Browsing named entities in Robert Underwood Johnson, Clarence Clough Buell, Battles and Leaders of the Civil War: Volume 2.. You can also browse the collection for D. D. Porter or search for D. D. Porter in all documents.

Your search returned 41 results in 5 document sections:

Robert Underwood Johnson, Clarence Clough Buell, Battles and Leaders of the Civil War: Volume 2., The opening of the lower Mississippi. (search)
arragut, so was ready to redouble the fire of the mortars at the proper time with good effect. In Farragut's words: Commander Porter, however, kept up such a tremendous fire on them from the mortars that the enemy's shot did the gun-boats no injury,s and fuses, and material for making cartridges. He has always entertained the same opinions which are expressed by Commander Porter; that is, there are three modes of attack, and the question is, which is the one to be adopted? His own opinion is (just above Fort St. Philip) to look after the Louisiana and to cover the landing of the troops under General Butler. Admiral Porter, seeing the Mississippi the morning after the fleet passed up, doubtless supposed it had remained at anchor below.--Ehat the vessels of war were to be included in the terms agreed to by the Confederate officers. Mention is made in Commander Porter's letter of April 26th to Lieut.-Colonel Higgins of the Confederate vessels of war, for he says: And the vessels lyi
Robert Underwood Johnson, Clarence Clough Buell, Battles and Leaders of the Civil War: Volume 2., The Brooklyn at the passage of the forts. (search)
ly, 1861, I was on board the steam frigate Mississippi when she made a visit to the Southwest Pass, and having been sent to the Powhatan, commanded by Lieutenant D. D. Porter, near by, I walked up and down the quarter-deck with the commanding officer. He was very much exasperated that the department at Washington delayed sending vessels of proper draught to enter the river, and said that if he had half a dozen good vessels he would undertake to run by the forts and capture New Orleans. Admiral Porter has already recounted in this work the prominent part that he took in the opening of the Mississippi, and I therefore omit further reference to it.--J. R. B. The present article is intended merely as a personal narrative of the passage of the forts as seen from the deck of the Brooklyn. This vessel was a flush-deck sloop-of-war, carrying 22 9-inch guns, 1 80-pounder Dahlgren rifle, and 1 30-pounder Parrott rifle. A small poop-deck extended about fifteen feet from the taffrail, and
Robert Underwood Johnson, Clarence Clough Buell, Battles and Leaders of the Civil War: Volume 2., Farragut's capture of New Orleans. (search)
uthorities, which was before the appearance of Porter on the scene at Washington. And, indeed, the as a point of attack just about the time that Porter imagines he suggested it. Why was Farragut ides this, his appointment met the approval of Porter, who, when consulted by the Secretary, gave hie destroyed, upon which Farragut remarked that Porter had that morning assented to the boom's being e of the forts. The communication from Commander Porter containing his plans of attack, to which caping by way of Barataria. D. D. Porter. Porter overlooks the difference between his hopes andy to open his way down the river as advised by Porter, to whom the surrender must have been a surprind why did the city surrender? Was it because Porter bombarded Fort Jackson 75 miles below the city Forts Jackson and St. Philip was made by Commander Porter; the terms which were offered were liberaSurvey, whose map of the forts is published in Porter's article, says in his report after the surren[17 more...]
Robert Underwood Johnson, Clarence Clough Buell, Battles and Leaders of the Civil War: Volume 2., The water-battery at Fort Jackson. (search)
made up before the receipt of Captain Robertson's account, was based on the following facts: Admiral Porter, in his report of April 30th, 1862, written after a visit to the fort, states that the water post at the guns in the water-battery, much less from the battery itself, as is asserted by Admiral Porter. [See p. 43.] After Farragut passed with most of his steamers there was a slackening of would have been madness to have wasted any more ammunition than was necessary to drive away Admiral Porter and all the vessels which had failed to pass the forts under cover of darkness. But as soon to see them plainly we silenced and drove rapidly down the river all the vessels, including Admiral Porter's, that remained below the forts. As soon as Farragut's vessels could, they pushed up the r his fleet was an act of grand heroism that should forever shed luster on the American navy, and Porter and his mortar-fleet did splendid work, and contributed very materially to the success which the
Robert Underwood Johnson, Clarence Clough Buell, Battles and Leaders of the Civil War: Volume 2., Confederate responsibilities for Farragut's success. (search)
ifferent heads, which prevented unanimity of action. In every other respect the odds were against us. But taking Admiral Porter's own showing of the armaments, it appears that the weight of one entire round of projectiles was approximately: Confscrap iron, insufficiently tested and inspected, and so, with good reason, distrusted by the crews that worked them. Admiral Porter further says: It is generally conceded by military men that 1 gun in a fort is about equal to 5 on board of a wooy the forts, and it appears that the Hartford was the only vessel that got foul of a fire-raft. As to the Louisiana, Admiral Porter states: The Louisiana remained tied up to the bank, where she could not obstruct the river or throw the Union fle few of them having ever seen a cannon fired. In his account of the capitulation in the cabin of the Harriet Lane, Admiral Porter says: As we were about to sign the terms, I was quite surprised to find that it was not expected that the vessels