Benjamnin F. Butler, Butler's Book: Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benjamin Butler

1 There have been three contested questions of fact, on which the officers of the army and Porter, on behalf of the navy, have differed:

The first is that the forts were surrendered solely because the bombardment had made of them such perfect wrecks as to be no longer defensible. He so reported to the Secretary of the Navy on the 30th day of April. That 1,800 of his mortar shells had fallen within it he reported to the Secretary of the Navy, June 10.

Second,--that the surrender was wholly on account of the bombardment.

Third,--that he remained with his mortar fleet from the time of Farragut's passage on April 24, until April 30, the day of the surrender, and did not go down the river.

A part of these questions have been heretofore discussed; but we have now, from consultation of the War Records, the testimony of the enemy. Brigadier-General Duncan says (War Records, Series 1, Vol. VI., pp. 529-532):--

The demand was rejected, and the bombardment was reopened about 12 M. It continued until near sundown, when it ceased altogether. The entire mortar fleet and all the other vessels, except six gunboats, then got under way, and passed down the river and out of sight, under full steam and sail . . . .

So far, throughout the entire bombardment and final action, the spirit of the troops was cheerful, confident, and courageous. . . . A reaction set in among them during the lull of the 25th, 26th, and 27th, when there was no other excitement to arouse them than the fatigue duty of repairing our damages. . . . They were still obedient, but not buoyant and cheerful. In consequence, I endeavored to revive their courage and patriotism by publishing an order to both garrisons. . .

I regret to state that it did not produce the desired effect. Everything remained quiet, however, until midnight, when the garrison of Fort Jackson revolted in mass; seized upon guard and posterns; reversed the field-pieces commanding the gates, and commenced to spike the guns, while many of the men were leaving the fort in the meantime under arms. All this occurred as suddenly as it was unexpected. The men were mostly drawn up under arms and positively refused to fight any longer. . . .

Every endeavor was made by the officers to repress the revolt and to bring the men to reason and order, but without avail. Officers upon the ramparts were fired upon by the mutineers in attempting to put a stop to the spiking of the guns . . .

In the meantime we were totally ignorant of the condition of affairs at Fort St. Philip; and as all our small boats had been carried away by the mutineers, we could not communicate with that fort until the next morning . . .

With the enemy above us and below us, it will be apparent at once to anyone at all familiar with the surrounding country that there was no chance of destroying the public property, blowing up the forts, and escaping with the remaining troops. Under all these humiliating circumstances there seemed to be but one course open to us, viz.: to await the approach of daylight, communicate then with the gunboats of the mortar flotilla below under a flag of truce, and negotiate for a surrender under the terms offered us by Commander Porter on the 26th instant, and which had previously been declined . . . .

For these reasons a flag of truce was sent down to communicate with the enemy below and to carry a written offer of surrender under the terms offered on the 26th instant.

Thus it appears that the besieged were obliged to send a flag of truce down to Porter to get him to come up and take the surrender.

As to the condition of the forts because of the bombardment, we have the testimony of Lieutenant Weitzel, who was sent to make an official report for the purpose of putting them in repair; we have the report of Captain Palfrey, assistant engineer, who was in charge of the repairs; of Colonel Hazeltine, and of General Dow, who certifies that the worst thing that had happened to the forts was the “extreme slovenliness” by which they had been occupied by the enemy.