hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in descending order. Sort in ascending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
George B. McClellan 1,246 6 Browse Search
Stonewall Jackson 888 4 Browse Search
James Longstreet 773 5 Browse Search
Jackson (Tennessee, United States) 446 10 Browse Search
Irvin McDowell 422 4 Browse Search
Washington (United States) 410 4 Browse Search
Fitz Lee 376 6 Browse Search
John Pope 355 5 Browse Search
Harper's Ferry (West Virginia, United States) 349 1 Browse Search
Fitz John Porter 346 18 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Robert Underwood Johnson, Clarence Clough Buell, Battles and Leaders of the Civil War: Volume 2.. Search the whole document.

Found 202 total hits in 34 results.

1 2 3 4
Fort Jackson (Louisiana, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.5
bardment of forty-eight hours would reduce Forts Jackson and St. Philip to a heap of ruins. Mr. We and added to the confusion and distress in Fort Jackson. But that the passage would have been madees. What was the situation of affairs in Fort Jackson and Fort St. Philip about this time — the 2been disabled. The barracks and citadel of Fort Jackson had been destroyed by fire. There was noe of the schooners down to blockade back of Fort Jackson to prevent their escaping by way of Baratarf Colonel Edward Higgins, who had commanded Fort Jackson, by the Confederate Court of Inquiry, and hApril a formal demand for the surrender of Forts Jackson and St. Philip was made by Commander Porteneer Corps, in a report of the condition of Fort Jackson dated in May, 1862, says: Fort St. Philip, after the surrender that of the 75 guns in Fort Jackson 4 guns were dismounted and 11 carriages wering the entire siege. Does this look as if Fort Jackson had been disabled by the mortars before the[5 more...]
Washington (United States) (search for this): chapter 2.5
d service magazine for January, 1881, and ex-Secretary Welles, in The Galaxy for November, 1871, both fix the time when the discussion of the question was begun by the naval authorities, which was before the appearance of Porter on the scene at Washington. And, indeed, the importance of the great river to the South was so evident to any one who studied our coast and the South-west, that it is safe to say that the eyes of the whole nation were bent on New Orleans as a point of attack just about t leaving an enemy in the rear. (See his letter on p. 71.) The forces to attack New Orleans were fixed, measures were taken to cast thirty thousand mortar-shells, collect the fleet and transport the soldiers, before Farragut was summoned to Washington from New York. Mr. Blair says positively that he was not to be given the command until he had been subjected to a critical overhauling by the authorities. We hear of Farragut at breakfast with Mr. Blair and Mr. Fox, probably on the morning of
Buras (Louisiana, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.5
a bombardment of forty-eight hours would reduce Forts Jackson and St. Philip to a heap of ruins. Mr. Welles says that Mr. Fox, who was a trai the bombardment, three or four vessels being employed against Fort St. Philip, firing as often as they can coolly and conveniently load and t only practicable, but, if time permitted, could be adopted. Fort St. Philip can be taken with three thousand men covered by the ships; theries. What was the situation of affairs in Fort Jackson and Fort St. Philip about this time — the 22d of April--as shown by the testimony ome back; that all the defenses must soon fall, Forts Jackson and St. Philip among them, as the effect of the occupation of the river and New h of April a formal demand for the surrender of Forts Jackson and St. Philip was made by Commander Porter; the terms which were offered were lort of the condition of Fort Jackson dated in May, 1862, says: Fort St. Philip, with one or two slight exceptions, is to-day without a scratc
Barataria (Louisiana, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.5
the mortar-vessels, sent everything down and collected boats and spars. . . . They are moving all their heavy guns upon the riverside. You will find the forts harder to take now than before unless their ammunition gives out. I threw bombs at them all day, and tantalized them with rifle-shot, but they never fired a gun. I hope you will open your way down, no matter what it costs. I am sending some of the schooners down to blockade back of Fort Jackson to prevent their escaping by way of Barataria. D. D. Porter. Porter overlooks the difference between his hopes and his predictions, as shown by his communication to the conference of officers, which he says are realized in this letter, and Farragut's achievement. He had opposed the plan of attack by which Farragut succeeded. Porter's letter to the Secretary of the Navy, written before the surrender, also shows his distrust of the result of Farragut's bold ascent of the river, leaving an enemy in his rear. He says, speaking o
Fort Morgan (Alabama, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.5
nd 19 mortar-schooners. The 17 vessels which were to attempt the passage carried 166 guns and 26 howitzers. It is true that the mortar-shells were of assistance to Farragut in the passage, as they helped his own guns to distract the fire of the enemy and added to the confusion and distress in Fort Jackson. But that the passage would have been made in the darkness without the assistance of the mortars has never been seriously questioned, and is proved by Farragut's successful passage of Fort Morgan at the battle of Mobile Bay in broad daylight, which involved exactly the same principles of attack and was achieved without the use of a single mortar. The protraction of the bombardment gave the Confederates just six days more to push forward the work on the iron-clad and the fleet. Mr. Welles, in The Galaxy, quotes a dispatch from Porter himself which shows his recognition of the fact that the Confederates were strengthening their defenses during this period. Porter says, speaking o
Chalmette (Louisiana, United States) (search for this): chapter 2.5
tars. He would not cumber his fleet during the passage by towing the mortars as Porter desired him to do. Once above the defenses, and the enemy's fleet overcome, he would either push on to New Orleans past the batteries, which he knew were at Chalmette, or cover with his guns the landing of the army through the bayou in the rear of the forts. In his heart he was determined, if events favored him, to push right on seventy-five miles up the river to New Orleans without waiting for the army. P Colonel Higgins's own report to the Confederate authorities quoted here. Surely the official evidence of a man fresh from the scene of action is to be believed in preference to an account given by him ten years afterward in a letter. W. T. M. Or was it because Farragut dashed through the fire of the forts, destroyed the Confederate fleet, and then pushed on past the Chalmette batteries 75 miles up the river, cutting off all communication, till he anchored before the city with his torn fleet?
Edward Higgins (search for this): chapter 2.5
ate cause of the surrender of the forts? This is exactly the question that was asked of Colonel Edward Higgins, who had commanded Fort Jackson, by the Confederate Court of Inquiry, and his reply was:r the bombardment. On the 30th of April, 1862, in a letter to Adjutant-General Bridges, Colonel Edward Higgins says: I have the honor to report that on the morning of the 27th of April a formal demanhis look as if Fort Jackson had been disabled by the mortars before the final attack? Colonel Edward Higgins on the 27th of April says: Orders had been issued to the officers and men to retire to taken no notice in this article of a letter written to Admiral Porter by the above-mentioned Colonel Higgins dated April 4th, 1872, ten years after the occurrence of the events which he professes to describe. This letter is useless as evidence, because it contradicts Colonel Higgins's own report to the Confederate authorities quoted here. Surely the official evidence of a man fresh from the sce
G. V. Fox (search for this): chapter 2.5
arduous duty. These were the main reasons that Mr. Welles, the Secretary, and Mr. Fox, the Assistant Secretary, had for selecting him. Besides this, his appointment him is a mistake; he simply assented to the previous choice of Mr. Welles and Mr. Fox. (See articles by Welles and Blair, above referred to.) Ex-Secretary Welle reduce Forts Jackson and St. Philip to a heap of ruins. Mr. Welles says that Mr. Fox, who was a trained naval officer, at first objected to the mortars, and advocauling by the authorities. We hear of Farragut at breakfast with Mr. Blair and Mr. Fox, probably on the morning of his arrival at the capital. Mr. Fox then showed hMr. Fox then showed him the point of attack, the plans, and the force to be employed. Farragut said he would engage to capture New Orleans with two-thirds the naval force. Mr. Blair teus that he was so enthusiastic and confident of success that when he went away Mr. Fox thought him over-sanguine, and was a little inclined to distrust his ability.
David D. Porter (search for this): chapter 2.5
ime permitted, could be adopted. Fort St. Philip can be taken with three thousand men covered by the ships; the ditch can be filled with fascines, and the walls can be easily scaled with ladders. It can be easily attacked in front and rear.--D. D. Porter. Farragut stood facing his destiny, imperishable fame or failure. He was determined to run by the forts with his ships. It was plain to him that nothing more would be accomplished by the mortars. He would not cumber his fleet during the tantalized them with rifle-shot, but they never fired a gun. I hope you will open your way down, no matter what it costs. I am sending some of the schooners down to blockade back of Fort Jackson to prevent their escaping by way of Barataria. D. D. Porter. Porter overlooks the difference between his hopes and his predictions, as shown by his communication to the conference of officers, which he says are realized in this letter, and Farragut's achievement. He had opposed the plan of attack
Benjamin F. Butler (search for this): chapter 2.5
k that he chose the commander of the expedition. That he could have defeated Farragut's appointment is probably true, but that he chose him is a mistake; he simply assented to the previous choice of Mr. Welles and Mr. Fox. (See articles by Welles and Blair, above referred to.) Ex-Secretary Welles relates that the armament of the fleet had been determined, before Farragut's appointment to the command, after consultation with the War Department and with General McClellan, who detailed General Butler to command the land forces of the expedition. Porter, whose advice was listened to, insisted on the importance of a fleet of schooners carrying 13-inch mortars, and asserted that a bombardment of forty-eight hours would reduce Forts Jackson and St. Philip to a heap of ruins. Mr. Welles says that Mr. Fox, who was a trained naval officer, at first objected to the mortars, and advocated running by the forts with the fleet, but finally was won over by the forcible arguments of Porter, whos
1 2 3 4