Alexander C. Brown, writing in the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers Historical Transactions noted in a penetrating comment that: Monitors found their final employment as submarine tenders in World War I for which their low freeboard hulls made them well suited.

[5] The new ships, created for harbor defense, were designed by Chief constructor Philip Hichborn with the original plans calling for a length of 225 ft and a beam of 50 ft, with a displacement of 2700 tons, a coal capacity of 200 tons, and a side armor belt of 11-inch thickness.

Powered by two vertical triple-expansion type engines and twin-screw propellers, the ship would have a maximum speed of 12 knots.

[12] Lewis Nixon of the Crescent Shipyard, the contractors of the USS Florida, submitted a new design for the Monitors which the Navy appears to have favored.

Eventually, the two sides came to an agreement, which included the following:[18] In the end, the most prominent point of contention, the main armament, was kept the same with the Navy receiving, on paper, most of what they wanted asides from that.

[21] However, Congress only authorized a maximum payment of $400 a ton for armor, a price that was too low to purchase Krupp Steel.

In June the Navy would instead outfit the ships with Harvey armor instead, which they purchased from both Carnegie Steel and Bethlehem Ironworks.

[26][27][28] Construction progressed throughout the remainder of the 19th century and in the fall of 1900, Wyoming, Arkansas, and Nevada were launched, with Florida following a year later.