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
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
Johnson K. Duncan (search for this): chapter 2.5
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: The mutiny of the garrison. But what was the cause of the mutiny? General Duncan, who had commanded the lower defenses, including the forts, answered this in his report: The garrison mutinied on the night of the 27th of April, giving as a reason that the city had surrendered and there was no further use in fighting. And de by Commander Porter; the terms which were offered were liberal, but so strong was I in the belief that we could resist successfully any attack, either by land or by water, that the terms were at once refused. Our fort was still strong. General Duncan, commanding all the lower Confederate defenses, says after the passage: We are just as capable of repelling the enemy to-day as we were before the bombardment. General Weitzel, of the United States Engineer Corps, in a report of the condit
George B. McClellan (search for this): chapter 2.5
ral Porter has learned to think 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 for
D. G. Farragut (search for this): chapter 2.5
the fleet and transport the soldiers, before Farragut was summoned to Washington from New York. Mr Mr. Welles relates that after this interview Farragut was brought to him, and they entered at once -mander Alden read a written communication to Farragut from Porter, expressing his views as to the oe propriety of the document's being left with Farragut, and the paper was accordingly placed in his nt above, should not be destroyed, upon which Farragut remarked that Porter had that morning assentene immediately. He believed in celerity. Farragut believed in celerity. He saw that while the can read Commodore Bell's journal and Flag-Officer Farragut's general order without seeing that th that the mortar-shells were of assistance to Farragut in the passage, as they helped his own guns tt after it passed the forts. He wondered how Farragut would return down the river to the mortar-flehich he says are realized in this letter, and Farragut's achievement. He had opposed the plan of at[27 more...]
Frank Harris (search for this): chapter 2.5
pelling the enemy to-day as we were before the bombardment. General Weitzel, of the United States Engineer Corps, in a report 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 scratch. Fort Jackson was subjected to a torrent of 13-inch and 11-inch shells during 140 hours. To an inexperienced eye it seems as if this work were badly cut up. It is as strong to-day as when the first shell was fired at it. Captain Harris, of the Coast Survey, whose map of the forts is published in Porter's article, says in his report after the surrender that of the 75 guns in Fort Jackson 4 guns were dismounted and 11 carriages were struck. But this was not done by the mortars alone. The fleet did its share in the passage. Granting that the injury of 11 gun-carriages permanently disabled 6 guns, the disablement of 10 guns in 75 is scarcely worth considering, with 116 guns in both forts still intact. Comparing the l
Charles S. Boggs (search for this): chapter 2.5
er and New Orleans. He feared that Farragut was caught in a trap. He thought he would find the forts harder to take than ever, and that he would have to fight his way down the river and attack them again. All this appears in the letter of Commander Porter, which is given below. It was written to Farragut from below the forts on the morning after the passage, three days before they surrendered. The italics are not in the original: mortar-flotilla, April 25th, 1862. Dear sir: Captain Boggs has arrived. I congratulate you on your victory. I witnessed your passage with great pleasure. My hopes and predictions were at last realized. You left at the forts four steamers and the famous iron-clad battery; they are mounting guns on it, and one thousand men are at work on it. She is unhurt and moves about with the stream. How fast she is I don't know. One of the steamers is iron-clad on the bow. The McRae is also at the fort. I sent a summons to surrender, but it was politel
Weitzel (search for this): chapter 2.5
formal demand for the surrender of Forts Jackson and St. Philip was made by Commander Porter; the terms which were offered were liberal, but so strong was I in the belief that we could resist successfully any attack, either by land or by water, that the terms were at once refused. Our fort was still strong. General Duncan, commanding all the lower Confederate defenses, says after the passage: We are just as capable of repelling the enemy to-day as we were before the bombardment. General Weitzel, of the United States Engineer Corps, in a report 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 scratch. Fort Jackson was subjected to a torrent of 13-inch and 11-inch shells during 140 hours. To an inexperienced eye it seems as if this work were badly cut up. It is as strong to-day as when the first shell was fired at it. Captain Harris, of the Coast Survey, whose map of the forts is published in P
William M. Bridges (search for this): chapter 2.5
And why did the city surrender? Was it because Porter bombarded Fort Jackson 75 miles below the city, for six days, disabling, up to the night of the passage of the fleet, only 9 guns of the armament of 128, with a loss to the Confederates of less than 40 men in both garrisons? The following official statements made by Confederate and Union officers are given to show the condition of Fort Jackson and the garrison after 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 demand for the surrender of Forts Jackson and St. Philip was made by Commander Porter; the terms which were offered were liberal, but so strong was I in the belief that we could resist successfully any attack, either by land or by water, that the terms were at once refused. Our fort was still strong. General Duncan, commanding all the lower Confederate defenses, says after
Henry H. Bell (search for this): chapter 2.5
, while the captains waited anxiously in the cabin to hear what the flag-officer would say. A private journal kept by Commodore Bell, who led the 2d division of gun-boats in the attack: describes as follows what took place at the conference: The perations against the forts. Having read them, Alden folded up the paper and returned it to his pocket, whereupon I [Commodore Bell] suggested the propriety of the document's being left with Farragut, and the paper was accordingly placed in his handn from Commander Porter containing his plans of attack, to which I have already alluded, and which was referred to by Commodore Bell, is as follows: When the ships are over the bar, guns mounted, coal-bunkers filled, sick on shore, hospital arran flag-officer's determination to challenge all objections, run the forts, conquer or be conquered. No one can read Commodore Bell's journal and Flag-Officer Farragut's general order without seeing that there was cause for disappointment in the fle
D. D. Porter (search for this): chapter 2.5
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...]
James Alden (search for this): chapter 2.5
e journal kept by Commodore Bell, who led the 2d division of gun-boats in the attack: describes as follows what took place at the conference: The flag-officer [Farragut] unfolded his plan of operations. Some discussion ensued, and Com-mander Alden read a written communication to Farragut from Porter, expressing his views as to the operations against the forts. Having read them, Alden folded up the paper and returned it to his pocket, whereupon I [Commodore Bell] suggested the propriety ofAlden folded up the paper and returned it to his pocket, whereupon I [Commodore Bell] suggested the propriety of the document's being left with Farragut, and the paper was accordingly placed in his hands. It was therein stated that the boom, being a protection to the mortars against attack front above, should not be destroyed, upon which Farragut remarked that Porter had that morning assented to the boom's being broken, and again (it was stated in the communication) that the fleet should not go above the forts, as the mortar-vessels would be left unprotected. Farragut said he thought the mortars would
1 2 3 4