USS Maine (1889)

Maine was 324 feet 4 inches (98.9 m) long overall, with a beam of 57 feet (17.4 m), a maximum draft of 22 feet 6 inches (6.9 m) and a displacement of 6,682 long tons (6,789.2 t).[16] She was divided into 214 watertight compartments.[17] A centerline longitudinal watertight bulkhead separated the engines and a double bottom covered the hull only from the foremast to the aft end of the armored citadel, a distance of 196 feet (59.7 m). She had a metacentric height of 3.45 feet (1.1 m) as designed and was fitted with a ram bow.[18]

Deck plan of Maine

Maine's hull was long and narrow, more like a cruiser than that of Texas, which was wide-beamed. Normally, this would have made Maine the faster ship of the two. Maine's weight distribution was ill-balanced, which slowed her considerably. Her main turrets, awkwardly situated on a cut-away gundeck, were nearly awash in bad weather. Because they were mounted toward the ends of the ship, away from its center of gravity, Maine was also prone to greater motion in heavy seas. While she and Texas were both considered seaworthy, the latter's high hull and guns mounted on her main deck made her the drier ship.[19]

The two main gun turrets were sponsoned out over the sides of the ship and echeloned to allow both to fire fore and aft. The practice of en echelon mounting had begun with Italian battleships designed in the 1870s by Benedetto Brin and followed by the British Navy with HMS Inflexible, which was laid down in 1874 but not commissioned until October 1881.[20] This gun arrangement met the design demand for heavy end-on fire in a ship-to-ship encounter, tactics which involved ramming the enemy vessel.[11] The wisdom of this tactic was largely theoretical at the time it was implemented. A drawback of an en echelon layout limited the ability for a ship to fire broadside, a key factor when employed in a line of battle. To allow for at least partial broadside fire, Maine's superstructure was separated into three structures. This technically allowed both turrets to fire across the ship's deck (cross-deck fire), between the sections. This ability was limited as the superstructure restricted each turret's arc of fire.[8]

This plan and profile view show Maine with eight six-pounder guns (one is not seen on the port part of the bridge but that is due to the bridge being cut away in the drawing). Another early published plan shows the same. In both cases the photographs show a single extreme bow mounted six-pounder. Careful examination of Maine photographs confirms that she did not carry that gun. Maine's armament set up in the bow was not identical to the stern which had a single six-pounder mounted at extreme aft of the vessel. Maine carried two six-pounders forward, two on the bridge and three on the stern section, all one level above the abbreviated gun deck that permitted the ten-inch guns to fire across the deck. The six-pounders located in the bow were positioned more forward than the pair mounted aft which necessitated the far aft single six-pounder.

Vertical triple expansion engine of Wisconsin, similar in general layout to that of Maine

Maine was the first U.S. capital ship to have its power plant given as high a priority as its fighting strength.[21] Her machinery, built by the N. F. Palmer Jr. & Company's Quintard Iron Works of New York,[22] was the first designed for a major ship under the direct supervision of Arctic explorer and soon-to-be commodore, George Wallace Melville.[23] She had two inverted vertical triple-expansion steam engines, mounted in watertight compartments and separated by a fore-to-aft bulkhead, with a total designed output of 9,293 indicated horsepower (6,930 kW). Cylinder diameters were 35.5 inches (900 mm) (high-pressure), 57 inches (1,400 mm) (intermediate-pressure) and 88 inches (2,200 mm) (low-pressure). Stroke for all three pistons was 36 inches (910 mm).[17]

Melville mounted Maine's engines with the cylinders in vertical mode, a departure from conventional practice. Previous ships had had their engines mounted in horizontal mode, so that they would be completely protected below the waterline. Melville believed a ship's engines needed ample room to operate and that any exposed parts could be protected by an armored deck. He therefore opted for the greater efficiency, lower maintenance costs and higher speeds offered by the vertical mode.[24][25] Also, the engines were constructed with the high-pressure cylinder aft and the low-pressure cylinder forward. This was done, according to the ship's chief engineer, A. W. Morley, so the low-pressure cylinder could be disconnected when the ship was under low power. This allowed the high and intermediate-power cylinders to be run together as a compound engine for economical running.

Eight single-ended Scotch marine boilers provided steam to the engines at a working pressure of 135 pounds per square inch (930 kPa; 9.5 kgf/cm²) at a temperature 364 °F (184 °C). On trials, she reached a speed of 16.45 knots (30.47 km/h; 18.93 mph), failing to meet her contract speed of 17 knots (31 km/h; 20 mph). She carried a maximum load of 896 long tons (910,000 kg) of coal[26] in 20 bunkers, 10 on each side, which extended below the protective deck. Wing bunkers at each end of each fire room extended inboard to the front of the boilers.[17] This was a very low capacity for a ship of Maine's rating, which limited her time at sea and her ability to run at flank speed, when coal consumption increased dramatically. Maine's overhanging main turrets also prevented coaling at sea, except in the calmest of waters; otherwise, the potential for damage to a collier, herself or both vessels was extremely great.

Maine also carried two small dynamos to power her searchlights and provide interior lighting.[27]

Maine was designed initially with a three-mast barque rig for auxiliary propulsion, in case of engine failure and to aid long-range cruising.[28] This arrangement was limited to "two-thirds" of full sail power, determined by the ship's tonnage and immersed cross-section.[29] The mizzen mast was removed in 1892, after the ship had been launched, but before her completion.[28] Maine was completed with a two-mast military rig and the ship never spread any canvas.

Battleship Maine by Frederick Nelson Atwood with the fore 10-inch turret visible

Maine's main armament consisted of four 10-inch (254 mm)/30 caliber Mark II guns, which had a maximum elevation of 15° and could depress to −3°. Ninety rounds per gun were carried. The ten-inch guns fired a 510-pound (231 kg) shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,000 feet per second (610 m/s) to a range of 20,000 yards (18,000 m) at maximum elevation.[30] These guns were mounted in twin hydraulically powered Mark 3 turrets, the fore turret sponsoned to starboard and the aft turret sponsoned to port.[31]

The 10" guns were initially to be mounted in open barbettes (the C & R proposal blueprint shows them as such). During Maine's extended construction, the development of rapid-fire intermediate-caliber guns, which could fire high-explosive shells, became a serious threat and the navy redesigned Maine with enclosed turrets. Because of the corresponding weight increase, the turrets were mounted one deck lower than planned originally.[32] Even with this modification, the main guns were high enough to fire unobstructed for 180° on one side and 64° on the other side.[17] They could also be loaded at any angle of train; initially the main guns of Texas, by comparison, with external rammers, could be loaded only when trained on the centerline or directly abeam, a common feature in battleships built before 1890.[11] By 1897, Texas' turrets had been modified with internal rammers to permit much faster reloading.

The en echelon arrangement proved problematic. Because Maine's turrets were not counterbalanced, she heeled over if both were pointed in the same direction, which reduced the range of the guns. Also, cross-deck firing damaged her deck and superstructure significantly due to the vacuum from passing shells.[33] Because of this, and the potential for undue hull stress if the main guns were fired end-on, the en echelon arrangement was not used in U.S. Navy designs after Maine and Texas.[11][33]

Six-inch gun on Newark. USS Maine mounted six of these.

The six 6-inch (152 mm)/30 caliber Mark 3 guns were mounted in casemates in the hull, two each at the bow and stern and the last two amidships.[22] Data is lacking, but they could probably depress to −7° and elevate to +12°. They fired shells that weighed 105 pounds (48 kg) with a muzzle velocity of about 1,950 feet per second (590 m/s). They had a maximum range of 9,000 yards (8,200 m) at full elevation.[34]

The anti-torpedo boat armament consisted of seven 57-millimeter (2.2 in) Driggs-Schroeder six-pounder guns mounted on the superstructure deck.[22] They fired a shell weighing about 6 lb (2.7 kg) at a muzzle velocity of about 1,765 feet per second (538 m/s) at a rate of 20 rounds per minute to a maximum range of 8,700 yards (7,955 m).[35] The lighter armament comprised four each 37-millimeter (1.5 in) Hotchkiss and Driggs-Schroeder one-pounder guns. Four of these were mounted on the superstructure deck, two were mounted in small casemates at the extreme stern and one was mounted in each fighting top.[22] They fired a shell weighing about 1.1 pounds (0.50 kg) at a muzzle velocity of about 2,000 feet per second (610 m/s) at a rate of 30 rounds per minute to a range about 3,500 yards (3,200 m).[36]

Maine had four 18-inch (457 mm) above-water torpedo tubes, two on each broadside. In addition, she was designed to carry two 14.8 long tons (15.0 t) steam-powered torpedo boats, each with a single 14-inch (356 mm) torpedo tube and a one-pounder gun. Only one was built, but it had a top speed of only a little over 12 knots (22 km/h; 14 mph) so it was transferred to the Naval Torpedo Station at Newport, Rhode Island, as a training craft.[lower-alpha 2][37]

The main waterline belt, made of nickel steel, had a maximum thickness of 12 inches (305 mm) and tapered to 7 inches (178 mm) at its lower edge. It was 180 feet (54.9 m) long and covered the machinery spaces and the 10-inch magazines. It was 7 feet (2.1 m) high, of which 3 feet (0.9 m) was above the design waterline. It angled inwards for 17 feet (5.2 m) at each end, thinning to 8 inches (203 mm), to provide protection against raking fire. A 6-inch transverse bulkhead closed off the forward end of the armored citadel. The forward portion of the 2-inch-thick (51 mm) protective deck ran from the bulkhead all the way to the bow and served to stiffen the ram. The deck sloped downwards to the sides, but its thickness increased to 3 inches (76 mm). The rear portion of the protective deck sloped downwards towards the stern, going below the waterline, to protect the propeller shafts and steering gear. The sides of the circular turrets were 8 inches thick. The barbettes were 12 inches thick, with their lower portions reduced to 10 inches. The conning tower had 10-inch walls. The ship's voicepipes and electrical leads were protected by an armored tube 4.5 inches (114 mm) thick.[38]

Two flaws emerged in Maine's protection, both due to technological developments between her laying-down and her completion. The first was a lack of adequate topside armor to counter the effects of rapid-fire intermediate-caliber guns and high-explosive shells. This was a flaw she shared with Texas.[33] The second was the use of nickel-steel armor. Introduced in 1889, nickel steel was the first modern steel alloy armor and, with a figure of merit of 0.67, was an improvement over the 0.6 rating of mild steel used until then. Harvey steel and Krupp armors, both of which appeared in 1893, had merit figures of between 0.9 and 1.2, giving them roughly twice the tensile strength of nickel steel. Although all three armors shared the same density (about 40 pounds per square foot for a one-inch-thick plate), six inches of Krupp or Harvey steel gave the same protection as 10 inches of nickel. The weight thus saved could be applied either to additional hull structure and machinery or to achieving higher speed. The navy would incorporate Harvey armor in the Indiana-class battleships, designed after Maine, but commissioned at roughly the same time.[39][40]

American cartoon, published in 1898: "Remember the Maine! And Don't Forget the Starving Cubans!"

The New York Journal and New York World, owned respectively by William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, gave Maine intense press coverage, employing tactics that would later be labeled "yellow journalism". Both papers exaggerated and distorted any information they could obtain, sometimes even fabricating news when none that fitted their agenda was available. For a week following the sinking, the Journal devoted a daily average of eight and a half pages of news, editorials and pictures to the event. Its editors sent a full team of reporters and artists to Havana, including Frederic Remington,[56] and Hearst announced a reward of $50,000 "for the conviction of the criminals who sent 258 American sailors to their deaths."[57]

The World, while overall not as lurid or shrill in tone as the Journal, nevertheless indulged in similar theatrics, insisting continually that Maine had been bombed or mined. Privately, Pulitzer believed that "nobody outside a lunatic asylum" really believed that Spain sanctioned Maine's destruction. Nevertheless, this did not stop the World from insisting that the only "atonement" Spain could offer the U.S. for the loss of ship and life, was the granting of complete Cuban independence. Nor did it stop the paper from accusing Spain of "treachery, willingness, or laxness" for failing to ensure the safety of Havana Harbor.[58] The American public, already agitated over reported Spanish atrocities in Cuba, was driven to increased hysteria.[59]

William Randolph Hearst's reporting on Maine whipped up support for military action against the Spanish in Cuba regardless of their actual involvement in the sinking. He frequently cited various naval officers saying that the explosion could not have been an on-board accident. He quoted an "officer high in authority" as saying "The idea that the catastrophe resulted from an internal accident is preposterous. In the first place, such a thing has never occurred before that I have ever heard of either in the British navy or ours."[60]

The sunken Maine in Havana harbor

Though publication of a U.S. Navy investigation report would take a month, this Washington D.C. newspaper[61] was among those asserting within one day that the explosion was not accidental.

Maine's destruction did not result in an immediate declaration of war with Spain, but the event created an atmosphere that precluded a peaceful solution.[62] The Spanish investigation found that the explosion had been caused by spontaneous combustion of the coal bunkers, but the Sampson Board ruled that the explosion had been caused by an external explosion from a torpedo.

The episode focused national attention on the crisis in Cuba. The McKinley administration did not cite the explosion as a casus belli, but others were already inclined to go to war with Spain over perceived atrocities and loss of control in Cuba.[63][64] Advocates of war used the rallying cry, "Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain!"[65][66][67][68] The Spanish–American War began on April 21, 1898, two months after the sinking.

The Spanish inquiry, conducted by Del Peral and De Salas, collected evidence from officers of naval artillery, who had examined the remains of the Maine. Del Peral and De Salas identified the spontaneous combustion of the coal bunker, located adjacent to the munition stores in Maine, as the likely cause of the explosion. The possibility that other combustibles, such as varnish, drier, or alcohol products, had caused the explosion was not discounted. Additional observations included that:

• Had a mine been the cause of the explosion, a column of water would have been observed.
• The wind and the waters were calm on that date and hence a mine could not have been detonated by contact, but only by using electricity, but no cables had been found.
• No dead fish were found in the harbor, as would be expected following an explosion in the water.
• Munition stores do not usually explode when a ship is sunk by a mine.

The conclusions of the report were not reported at that time by the American press.[69]

Photograph from the 12 April 1898 edition of Uncle Sam's Navy of the Sampson Board's court of inquiry meeting aboard the lighthouse tender USLHT Mangrove in Havana Harbor, ca. March 1898. From left are Captain French Ensor Chadwick, Captain William T. Sampson, Lieutenant Commander William P. Potter, Ensign W. V. Powelson, and Lieutenant Commander Adolph Marix.

In order to find the cause of the explosion, a naval inquiry was ordered by the United States shortly after the incident, headed by Captain William T. Sampson. Ramón Blanco y Erenas, Spanish governor of Cuba, had proposed instead a joint Spanish-American investigation of the sinking.[70] Captain Sigsbee had written that "many Spanish officers, including representatives of General Blanco, now with us to express sympathy."[71] In a cable, the Spanish minister of colonies, Segismundo Moret, had advised Blanco "to gather every fact you can, to prove the Maine catastrophe cannot be attributed to us."[72]

According to Dana Wegner, who worked with Rickover on his 1974 investigation of the sinking, the Secretary of the Navy had the option of selecting a board of inquiry personally. Instead, he fell back on protocol and assigned the commander-in-chief of the North Atlantic Squadron to do so. The commander produced a list of junior line officers for the board. The fact that the officer proposed to be court president was junior to the captain of Maine, Wegner writes, "would indicate either ignorance of navy regulations or that, in the beginning, the board did not intend to examine the possibility that the ship was lost by accident and the negligence of her captain."[73] Eventually, navy regulations prevailed in leadership of the board, Captain Sampson being senior to Captain Sigsbee.[73]

The board arrived on 21 February and took testimony from survivors, witnesses, and divers (who were sent down to investigate the wreck). The Sampson Board produced its findings in two parts: the proceedings, which consisted mainly of testimonies, and the findings, which were the facts, as determined by the court. Between the proceedings and the findings, there was what Wegner calls, "a broad gap," where the court "left no record of the reasoning that carried it from the often-inconsistent witnesses to [its] conclusion." Another inconsistency, according to Wegner, was that of only one technical witness, Commander George Converse, from the Torpedo Station at Newport, Rhode Island. Captain Sampson read Commander Converse a hypothetical situation of a coal bunker fire igniting the reserve six-inch ammunition, with a resulting explosion sinking the ship. He then asked Commander Converse about the feasibility of such a scenario. Commander Converse "simply stated, without elaboration, that he could not realize such an event happening."[74]

The board concluded that Maine had been blown up by a mine, which, in turn, caused the explosion of her forward magazines. They reached this conclusion based on the fact that the majority of witnesses stated that they had heard two explosions and that part of the keel was bent inwards.[64] The official report from the board, which was presented to the Navy Department in Washington on 21 March, specifically stated the following:

"At frame 18 the vertical keel is broken in two and the flat keel is bent at an angle similar to the angle formed by the outside bottom plating. ... In the opinion of the court, this effect could have been produced only by the explosion of a mine situated under the bottom of the ship at about frame 18, and somewhat on the port side of the ship." (part of the court's 5th finding)

"In the opinion of the court, the Maine was destroyed by the explosion of a submarine mine, which caused the partial explosion of two or more of her forward magazines." (the court's 7th finding) and

"The court has been unable to obtain evidence fixing the responsibility for the destruction of the Maine upon any person or persons." (the court's 8th finding).[75]

Simplistic representation of the explosion which sunk the USS Maine and its aftermath.

In 1910, the decision was made to have a second Court of Inquiry. Besides the desire for a more thorough investigation, this would also facilitate the recovery of the bodies of the victims, so they could be buried in the United States. The fact that the Cuban government wanted the wreck removed from Havana harbor might also have played a role: it at least offered the opportunity to examine the wreck in greater detail than had been possible in 1898, while simultaneously obliging the now-independent Cubans. Wegner suggests that the fact that this inquiry could be held without the threat of war, which had been the case in 1898, lent it the potential for greater objectivity than had been possible previously. Moreover, since several of the members of the 1910 board would be certified engineers, they would be better qualified to evaluate their findings than the line officers of the 1898 board had been.[76]

Beginning in December 1910, a cofferdam was built around the wreck and water was pumped out, exposing the wreck by late 1911. Between 20 November and 2 December 1911, a court of inquiry headed by Rear Admiral Charles E. Vreeland inspected the wreck. They concluded that an external explosion had triggered the explosion of the magazines. This explosion was farther aft and lower powered than concluded by the Sampson Board. The Vreeland Board also found that the bending of frame 18 was caused by the explosion of the magazines, not by the external explosion.[64] After the investigation, the newly located dead were buried in Arlington National Cemetery and the hollow, intact portion of the hull of Maine was refloated and ceremoniously scuttled at sea on 16 March 1912.[77]

Rickover became intrigued with the disaster and began a private investigation in 1974, using information from the two official inquiries, newspapers, personal papers, and information on the construction and ammunition of Maine. He concluded that the explosion was not caused by a mine, and speculated that spontaneous combustion was the most likely cause, from coal in the bunker next to the magazine. He published a book about this investigation in 1976 entitled How the Battleship Maine Was Destroyed.[78]

In the 2001 book Theodore Roosevelt, the U.S. Navy and the Spanish–American War, Wegner revisits the Rickover investigation and offers additional details. According to Wegner, Rickover interviewed naval historians at the Energy Research and Development Agency after reading an article in the Washington Star-News by John M. Taylor. The author claimed that the U.S. Navy "made little use of its technically trained officers during its investigation of the tragedy." The historians were working with Rickover on a study of the Navy's nuclear propulsion program, but they said that they knew no details of Maine's sinking. Rickover asked whether they could investigate the matter, and they agreed. Wegner says that all relevant documents were obtained and studied, including the ship's plans and weekly reports of the unwatering of Maine in 1912 (the progress of the cofferdam) written by William Furgueson, chief engineer for the project. These reports included numerous photos annotated by Furgueson with frame and strake numbers on corresponding parts of the wreckage. Two experts were brought in to analyze the naval demolitions and ship explosions. They concluded that the photos showed "no plausible evidence of penetration from the outside," and they believed that the explosion originated inside the ship.[79]

Wegner suggests that a combination of naval ship design and a change in the type of coal used to fuel naval ships might have facilitated the explosion postulated by the Rickover study. Up to the time of the Maine's building, he explains, common bulkheads separated coal bunkers from ammunition lockers, and American naval ships burned smokeless anthracite coal. With an increase in the number of steel ships, the Navy switched to bituminous coal, which burned at a hotter temperature than anthracite coal and allowed ships to steam faster. Wegner explains that anthracite coal is not subject to spontaneous combustion, but bituminous coal is considerably more volatile and is known for releasing the largest amounts of firedamp, a dangerous and explosive mixture of gases (chiefly methane). Firedamp is explosive at concentrations between 4% and 16%, with most violence at around 10%. In addition, there was another potential contributing factor in the bituminous coal: iron sulfide, also known as pyrite, was likely present. The presence of pyrites presents two additional risk factors, the first involving oxidation. Pyrite oxidation is sufficiently exothermic that underground coal mines in high-sulfur coal seams have occasionally experienced spontaneous combustion in the mined-out areas of the mine. This process can result from the disruption caused by mining from the seams, which exposes the sulfides in the ore to air and water. The second risk factor involves an additional capability of pyrites to provide fire ignition under certain conditions. Pyrites derive their name from the Greek root word pyr, meaning fire, as they can cause sparks when struck by steel or other hard surfaces. Pyrites were used to strike sparks to ignite gunpowder in wheellock guns, for example. The pyrites could have provided the ignition capability needed to create an explosion. A number of bunker fires of this type had been reported aboard warships before the Maine's explosion, in several cases nearly sinking the ships. Wegner also cites a 1997 heat transfer study which concluded that a coal bunker fire could have taken place and ignited the ship's ammunition.[80]

In 1998, National Geographic magazine commissioned an analysis by Advanced Marine Enterprises (AME). This investigation, done to commemorate the centennial of the sinking of USS Maine, was based on computer modeling, a technique unavailable for previous investigations. The results reached were inconclusive. National Geographic reported that "a fire in the coal bunker could have generated sufficient heat to touch off an explosion in the adjacent magazine [but] on the other hand, computer analysis also shows that even a small, handmade mine could have penetrated the ship's hull and set off explosions within."[81] The AME investigation noted that "the size and location of the soil depression beneath the Maine 'is more readily explained by a mine explosion than by magazine explosions alone'."[4] The team noted that this was not "definitive in proving that a mine was the cause of the sinking" but it did "strengthen the case."[4]

Some experts, including Rickover's team and several analysts at AME, do not agree with the conclusion.[4] Wegner claims that technical opinion among the Geographic team was divided between its younger members, who focused on computer modeling results, and its older ones, who weighed their inspection of photos of the wreck with their own experience. He adds that AME used flawed data concerning the Maine's design and ammunition storage. Wegner was also critical of the fact that participants in the Rickover study were not consulted until AME's analysis was essentially complete, far too late to confirm the veracity of data being used or engage in any other meaningful cooperation.[82]

In 2002, the Discovery Channel produced an episode of the Unsolved History documentaries, entitled "Death of the U.S.S. Maine." It used photographic evidence, naval experts, and archival information to argue that the cause of the explosion was a coal bunker fire, and it identified a weakness or gap in the bulkhead separating the coal and powder bunkers that allowed the fire to spread from the former to the latter.[83]

Several claims have been made in Spanish-speaking media that the sinking was a false flag operation conducted by the U.S.[84][85] and those claims are the official view in Cuba.[86] The Maine monument in Havana describes Maine's sailors as "victims sacrificed to the imperialist greed in its fervor to seize control of Cuba,"[87] which claims that U.S. agents deliberately blew up their own ship.[88]

Eliades Acosta was the head of the Cuban Communist Party's Committee on Culture and a former director of the José Martí National Library in Havana. He offered the standard Cuban interpretation in an interview to The New York Times, but he adds that "Americans died for the freedom of Cuba, and that should be recognized."[86] This claim has also been made in Russia by Mikhail Khazin, a Russian economist who once ran the cultural section at Komsomolskaya Pravda,[89] and in Spain by Eric Frattini, a Spanish Peruvian journalist in his book Manipulando la historia. Operaciones de Falsa Bandera. Del Maine al Golpe de estado de Turquía.[90]

Operation Northwoods was a series of proposals prepared by Pentagon officials for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962, setting out a number of proposed false flag operations that could be blamed on the Cuban Communists in order to rally support against them.[91][92] One of these suggested that a U.S. Navy ship be blown up in Guantanamo Bay deliberately. In an echo of the yellow press headlines of the earlier period, it used the phrase "A 'Remember the Maine' incident."[92][93]

In February 1898, the recovered bodies of sailors who died on Maine were interred in the Colon Cemetery, Havana. Some injured sailors were sent to hospitals in Havana and Key West, Florida. Those who died in hospitals were buried in Key West. In December 1899, the bodies in Havana were disinterred and brought back to the United States for burial at Arlington National Cemetery.[102] In 1915, President Woodrow Wilson dedicated the USS Maine Mast Memorial to those who died. The memorial includes the ship's main mast. Roughly 165 were buried at Arlington, although the remains of one sailor were exhumed for his home town, Indianapolis, Indiana. Of the rest, only 62 were known.[97] Nine bodies were never recovered and 19 crewmen, several unidentified, are buried in Key West Cemetery under a statue of a U.S. sailor holding an oar.[lower-alpha 3]

• 
  The foremast of the Maine located at the United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland
• 
  Memorial plaque installed on the foremast of the Maine located at the United States Naval Academy, reading: "Foremast of The USS Maine. Ship blown up, Havana 15, Feb, 1898. Mast recovered 6, Oct, 1910. Erected here 5, May, 1913."
• 
  Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery centered on the ship's main mast
• 
  The Cuban Friendship Urn on Ohio Drive, Southwest, Washington, D.C., East Potomac Park
• 
  Monument to victims of Maine in Havana, Cuba, c. 1930
• 
  A 6-inch gun from Maine at Fort Allen Park in Portland, Maine
• 
  U.S. Battleship Maine Monument Key West Cemetery, Florida

The explosion-bent fore mast of Maine is located at the United States Naval Academy.[103]

In 1926, the Cuban government erected a memorial to the victims of Maine on the Malecon, near the Hotel Nacional, to commemorate United States assistance in acquiring Cuban independence from Spain. The monument features two of Maine's four 10-inch guns. In 1961, the memorial was damaged by crowds, following the Bay of Pigs Invasion, and the eagle on top was broken and removed.[104] The Communist government then added its own inscription blaming "imperialist voracity in its eagerness to seize the island of Cuba" for Maine's sinking.[104][105] The monument was cleaned and restored in 2013. The eagle's head was retained by the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, and the body by the city's museum.[106]

• 
  USS Maine Monument in New York City
• 
  USS Maine Monument, Columbus Circle, NYC
• 
  Columbia Triumphant
• 
  Memorial plaque by Charles Keck, USS Maine Memorial
• 
  Sculpture group by Attilio Piccirilli at USS Maine Memorial
• 
  Columbia Triumphant sculpture group atop USS Maine Memorial

• In 1898, Georges Méliès made his movie, Divers at Work on the Wreck of the "Maine", about rescuers freeing bodies from the sunken Maine.[107]
• On March 25, 1912, a cowl from the USS Maine arrived in Woburn, Massachusetts and is still on display in Woburn Center.
• In 1912, a porthole cover and a section of the base mast was given to the City of Newburgh Heights, Ohio. The relics were mounted on a large rock in the city's Washington Park in 1948.[108]
• In 1914, one of Maine's six anchors was taken from the Washington Navy Yard to City Park in Reading, Pennsylvania, and dedicated during a ceremony presided over by Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was then assistant secretary of the navy.[109]
• A brass torpedo tube hatch recovered from Maine is on display at Lakeside Park in Oakland, California. It was stolen from its mount in the park in May 2011, but quickly recovered by authorities after the thieves attempted to sell it for scrap metal. The large piece was relocated and mounted by OPW Facility Services in front of Oakland's Veterans building on Grand Ave.[110]
• A memorial including the shield and scrollwork from the bow of the ship is located in Bangor, Maine.[111]
• A 6-inch gun from Maine is in Washington, D.C. at the National Museum of the United States Navy.[112]
• A 6-inch gun from Maine is in Fort Allen Park in Portland, Maine.[113]
• A 6-inch gun from Maine is displayed on the front lawn of city hall in Alpena, Michigan, as well as a bronze plaque made from the vessel.[114]
• The base of Maine's conning tower is currently on display at Westbrook Veterans' Memorial Park in Canton, Ohio, hometown of President McKinley.[115]
• Shells from the main battery were placed along with small plaques as memorials at the Soldier's Home in Marion, Indiana (now a VA hospital and national cemetery),[116] at the St. Joseph County Courthouse lawn in South Bend, Indiana,[117] and at Point Defiance Park in Tacoma, Washington.[118] A shell from the main battery is located in Veterans Park in Lewiston, Maine.[119]
• A monument for Maine with a portion of a bronze engine room ventilator shaft is located in Pompton Lakes, New Jersey.[120]
• The capstan of the ship was secured for Charleston, South Carolina where it was displayed on the Battery until 2006; it is currently awaiting reinstallation.[121]
• A shell from the Maine is on display at the Hoboken Public Library in Hoboken, New Jersey.[122]
• There is a plaque dedicated to Maine at the war memorial in Stephen R. Gregg Park in Bayonne, New Jersey. The plaque is made from metal salvaged from the ship.[123]
• A 6-pound deck gun from Maine is on the North lawn of the South Carolina State House in Columbia, South Carolina.[124]
• A 6-pound deck gun from Maine is at the White Plains Public Works Yard in White Plains, New York, after being removed from Battle Whitney Park.[125]
• A bronze torpedo tube and armored hatch form part of a memorial in West Park, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, just south of West North Avenue.[126]
• There is also a USS Maine Memorial plaque (visible in photographs and physically in situ) at the south door of the Jefferson County Courthouse, in Steubenville, Ohio.[127][128]
• The Maine State Museum in Augusta has a porthole on display, recovered in 1910. It has other artifacts which are not on display.

 This article incorporates public domain material from The Destruction of USS Maine. United States Navy.

• Alden, John D. (1989). American Steel Navy: A Photographic History of the U.S. Navy from the Introduction of the Steel Hull in 1883 to the Cruise of the Great White Fleet. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87021-248-2.
• Allen, Francis J. (1998). "Honoring the Heroes: The Raising of the Wreck of the U.S. Battleship Maine, Part I". Warship International. XXXV (4): 386–405. ISSN 0043-0374.
• Cowan, Mark D.; Sumrall, Alan K. (2011). "Old Hoodoo": The Battleship Texas: America's First Battleship, 1895–1911. Charleston, South Carolina: CreateSpace. ISBN 978-1-4662-4894-6.
• Dober, Mark; Keough, Daniel E. & Koehler, R. B. (2006). "Question 20/04: Artifacts from USS Maine (ACR-1)". Warship International. XLIII (2): 131–33. ISSN 0043-0374.
• Friedman, Norman (1984). U.S. Cruisers, An Illustrated Design History. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87021-718-0.
• Friedman, Norman (1985). U.S. Battleships, An Illustrated Design History. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87021-715-9.
• Gardiner, Robert, ed. (1979). Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1860–1905. New York: Mayflower Books. ISBN 978-0-312-24023-3.
• Jackson, Robert (2004). Fighting Ships of the World. London: Amber Books. p. 421. ISBN 978-1840136470.
• Krause, Paul, ed. (1992). The Battle for Homestead, 1880–1892: politics, culture, and steel. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. ISBN 978-0-8229-5466-8.
• Love, Robert W., Jr., ed. (1992). History of the U.S. Navy, Volume One: 1775–1941. Harriburg, Pennsylvania: Stackpole Books. ISBN 978-0-8117-1862-2.
• Miller, David, ed. (2001). Illustrated Directory of Warships of the World. Osceloa, WI: Zenith Press. ISBN 978-0-7603-1127-1.
• Misa, Thomas J., ed. (1999). A Nation of Steel: The Making of Modern America, 1865–1925. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-6052-2.
• Morrison, Samuel Loring, ed. (2003). The American Battleship. Osceloa, WI: Zenith Press. ISBN 978-0-7603-0989-6.
• Musicant, Ivan (1998). Empire by Default: The Spanish–American War and the Dawn of the American Century. New York: Henry Holt and Company. ISBN 978-0-8050-3500-1.
• O'Toole, G. J. A. (1984). The Spanish War: An American Epic 1898. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 9780393018394.
• Paine, Lincoln P. (2000). Warships of the World to 1900. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN 978-0-395-98414-7.
• Parkinson, Roger (2008). The Late Victorian Navy: The Pre-Dreadnought Era and the Origins of the First World War. Rochester, New York: Boydell Press. ISBN 978-1-84383-372-7.
• Pater, Alan F., ed. (1968). United States Battleships: The History of America's Greatest Fighting Ships. Beverly Hills, California: Monitor Book Company. LCCN 68-17423.
• Putnam, William Lowell (2000). Arctic Superstars. New York: Amer Alpine Club. ISBN 978-0-930410-82-7.
• Reilly, John C.; Scheina, Robert L. (1980). American Battleships 1886–1923: Predreadnought Design and Construction. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87021-524-7.
• Rickover, Hyman George (1995). How the Battleship Maine was Destroyed (Second Revised ed.). Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-55750-717-4.
• United States Army Corps of Engineers (1914). Final Report on Removing Wreck of USS Maine from Harbor of Habana, Cuba. Washington: United States Army Corps of Engineers.
• Wegner, Dana (2001). "Chapter 2: New Interpretations of How the USS Maine Was Lost". In Marolda, Edward J. (ed.). Theodore Roosevelt, the U.S. Navy and the Spanish–American War. London: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-1370-5501-9.
• Wisan, Joseph Ezra (1965) [c.1934]. The Cuban Crisis as Reflected in the New York Press, 1895–1898. Octagon Books. OCLC 435153688.
• "Maine (BB-2)". Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Navy Department, Naval History and Heritage Command. Retrieved 2 October 2011.
• "USS Maine (1895–1898), originally designated as Armored Cruiser # 1". Naval History & Heritage Command. US Navy Department. 17 November 1998. Archived from the original on 10 January 2015. Retrieved 2 October 2011.
• "Sinking of USS Maine, 15 February 1898". Naval History & Heritage Command. US Navy Department. Retrieved 2 October 2011.
• "The Destruction of USS Maine". Naval History & Heritage Command. US Navy Department. 13 August 2003. Archived from the original on 18 August 2007. Retrieved 2 October 2011.
• "Casualties on USS Maine". Naval History & Heritage Command. US Navy Department. 6 February 1998. Retrieved 2 October 2011.
• "Survivors of USS Maine". Naval History & Heritage Command. US Navy Department. 6 February 1998. Retrieved 2 October 2011.
• "Battleship Maine". The Spanish American War Centennial Website. www.spanamwar.com. 1996. Retrieved 2 April 2012.
• Crawford, Michael J.; Hayes, Mark L.; Sessions, Michael D. (30 November 1998). "The Spanish–American War : Historical Overview and Select Bibliography". Naval Historical Center, U.S. Department of the Navy. Retrieved 2 October 2011. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Morley, Chief Eng. A. W., U.S.N. (1895). "Contract Trial of the United States Armored Cruiser Maine". Journal of the Society of American Engineers. Retrieved 2 April 2012. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Coughlin, Bill (2012). "U.S.S. Maine Memorial Marker". Bill Coughlin. Retrieved 25 July 2014. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); External link in |ref= (help)