte in particular, gained world fame for commerce raiding in the Indian Ocean, and for defeating a British 74. The Forte's successes and characteristics would have been known to H. when he was drawing up his own first draughts. NMM has L'Egyptienne's draughts, btw.
 
Then there was the slightly smaller, but equally successful  24-pounder Frigates La Resistance and La Vengeance, built circa 1794, each also mounting thirty long 24-pounders ...
 
Humphries was known to have been under a "French Influence" when he designed the big yankee 44's, but most writers have assumed that this was limited to the Continental Frigate South Caroline, ex L'Indienne (spelling?), seen by him in Philadelphia during the war, which was built to French designs in Holland. But Forte was much closer to Constitution, et al, in all respects than the South Carolina was.

Thanks for the review Wayne

The book is one of my favorite books about ships of the early U.S. Navy.
And for a while I wanted to build models of the two ships.
 
 

Well with the corrections nearly complete I thought it might be a good idea to do produce a proto-type build log (of sorts). Obviously unlike other kits ESSEX has already been released but it and the members here on MSW didn’t have the benefit of seeing it come together.
This will hopefully give everyone a chance to see the details in the kit, ask any questions they may have and hopefully clear up any misconceptions about the kit.
How I’ll conduct this is to follow along with the manual, although I won’t be posting the actual pages but some of the photos and details.
I’ll do this over a series of weeks (the manual is 15 chapters). It’s my intent to complete this in no more than half that time.
One note, any updates regarding the corrections will continue to be posted in that thread. This thread is solely about the design and build of the proto-type.
 
 

I found A history of American privateers by Edgar Maclay to be a really comprehensive, and readable, look at the exploits of privateers from the revolution and the War of 1812. I think it's an old book, so you can probably find it for free somewhere if you have an ereader.

I think it is important to highlight the philosophy behind the design and construction of the American 44s... The role of the frigate in European navies required much versatility.  These were the "eyes of the fleet", commerce raiders, convoy escorts, and flagships in far distant stations.  Not so the American frigates.  We can see from the exchange of notes between Joshua Humphries and the Secretary of War that these frigates were designed with a single purpose - to kick the *** of the common class of european frigates - specifically the British 38s.  Anything bigger, they'd have speed enough to escape.  As Frolick notes, they were not particularly fast in relation to their opponents - Java, Guerriere, and probably Macedonian could all have run circles around the heavier Americans (heck - Java practically did!).
 
It has become fashionable in recent years to re-analize the American victories in the War of 1812 and demystify the idea that the American navy was better than the Royal navy.  Many times the implication is that British crews were better, but they lost because the American ships were so big in comparison.  This sidesteps the reality that British ships had oftentimes defeated much more powerful ones in the past and had expected to do the same with the American frigates.  British officers also regarded the 24 pounder long guns as too unwieldy for frigate actions and expected to outshoot the American crews.  In reality, they probably did, but with much less effect and they suffered greatly from the accurate and heavy return fire of the bigger ships.  I think it can be conceded that the British ships were generally fought with skill and fortitude against much more powerful opponents, but the truth is those frigates lost their fights long before the shooting started...  They lost their fights when Joshua Humphries put pen to paper and convinced Henry Knox to sign off on a class of frigate that other powers thought were too expensive to build and maintain and too slow to ever be effective in single ship actions.
 
Man were they wrong.
 
Evan

Great Yankee super-ships, to be sure, but they were not unique. Let's give credit where it is due ...
 
The 24-pounder French Sister-frigates La Forte and L'Egyptienne predated Humphries frigates by about a half dozen years. They were of the same dimensions, force (thirty 24-pounders on the main deck) and design (flush decked, about 170 feet on the gundeck) and they were not only very successful, but Forte in particular, gained world fame for commerce raiding in the Indian Ocean, and for defeating a British 74. The Forte's successes and characteristics would have been known to H. when he was drawing up his own first draughts. NMM has L'Egyptienne's draughts, btw.
 
Then there was the slightly smaller, but equally successful  24-pounder Frigates La Resistance and La Vengeance, built circa 1794, each also mounting thirty long 24-pounders ...
 
Humphries was known to have been under a "French Influence" when he designed the big yankee 44's, but most writers have assumed that this was limited to the Continental Frigate South Caroline, ex L'Indienne (spelling?), seen by him in Philadelphia during the war, which was built to French designs in Holland. But Forte was much closer to Constitution, et al, in all respects than the South Carolina was.

Great Yankee super-ships, to be sure, but they were not unique. Let's give credit where it is due ...
 
The 24-pounder French Sister-frigates La Forte and L'Egyptienne predated Humphries frigates by about a half dozen years. They were of the same dimensions, force (thirty 24-pounders on the main deck) and design (flush decked, about 170 feet on the gundeck) and they were not only very successful, but Forte in particular, gained world fame for commerce raiding in the Indian Ocean, and for defeating a British 74. The Forte's successes and characteristics would have been known to H. when he was drawing up his own first draughts. NMM has L'Egyptienne's draughts, btw.
 
Then there was the slightly smaller, but equally successful  24-pounder Frigates La Resistance and La Vengeance, built circa 1794, each also mounting thirty long 24-pounders ...
 
Humphries was known to have been under a "French Influence" when he designed the big yankee 44's, but most writers have assumed that this was limited to the Continental Frigate South Caroline, ex L'Indienne (spelling?), seen by him in Philadelphia during the war, which was built to French designs in Holland. But Forte was much closer to Constitution, et al, in all respects than the South Carolina was.

Yes, the Constitution had stouter frames than La Forte did, but this came at a price. The Constitution was not very fast. The USS United States was nick-named "Old Wagon" because she just plodded along. The President's plan was sharpened slightly by Josiah Fox, and her frames, although strong, were lighter than "Old Ironsides" 's frames. The President was the best sailing ship of the three 44's. The USS Guerriere, launched in 1813, had even heavier timbers, and her nick-name was "Old Washtub".
 
The French ships didn't need the riders because they were lighter, and their uniquely French deck clamp arrangement was more of a "uni-body" type, that was more efficient.

Great Yankee super-ships, to be sure, but they were not unique. Let's give credit where it is due ...
 
The 24-pounder French Sister-frigates La Forte and L'Egyptienne predated Humphries frigates by about a half dozen years. They were of the same dimensions, force (thirty 24-pounders on the main deck) and design (flush decked, about 170 feet on the gundeck) and they were not only very successful, but Forte in particular, gained world fame for commerce raiding in the Indian Ocean, and for defeating a British 74. The Forte's successes and characteristics would have been known to H. when he was drawing up his own first draughts. NMM has L'Egyptienne's draughts, btw.
 
Then there was the slightly smaller, but equally successful  24-pounder Frigates La Resistance and La Vengeance, built circa 1794, each also mounting thirty long 24-pounders ...
 
Humphries was known to have been under a "French Influence" when he designed the big yankee 44's, but most writers have assumed that this was limited to the Continental Frigate South Caroline, ex L'Indienne (spelling?), seen by him in Philadelphia during the war, which was built to French designs in Holland. But Forte was much closer to Constitution, et al, in all respects than the South Carolina was.

Great Yankee super-ships, to be sure, but they were not unique. Let's give credit where it is due ...
 
The 24-pounder French Sister-frigates La Forte and L'Egyptienne predated Humphries frigates by about a half dozen years. They were of the same dimensions, force (thirty 24-pounders on the main deck) and design (flush decked, about 170 feet on the gundeck) and they were not only very successful, but Forte in particular, gained world fame for commerce raiding in the Indian Ocean, and for defeating a British 74. The Forte's successes and characteristics would have been known to H. when he was drawing up his own first draughts. NMM has L'Egyptienne's draughts, btw.
 
Then there was the slightly smaller, but equally successful  24-pounder Frigates La Resistance and La Vengeance, built circa 1794, each also mounting thirty long 24-pounders ...
 
Humphries was known to have been under a "French Influence" when he designed the big yankee 44's, but most writers have assumed that this was limited to the Continental Frigate South Caroline, ex L'Indienne (spelling?), seen by him in Philadelphia during the war, which was built to French designs in Holland. But Forte was much closer to Constitution, et al, in all respects than the South Carolina was.

Recognizing that these are from a much later era than the original query, here are a couple of snippets from Fincham (1825) - An Introductory Outline of the Practice of Ship-building available via Google Books in PDF (I have not been able to locate an edition with the plates as yet but continue to seek same)
 
Concerning the Keel (Fincham, 1825 – page 9)
 
4. As the keel cannot be obtained in one piece, as to length, several pieces are bolted together lengthways, by what-is called a side or vertical coak scarph; the scarphs being in length about three times the depth of the keel. The coaks are for the support of the bolts, especially to resist the strain when the butts of the scarphs are being caulked; they are one-half the length of the scarph, and their breadth one-third its depth.
.
5. The scarphs are bolted with from six to eight bolts; eight, from frigates upwards, and six to smaller vessels: half of the bolts are driven from each lip side, with a ring upon the head, and clenched upon a ring on the opposite side.
 .
6. The French and most other nations have flat or horizontal scarphs; but as these scarphs tend to weaken the keel, in the direction in which it is most subject to strain, more than the side scarphs, the English mode is preferable; for the keel bends vertically, which brings a tension on the upper or lower fibres, according as hogging or sagging takes place, which fibres are cut off, in a greater number in these scarphs, to let in the lips; and when sagging takes place there is a tendency to open the joint at the lower lip; this opening will cause the scarphs to leak, except a  stopwater be placed at the intersection of the joint of the scarph with the outer edge of the garboard seam, or by increasing the length of the scarphs.
 
Concerning Deck beams (Fincham, 1825 page 70) –
 
169. The beams are distinguished into single pieces, two ( b ), three ( c ), and sometimes four piece beams (f and g): the length of the beams and the timbers that can be provided to make them will determine the number of pieces they are to be composed of, which should always be as few as possible; for the quantity of timber required to make them will be increased with the number of pieces, because the number of scarphs is increased.
 
170. When a beam is made or composed of more than one piece, the pieces are united together with vertical scarphs. If in two pieces ( b ), the scarph is 1/3, if in three pieces ( c )  1/4, and when in four pieces (f and g) 1/5 the length of the beam.
 
171. The scarphs are distinguished into right and left hand scarphs, and are named by the hand that is on the side of the angle, or the side from which the wood to form the scarph is taken off; when at the side end, the face is towards the scarph and looking upon the upper surface; they are bo1ted with from seven to nine bolts; so as to make their distances apart from 16 to 18 inches, placed alternately. about 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 inches from the upper  and lower part of the beams. An equal number of them is driven from each lip side and clenched upon the opposite; in addition to these bolts, one nail is driven into each lip on the opposite edge to the nearest bolt, and one bolt is frequently driven up and down in each lip to prevent its splitting.

A general difference is that the United States, at her founding, had an unlimited timber supply. As a result, we didn't have to scarf a whole bunch of little timbers together, like the British did, to make a larger piece.  For example, we didn't have to make 'anchor-stock' type wales on our ships, like the British did. We just used long straight timbers. If the British had had a similarly nice piece of timber available to make their wales in the same easy way, they would have instead used it for something more important.
 
The first Sloop of War Wasp, for example, built in the Washington Navy Yard in 1806, had a 100 foot keel. It was made of only two pieces scarfed together, one of which was an 84 foot long straight stick of hickory! She also had choice bits of walnut, locust and cedar in her upper frame.

Those are good points, Bart.  I guess I was thinking more of folks like Joshua Humphreys.  In his youth, he was a ship carpenter’s apprentice in Philadelphia, and after the death of the master, Humphreys was given control of the ship yard. His later creation of his own ship yard made him well-known in the colonies as a naval architect, and he was commissioned by the U. S. government in 1776 to build ships in Philadelphia and prepare them for the Revolutionary War.  As I recollect, he did not visit Britain prior to the start of the 1800's, if at all.
 
Many of the New England ship builders actually had closer ties to French influence (Canadian influence) and Irish than strict British practice.  In fact, when you look at ship yards such as Portsmouth NH while the builders had British ancestry, they had been in New Hampshire since the mid 1600's - whatever influence came from Britain would have been long since diluted by the local maritime environment and nature of the fisheries and mercantile activities from those regions. See (for example) Preble's History of the United States Navy-yard, Portsmouth, N. H. (1892). 
 
In the Historical Society records for this region, the early permanent settlers of this part of Maine were from Massachusetts - and had been there for many years. The records on ship builders I have seen so far are for locally trained folks - they started building their own boats for fishing (patterned after the French, Portuguese, Spanish and British vessels in the  Newfoundland/Bay of Fundy fisheries) but to their own preference.  These evolved into privateers and merchant vessels in response to market pressures (for lack of a better phrase).  While there were similarities to boats built in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, they also had some unique characteristics that set them apart.

A general difference is that the United States, at her founding, had an unlimited timber supply. As a result, we didn't have to scarf a whole bunch of little timbers together, like the British did, to make a larger piece.  For example, we didn't have to make 'anchor-stock' type wales on our ships, like the British did. We just used long straight timbers. If the British had had a similarly nice piece of timber available to make their wales in the same easy way, they would have instead used it for something more important.
 
The first Sloop of War Wasp, for example, built in the Washington Navy Yard in 1806, had a 100 foot keel. It was made of only two pieces scarfed together, one of which was an 84 foot long straight stick of hickory! She also had choice bits of walnut, locust and cedar in her upper frame.

Sounds like a great book! I'll definitely be picking one up ... 

Captain Blakeley and the Wasp: The Cruise of 1814
 
Stephen W.  H. Duffy
Hardcover: 348 pages including Index, extensive Notes and Bibliography.
Publisher: US Naval Institute Press (2001)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1557501769
 
In celebration of the 200th anniversary of the start of his historic, and ill fated, cruise, it is my honor to present to you a brief review of a narrative of Captain Johnston Blakeley's career in the early American navy, culminating in one of the greatest raiding cruises every undertaken.
 
There are many tales of the accomplishments of America’s young navy during the War of 1812, and several of the most famous names in American Naval History were blazed into the national consciousness during that conflict.  Although the most successful American naval officer of the War of 1812, Johnston Blakely never enjoyed the fame that he had for so long desired.  His fame was posthumous.
 
In Captain Blakeley and the Wasp: The Cruise of 1814, Stephen Duffy tells, in a readable and coherent fashion, the story of Master Commandant Johnston Blakeley and the highly successful cruise of the American sloop of war Wasp in 1814. Duffy draws on archival information from numerous institutions to introduce the reader to the young Blakeley, tracing his youth and formative years through to his early years serving under Thomas Truxton on the President and John Rodgers on the John Adams to his command of the brig Enterprise in 1811. Blakeley’s skills and ambition are rewarded – he is sent to Newburyport, Massachusetts to supervise the construction of the Sloop of War Wasp.
 
Duffy demonstrates his passion for detail and accuracy as he chronicles the building of the Wasp and Blakeley's struggles to outfit and crew his new ship, an effort made more difficult by national politics and by rivalries within the Navy. Designed by Naval Constructor William Doughty as a commerce raider, Wasp was rated at 509 tons and 22 guns with a crew of 173.  Blakeley left port on May 1, 1814, at the helm of the newly commissioned Wasp. 
 
Blakeley captured his first prize on June 2, 1814.  Within the following month, the Wasp captured and burned four more prizes.  Blakeley secured his place in American naval history on June 28, 1814.   Blakeley and his crew chased and brought to battle the Royal Navy’s HMS Reindeer, a Cruizer class brig sloop of 18 guns.  One of the hardest fought battles of the war followed, and when it had concluded, Blakeley’s guns had overpowered and reduced the British vessel to a drifting hulk.  Also damaged, Blakeley sailed to L’Orient, France to offload prisoners and seek repairs.  En route, despite the damage incurred during the battle with the Reindeer, the Wasp still captured two more prizes.
 
The Wasp was back at sea by August 27, and Blakeley set course for Gibraltar.  He continued cruising successfully throughout the fall, even winning a battle over the HMS Avon.  As news of Blakeley’s success filtered back to the United States in October and early November, he became a hero, and Congress promoted him to Captain on November 24.  Meanwhile, the Wasp’s return was long overdue, and rumors swirled concerning the ship’s fate.  The British never made claims to sinking the ship, but the Wasp vanished somewhere on the Atlantic, possibly foundering in a gale.  The last confirmed sighting was by a Swedish crew on the Adonis.  They saw the Wasp on October 9, 1814, some 225 miles southwest of Madeira.
 
Duffy is able to provide a cogent and informative interpretation of the available archival records, and brings Blakeley to life as a tragic hero of his time. Faced with the common constraint imposed on any student of history, Duffy was faced with the paucity of primary source accounts from Blakeley and his close associates, as well as the conflicting accounts in the British and American records.  Duffy was very selective and effective in his use of reasonable speculation about the thoughts of the young officer regarding various situations. Mr. Duffy has succeeded in providing not just a story of a young man who was in the right place with the right ship at the right time, but also presents a well-researched and documented study of a junior officer in the small American navy at the beginning of the 19th Century.
 
 

 

Apparently the crew referred to these as "Spice Boxes" (presumably because they resembled a common household item) and they were commonly included on the larger frigates for the convenience and privacy of the ships officers. It is tough to determine how permanent these were... You'd think they were flimsy screens that were easily removed when clearing for action.  It seems that they might've been more solid fixtures... Captain Stewart ordered them removed prior to the battle with Cyane and Levant to give better clearance for the forward gun crews.  They were not reassembled after the battle - probably because they were removed with an axe. On the cruise home the British officers began to grumble and get very surly about the lack of private facilities for the gentleman.  (Apparently the were used to having these on Guerriere) They felt that it was very undignified to have to relieve themselves using the leeward channels like common sailors.  One of the American Lieutenants finally got fed up and remarked loudly to one of them something to the effect that the prisoners were well positioned to attest that American officers cared more about their gunnery than about their round houses... Presumably that ended the trouble.
 
Here is my representation:
 

 

 
A fun detail that will get buried once my spar deck is in place.
 
Evan

The Guerriere had a pair of these structures fixed just forward of the number-one main deck gun. In order that they could use the bridle port as a chase port without having to tear the closet down every time they cleared for action, the dockyard fitted an extra pair of long French 18-pounders (21-pounders English) to be permanently fixed in the bridle ports. This is how the Guerriere mounted thirty long 18's on her main deck. But there must have been a lot of room between the two ports, since in most French or English frigates, there would not have been enough room to work the guns, without collisions, let alone room for the fixed closets between them.
 
Oh, I wish someone would find the Guerriere draughts!!!

The Constitution museum publishes a blog at http://usscm.blogspot.com/
 
One of the more recent posts (January 2014) discusses the "facilities" available aboard the Connie.  The following is extracted from their blog post:
 
Frigates typically carried two “round houses” forward on the gundeck.  These structures, consisting of wooden half cylindrical screens erected against the ship’s side provided a sheltered place to do one’s business.
 

 
A detail from a ca. 1817-1820 plan of USS United States' decks by Charles Ware.  The red arrow points to the starboard round house.
 
Before Constitution’s battle with HMS Levant and HMS Cyane, the ship’s crew removed the round houses to “afford room to work the forward deck guns in action.”  According to Chaplain Assheton Humphreys the removal of the “spice boxes”, as the crew called them, forced the officers “to make the chains [the narrow platforms on the side of the ship to which the shrouds were attached] the scene of their profane rites,” or stealthily slip into the quarter galleries.

Also the following:
 
"The Republics Private Navy: The American Privateering Business as Practiced by Baltimore during the War of 1812" by Jerome R. Garitee, Mystic Seaport, Wesleyan University Press, 1977.
 
"Tidewater Triumph: The Development and Worldwide Success of the Chesapeake Bay Pilot Schooner." by Goeffrey M. Footner. Tidewater Press Centerville, MD, 1998.
 
As far as plans are concerned, Chapelle's "The Search for Speed Under Sail" is the best.

For more academic reading, there is Carl E. Swanson - Privateering in Early America International Journal of Maritime History December 1989 1: 253-278, http://ijh.sagepub.com/content/1/2/253.citation
 
Dan Conlin - Privateer Entrepot: Commercial Militarization in Liverpool, Nova Scotia, 1793-1805 The Northern Mariner/Le Marin du nord, VIII, No. 2 (April 1998), 21-38. http://www.cnrs-scrn.org/northern_mariner/indices/index_vol_8_e.html
 
 

Since my last post, I was able to contact and correspond with a former Long Beach Naval Shipyard project manager who was involved with the final fitting of radar and electronics aboard USS NEW JERSEY prior to her Sept. 1968 departure for WesPac. Richard Landgraff and I have been erstwhile correspondents/battleship enthusiasts since the 80’s and have now re-established contact after quite a few years of absence. Richard spent well over 30 years at LBNSYD working on the IOWAs through the years as the needs of the Navy changed and the ships were in service and out. Currently he is involved with the USS IOWA Museum located at the L.A. Ports.

After an exchange of photos and a critique of my (2nd) mast assembly, Richard made a few observations which I have amended this week:

1) The foremast on NEW JERSEY was removed in 1967 at Philadelphia NSYD and replaced with a 36” diameter lower pole. The current available plans of NJ of this time period do not show the mast correctly. They also show the mast with a starboard side vertical ladder and this is also incorrect. The ladder is mounted on the front face of the mast; I now have photo proof of this thanks to Richard. I have removed the mast from the conning tower, modified (enlarged) the two mast support brackets and replaced (modified) the lower mast pole to achieve the required diameter ( 3/16” @ 1:200 scale) or as near to it as I could make it without major damage to the rest of the assembly. Historical Note - the original IOWA class foremasts were designed to be lowered in order for the ships to pass under the Brooklyn Bridge in New York harbor. If you compare these photos with the prior photos posted a week or so ago you will see the differences in the mast structure. I've also added the wire rope stabilizing stays on either side of the mast extending to the rear of the ECM equipment houses.
 
2) The forward tubular bracing I made for the lowest radar platform is not correct and was modified per Richard's directions to more closely resemble the actual bracing. In addition, side tube bracing that was omitted from the after brace was added. These corrections are not all that evident in my photos below.
 
In addition to the technical knowledge I have learned this week, Richard has also provided me with other snippets of battleship history (namely involving NJ) that probably no one else is aware of. This kind of first-hand lore is slowly but surely disappearing as those associated with battleships and their construction/modification take their final shore leave. I am keeping these items of lore in a separate file as they are related to me in order to hopefully preserve these stories.

One item of interest that I will share is that any photos you see of NEW JERSEY in her late 60's configuration with her 40mm gun tubs up forward of Turret 1 are PRE-deployment photos. Those tubs were removed the day I arrived on board in Sept. 1968 and Richard was supervising the yard crew removing those tubs. We left a couple days later for Westpac.

The photos show the new mast structure with only touch-up painting left to be complete. I will begin work on the 08 Level Conning Station and ULQ-6 antenna arrays next week.
 
Hopefully, I'll be able to "retain" Richard as my own "Dreadnaught Consultant" on this project since his 1st hand knowledge of this ship is so extensive.
 
Hank

As promised, here are 2 period engravings showing the United States with the single dolphin striker.
 

 
The next is from a watercolor by Gunner William H. Myers, of USS Cyane, showing the Squadron's ships sailing in line abreast, 1842-43.
Ships are (from left to right): USS United States, USS Cyane, USS Saint Louis, USS Yorktown and USS Shark.

Copied from Journal of a Cruise on the USS Cyane, 1842-1843, by William H. Myers.
 

 
Both pictures were found at the US Navy History and Heritage Command website at http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-u/u-states.htm
 
The image below is from the Chesapeake Mill website at http://www.chesapeakemill.co.uk/history.html
 

 
Hope these help!