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 ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

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

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
Charleston (South Carolina, United States) 898 0 Browse Search
N. P. Banks 776 2 Browse Search
Raphael Semmes 707 3 Browse Search
United States (United States) 694 0 Browse Search
Vicksburg (Mississippi, United States) 676 8 Browse Search
Alexander M. Grant 635 1 Browse Search
Fort Fisher (North Carolina, United States) 452 6 Browse Search
David D. Porter 385 63 Browse Search
Thomas W. Sherman 383 7 Browse Search
Fort Jackson (Louisiana, United States) 338 2 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Admiral David D. Porter, The Naval History of the Civil War.. Search the whole document.

Found 681 total hits in 498 results.

... 45 46 47 48 49 50
May 24th, 1869 AD (search for this): chapter 20
ason I was, at the outset, a little surprised that you should have apparently complained of my report, but my examination of the printed diagram has fully satisfied me of the justice of your appeal. I shall, therefore, forward to the Department a correct sketch of the final attack as we passed up the river. I am, very truly, your friend and obedient servant, D. G. Farragut, Admiral U. S. N. Rear-Admiral T. Bailey, Washington. Letters to the Secretary of the Navy. New York, May 24, 1869. Sir — My attention having been called by Rear-Admiral Bailey to an incorrect sketch which accompanied my report of May 6, 1862, upon the passage of Forts Jackson and St. Philip, I have the honor to forward herewith a corrected diagram, showing the position of the vessels at the time they passed through the obstructions after the chains had been separated. This will demonstrate that Rear-Admiral (then Captain) Bailey led the fleet in the Cayuga, up to the attack on the forts, as had b
April 1st, 1869 AD (search for this): chapter 20
misfortune in this mistake was that the error stood recorded so long without correction. He should have had it rectified at once, for his position in the Navy was materially affected by it. History set right. The following correspondence is reproduced from the files of the Navy Department. We publish it in justice both to the truth of history and to the reputation of those gallant officers whom it most concerns. Rear-Admiral Bailey to Admiral Farragut. Washington, D. C., April 1, 1869. My dear admiral — I feel compelled to call your attention to an oversight of which I spoke to you some time since, and which has afforded me and other officers the keenest annoyance, by historical statements growing out of the omission to make the desired correction. You recollect that when the Colorado, under my command, was found (after lightening her) to draw too much water to be got over the bar into the Mississippi River, I applied to you for the command of a division of gun-
June 6th, 1862 AD (search for this): chapter 20
basis of the published programme of April 20th, never carried out; the formation and position of the attacking force being therefore entirely misunderstood by the historians. One (Rev. Mr. Boynton's) history not even mentioning me, although it did those of officers commanding vessels under me. My name was merely inserted (as commanding a division) at the instance of a friend, who discovered the omission too late to make a further correction. The resolution of the United States Senate of June 6, 1862, and accompanying documents, of which two thousand were printed, perpetuates the error of our passing the forts in two columns abreast. Mr. Greeley in his American conflict, and other authors, are led into the same misstatements. Lossing's Pictorial history erroneously describes the Cayuga as retiring from the fight on account of her damages, whereas she was continually in action notwithstanding she was much cut up with forty-two shot holes. The Varuna, which had passed us while heavil
April, 1869 AD (search for this): chapter 20
Chapter 20: a brave officer's mortification.--history set right. Admiral Farragut says in a communication made in April, 1869: historians are not always correct; for my own part, I maintain the conviction that whatever errors may be made by the hands of historians and others, posterity will always give justice to whom justice is due. this is true, and in no case has it been more clearly demonstrated than in that of Admiral Farragut himself, who reaped the highest honors that could be won in the Navy, without a dissenting voice; and who, as time passes, will only gather more laurels to surround his monument and be handed down to posterity as the most famous Admiral of the American Navy. Farragut received so many honors himself that he could well afford to spare to those who served under him, any that may have been withheld from them by accidental omission or otherwise. He leaves it to posterity to do justice where justice has not been awarded, and therefore we give a piece
May 6th (search for this): chapter 20
, or even historians can take the views you express in relation to the part in the memorable fight in the Mississippi in 1862. I have just re-read my report of May 6th, and your two reports following, and cannot conceive how you could be more prominently mentioned to the Department. In the former, you are reported as leading rs under my immediate command, and to myself, and I appeal to your sense of justice whether I could do less. You state, I have just re-read my (your) report of May 6th, and your (my) two reports following, and cannot conceive how you could be more prominently mentioned to the Department. In the former, you are reported as leadiect of my addressing you. It is not to complain that you have not mentioned me prominently in your dispatch, but it is because in your report of the battle, dated May 6th, and the accompanying diagram, you do not give the circumstances of the fight as they occurred, but those which would apply to your former plan which was abandone
May 6th, 1862 AD (search for this): chapter 20
o historians, I can do nothing. This is so; but the difficulty is, that the historians derived their erroneous account of the battle from your report of the 6th of May, 1862, and from the diagram which you sent to the Department, as the true order of sailing into the battle with the forts. Those who have written on the subject aro you, or improper in me to say, and I hope you will now see the matter as I and others do. and make the correction so necessary to justice in your report dated May 6, 1862, and substitute a diagram of the actual positions your vessels and officers occupied in the line of attack, in Battle of New Orleans. place of those now onof the Navy. New York, May 24, 1869. Sir — My attention having been called by Rear-Admiral Bailey to an incorrect sketch which accompanied my report of May 6, 1862, upon the passage of Forts Jackson and St. Philip, I have the honor to forward herewith a corrected diagram, showing the position of the vessels at the time the
May 25th, 1869 AD (search for this): chapter 20
is correction has not been made before, because I was not aware of the existence of the mistake — the diagram being evidently a clerical error — and in opposition to the text, in which I distinctly state that Rear-Admiral Bailey not only led, but performed his duty with great gallantry, to which I call the attention of the Department. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, D. G. Farragut, Admiral U. S. N. Hon. A. E. Borie, Secretary of the Navy, Washington. Washington, D. C. May 25, 1869. Hon. A. E. Borie, Secretary of the Navy. Sir — I have the honor to enclose herewith, original and certified copies of a correspondence which I have had with Admiral D. G. Farragut, relating to the battle below New Orleans, and to request that the letters marked from A to E, be placed on the files of the Navy Department, as furnishing a correction of that officer's report, with an accompanying diagram heretofore made to the Department. The object of my addressing Admiral Farragut is<
April 27th, 1869 AD (search for this): chapter 20
aintain the conviction that whatever errors may be made in the records of historians and others, posterity will always give justice to whom justice is due. Very truly, yours, D. G. Farragut, Admiral. Rear-Admiral T. Bailey, U. S. Navy. P. S.--By referring to pages 334 and 335--337, of Draper's history, you will find that he gives you all the credit claimed by your own report, as well as that given you by mine. D. G. F. Response of Rear-Admiral Bailey.Washington, D. C., April 27, 1869. My Dear Admiral — I have received and carefully read your letter of the 3rd, in reply to mine of the 1st instant, and admit all you say about prominently mentioning my name to the Department. But your remark: As to historians, I can do nothing. This is so; but the difficulty is, that the historians derived their erroneous account of the battle from your report of the 6th of May, 1862, and from the diagram which you sent to the Department, as the true order of sailing into the battl
... 45 46 47 48 49 50