Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 26.
Reverend J. William Jones, Ed.

[109] without returning thanks to Almighty God for the great success that has thus far crowned our arms, and for the extraordinary preservation of our soldiers from casualty and death. In the fifteen hours of almost incessant firing, our enemy one of the most experienced and skilful of artillerists, no injury has been sustained by a single one of our gallant soldiers.

The result of the conflict strengthens and confirms our faith in the justness of the cause for whose achievement we have suffered obloquy and dared perils of vast magnitude. At the outset of the struggle we invoked the sanction and aid of that God whom we serve, and his hand has guided and defended us all through the momentous conflict. His favor was most signally, we almost said miraculously, manifested on this eventful day. We call the roll of those engaged in the battle, and each soldier is here to answer to his name. No tombstone will throw its shadow upon that bright, triumphant day. If so it seemeth good in the eyes of Him in whose hands are the issues of life, we fervently pray that our brave sons may pass unharmed through the perils of the day now dawning.

The Charleston Mercury of the same day published an account of about the same length. But on the following Monday both papers published an exhaustive review of the affair from start to finish, with accounts of the bombardment from different points of view and a superfluity of personal mention. It is interesting to note that the editorial ‘we’ was used throughout the reports in both papers, and that both interjected editorial opinions, as in the last paragraph of the Courier's report. To-day a reporter who would be guilty of writing ‘we’ would be advised to enlist.

But short as it was the Courier's report told the story to thousands waiting anxiously throughout the State, and had about the same effect that a lighted torch would have on a powder magazine.