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 134 total hits in 31 results.

1 2 3 4
Charles H. Davis (search for this): chapter 60
n advance of vessels of the class he commanded. The great mistake the court made was in endeavoring to modify the charge of which the accused was or was not guilty. They had either to say one thing or another, and that in accordance with their opinion such was the case, and the revising power could say no more. No ill results followed the flaunting of the Stonewall's flag, and it was in some respects a very doubtful case. Three of the officers of the court, Vice-Admiral Farragut, Rear-Admiral Davis and Captain Melancton Smith, had had some rough experiences with iron-clad rams, and, under the circumstances, were, no doubt, disposed to judge leniently, and willing to allow the commander of the Niagara discretionary rights in regard to attacking the Stonewall. The court made a grave mistake in not more carefully considering this matter, and in not inquiring more closely into the points of law; and for this reason it may be said that the court jeopardized, in a measure, the interes
Thomas Jefferson Page (search for this): chapter 60
, was by them put into commission, and christened the Stonewall. The history of the four corvettes is not pertinent, as they never came into the possession of the Confederate Government. The Stonewall was placed under the command of Captain Thomas Jefferson Page, an able officer, formerly of the United States Navy. She had, we regret to say, an opportunity of inflicting a humiliation upon the American Navy which was hard to bear, considering that its name almost throughout the conflict had boved his ship to Corunna, where, when her repairs were completed, she was followed by the Stonewall, which remained before the port blockading the two American ships-of-war, and, as the Commodore expressed it, flaunting her flags in his face. Captain Page, in fact, did everything he could to provoke an encounter; and it must have been with much mortification that the Union commodore decided to remain at his anchors, and not run the risk of a battle with a foe that was represented as built with
Henry Walke (search for this): chapter 60
of the Confederate ram while at Ferrol, and thus ascertain the truth or falsehood of the received reports of her character. There might also be some cause for reflection on the conduct of the Federal commander in remaining quietly at anchor in the Bay of Corunna, instead of going outside with his two vessels in the same neutral water, and there making observations of the Stonewall's speed, power of turning, etc.; and he might, with propriety, have consulted with his junior commander, Captain Henry Walke, of the Sacramento, who had boldly engaged on the Mississippi River a much more powerful ram — the Arkansas--while in command of the Carondelet, a much inferior vessel — at least, he might have formed with his consort some plan of attack. This was not done, perhaps for the reason that, as, in his judgment, no engagement should take place, it was useless to form plans he did not propose to undertake. Some of these ideas were evidently paramount in the mind of the Secretary of the N
David G. Farragut (search for this): chapter 60
trial by court-martial on the following charge: Failing to do his utmost to overtake and capture or destroy a vessel which it was his duty to encounter. The court was composed of nine of the most distinguished officers of the Navy, with Vice-Admiral Farragut as President. The court decided that Commodore Craven had been remiss in his duties, and sentenced him to two years suspension on leave-pay. This sentence was either inadequate to the offence charged, or it was very unjust, which will bordance with their opinion such was the case, and the revising power could say no more. No ill results followed the flaunting of the Stonewall's flag, and it was in some respects a very doubtful case. Three of the officers of the court, Vice-Admiral Farragut, Rear-Admiral Davis and Captain Melancton Smith, had had some rough experiences with iron-clad rams, and, under the circumstances, were, no doubt, disposed to judge leniently, and willing to allow the commander of the Niagara discretionar
May 24th, 1865 AD (search for this): chapter 60
or the sake merely of his reputation, an officer under all circumstances should attack an iron-clad with two wooden vessels. Very little was known of the power of sea-going iron-clads at that time, and the Stonewall, for all the commander of the Niagara knew, might be impervious to shot or shell, and with manoeuvering powers that were unequalled by the two ships under his command. Yet there may have been some justification for censure in the want of judgment in the commodore on the 24th day of May, 1865, in not making some exertion to obtain constant and personal observation of the Confederate ram while at Ferrol, and thus ascertain the truth or falsehood of the received reports of her character. There might also be some cause for reflection on the conduct of the Federal commander in remaining quietly at anchor in the Bay of Corunna, instead of going outside with his two vessels in the same neutral water, and there making observations of the Stonewall's speed, power of turning, etc.
March 24th (search for this): chapter 60
law; and for this reason it may be said that the court jeopardized, in a measure, the interests of the accused by finding him guilty of that which was not proved; inasmuch as they declared by implication that it was not his duty to have attacked the Stonewall, the finding being as follows: Specification of the charge proven, except in so far as the words, as it was his duty to have done, declare it to have been the imperative duty of the accused to join battle with the Stonewall on the 24th day of March --(1865). How, under the finding of the court, the commander of the Niagara could be censured for want of zeal and exertion in not making constant and personal observation of the Stonewall while at Ferrol, and thereby endeavoring to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the various reports of her character, does not appear; for, while qualifying their finding, they reflect upon him in three several instances: First, in the words just quoted; second, on the conduct of the accused in re
1812 AD (search for this): chapter 60
ory of the four corvettes is not pertinent, as they never came into the possession of the Confederate Government. The Stonewall was placed under the command of Captain Thomas Jefferson Page, an able officer, formerly of the United States Navy. She had, we regret to say, an opportunity of inflicting a humiliation upon the American Navy which was hard to bear, considering that its name almost throughout the conflict had been without a stain, and that the reputation it had gained in the war of 1812 had not diminished in the least. The Stonewall got to sea January 28th, 1865, having received her stores and crew from another vessel dispatched by Captain Bullock from England, at Quiberon Bay, Belle Isle, France, but, owing to defects in the rudder casing, the Stonewall put in to Ferrol, Spain, for repairs, where she arrived February 2d, and fell in with the Federal frigate Niagara and sloop-of-war Sacramento, under the command of Commodore Thomas T. Craven. The Niagara was a large and
December 1st, 1865 AD (search for this): chapter 60
a court of officers who are sworn to do their whole duty in the premises. It would seem to be an attempt to deprive them of that discretionary power which is generally a beneficent feature in a military court-martial. It also detracts from that dignity which properly belongs to such a body, holding, as it does, the power even of life and death. The following is an extract from the Department's letter, returning the record to the court for revision: Navy Department, Washington, December 1, 1865. Sir — The record of the proceedings of the court of which you are President, in the case of Commodore Thomas T. Craven, is herewith returned for a revision of the finding, which, in the opinion of the Department, is in conflict with law, and, if approved, would tend to render the provisions of law, which the accused is charged with violating, a dead letter. Having received this letter, the court proceeded to revise its action upon the charge and specifications, and, after more m
1865 AD (search for this): chapter 60
his reason it may be said that the court jeopardized, in a measure, the interests of the accused by finding him guilty of that which was not proved; inasmuch as they declared by implication that it was not his duty to have attacked the Stonewall, the finding being as follows: Specification of the charge proven, except in so far as the words, as it was his duty to have done, declare it to have been the imperative duty of the accused to join battle with the Stonewall on the 24th day of March --(1865). How, under the finding of the court, the commander of the Niagara could be censured for want of zeal and exertion in not making constant and personal observation of the Stonewall while at Ferrol, and thereby endeavoring to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the various reports of her character, does not appear; for, while qualifying their finding, they reflect upon him in three several instances: First, in the words just quoted; second, on the conduct of the accused in remaining quietly
January 28th, 1865 AD (search for this): chapter 60
ossession of the Confederate Government. The Stonewall was placed under the command of Captain Thomas Jefferson Page, an able officer, formerly of the United States Navy. She had, we regret to say, an opportunity of inflicting a humiliation upon the American Navy which was hard to bear, considering that its name almost throughout the conflict had been without a stain, and that the reputation it had gained in the war of 1812 had not diminished in the least. The Stonewall got to sea January 28th, 1865, having received her stores and crew from another vessel dispatched by Captain Bullock from England, at Quiberon Bay, Belle Isle, France, but, owing to defects in the rudder casing, the Stonewall put in to Ferrol, Spain, for repairs, where she arrived February 2d, and fell in with the Federal frigate Niagara and sloop-of-war Sacramento, under the command of Commodore Thomas T. Craven. The Niagara was a large and fast vessel of 4,600 tons displacement, carrying ten 150-pounder Parrott
1 2 3 4