[115]
events recorded. * * * Finally, the writer must acknowledge his obligations to many kind friends both in and out of the service, who have aided him with valuable advice and suggestions.
Professor Soley says, among other things, in order to show that the
Monitor renewed the engagement, and we do not deem it necessary, to give further attention to his statements:
But at this point the Merrimac withdrew to Norfolk.
As she moved off Green fired at her twice, or, at most, three times.
From whom did
Professor Soley receive this information?
Not from
Admiral Worden, we are sure; it is not to be found in his report.
Did he get it from
Captain Van Brunt's report?
We fail to find it there.
Did he get it from
Assistant Secretary Fox?
We fail to find it in his dispatches.
Green does not mention it;
Stimers fails to note it. Did he get it from the commander of the
Merrimac?
We fail to find it in his report.
Did he get it from any of the commanders on duty that day?
If so, he fails to inform us of the fact.
Not getting it from any of these, we must recur to his preface, which we have already quoted, and conclude that this unsupported statement was derived from one of his ‘
kind friends out of the service.’
It has been said that ‘claim has been made, during and since the war by Confederate officers, that the
Merrimac had as much claim to honors of victory as the
Monitor,’ and that “one of their number,”
Captain W. H. Parker (styled by the advocates of this bill as an
intelligent and
candid ex-officer of the Confederate Navy), in his recent
interesting ‘recollections of a naval officer,’ is frank enough to acknowledge the failure of the
Merrimac.
He says:
Whatever the cause, candor compels us to say that the Merrimac failed to reap the fruits of her victory.
She went out to destroy the Minnesota, and do what further damage to the enemy she could.
The Monitor was there to save the Minnesota.
The Merrimac did not accomplish her purpose.
The Monitor did.
While we fail to see anything in this statement of
Captain Parker to sustain the claim of the petitioners in this bill, as he certainly does not say that the
Monitor either destroyed the
Merrimac or so disabled her as to force her destruction, yet we accept the witness as one who was in the engagement, and ask attention to his testimony, which we give at some length.
It will be found in Southern Historical Society Papers, volume XII, pages 34 to 40, as follows:
