FOOTNOTE:

FOOTNOTE:[3]From Commodore Mitchell's official report to the Secretary of the C. S. Navy, dated August 19th, 1862.

[3]From Commodore Mitchell's official report to the Secretary of the C. S. Navy, dated August 19th, 1862.

The 24th April.—Passage of the United States Fleet.—After the Storm.—The "River Defence" boats.—The Refuge in the Bayou.—Surrender of the Forts.—Extracts from Commodore Mitchell's official reports.—Council of War.—Destruction of the "Louisiana."—Our Commander General B. F. Butler.—Transferred to the United States frigate "Colorado."

On the night of April 23d, the bursting of the shells was as incessant as usual. Toward daylight of the 24th, an ominous calm of brief duration was broken by the first broadside of the advancing fleet, which had approached so rapidly as to remove and pass the obstructions undiscovered, and before the launch on picket duty could get back to our fleet. For a few minutes the roar of the guns was deafening; but objects were so obscured by the darkness and the dense smoke, that we could only fire, with effect, at the flashes of the ship's guns. The Louisiana's three bow guns (one rifled seven-inch and two seven-inch shell guns) and her three starboard broadside guns (a rifled six-inch and two eight-inch shell guns)were all that could be brought to bear during the engagement; for being moored to the river bank, the stern and port broadside guns were useless. The U. S. fleet came up in two divisions, delivering their broadsides in rapid succession. One of the ships was set on fire by one of the fireboats (a number of which had been prepared) but the flames were speedily extinguished. It is said that the unarmed tug Mozier, under her heroic commander, Sherman, while towing a fireboat alongside a heavy ship, was sunk by a broadside delivered at short range, all on board perishing. One of the largest ships, believed to be the Hartford, came in contact with our stern, and received the fire of our three bow guns while in this position, returning a broadside, but she soon swung clear of us and continued on her way up the river.

When day fairly broke, the storm had passed away, leaving wreck and ruin in its wake. The river banks were dotted, here and there, with burning steamers, and a large portion of the U. S. fleet had succeeded in getting beyond the forts. A few vessels of the attacking force had failed to pass the obstructions before daylight, and were driven back by the guns from the forts. The Louisiana and the McRae were the only vesselsleft to the Confederates; but the former was almost intact, her armor proving a sufficient defence against the broadsides, even when delivered at close range. The eight-inch shells of the Hartford buried themselves about half their diameter in our armor, and crumbled into fragments. All of our casualties occurred on the spar deck; our gallant commander being mortally wounded there; and many of the mechanics, who were quartered on board the tenders alongside of us, were killed or wounded. The McRae and the Manassas were in the stream in time to take an active part in the conflict; the former being considerably cut up. The Manassas struck two vessels with her prow, but did not succeed in sinking either. Having followed the fleet some distance up the river, and being hard pressed and seriously damaged, she was run ashore and abandoned. She shortly afterwards floated off and drifting down the river, sank between the forts. The Louisiana State gunboat "Governor Moore" made a gallant fight, sinking the U. S. gunboat "Verona."

Kennon, in his official report, states his loss at fifty-seven killed and thirteen wounded out of a crew of ninety-three. He ran his vessel ashorewhen she was in a sinking condition, and set fire to her with his own hand. The "River Defence" gunboats, with the exception of the "Resolute," were either destroyed by fire of the enemy's fleet, or by their own crews. The "Resolute" was discovered ashore, after the action, about a mile above Fort Jackson and abandoned by her crew. Lieut. Alden, with a party from the "McRae," took possession of her, and endeavored to get her afloat as she was very little injured, but being attacked by one of the gunboats from above, which succeeded in putting several shots through her hull at the water line, Alden was compelled to abandon her after setting her on fire. Among the mortally wounded on board the "McRae" was her commander T. B. Huger. The "Defiance," one of the "River Defence" gunboats, escaped without material injury. She was turned over to the command of Commodore Mitchell by Captain Stevenson on the 26th, without any of her officers and crew, who refused to remain in her, and went ashore.[4]

After landing the wounded, we continued the work upon the machinery of the Louisiana, buoyedup by the hope of soon being able to retrieve our disasters. Our number was increased by officersand men who had escaped from some of the abandoned vessels. Many of them, to obtainshelter from the shells and canister shot of the Federal fleet, had taken refuge in the "bayous"which lie not far from the river in many places; and they looked like half drowned rats as they came on board the Louisiana. One of the officers gave a ludicrous account of a poor girl, who had fled from her home on the river bank as the fleet was passing, with no clothing except her night dress, and no earthly possession but a lap-dog which she held in her clasped arms. She had sought the same place of refuge and as the shells and shot would whistle over her head she would dive like a duck under the water; and every time she rose above the surface, the lap-dog would sneeze and whimper a protest against the frequent submersions. The officer at last persuaded her to let him take charge of her draggled pet; and finally had the pleasure of seeing her safe back to her home before leaving her.

During the night of the 27th after unremitting labor, our machinery was at last completed, and we prepared to make the attempt to go upthe river in pursuit of the fleet. Commodore Mitchell notified General Duncan of his purpose, and the latter seemed sanguine of a successful issue, assuring the Commodore of his ability to hold the forts for weeks. Orders were issued on board the Louisiana for the crew to have an early breakfast, and every thing to be in readiness to cast off from the river bank a little after sunrise. The situation justified the hopes entertained by us of at least partially retrieving our fortunes, when, shortly after daylight, an officer came across the river to us from Fort Jackson, with General Duncan's compliments, and to say that General D. was about to surrender the forts to Commodore Porter.[5]In nautical parlance, we were "struck flat aback" by this astounding intelligence. With the forts as a base of operations, we might repeat the effort, if the first wereunsuccessful; and would be able to repair damages, if necessary, under shelter of their guns; but with their surrender we were helpless. The capture of the Louisiana would then become, indeed, a mere question of time, without the firing of a gun; for we would have been unable to replenish our supplies either of provisions or coal when exhausted. The most sanguine spirits on board, in the light of their experience of the motive power of the Louisiana, did not believe that we could accomplish more than the control of that portion of the river within the range of our guns; nor that the vessel could ever do much more than stem the rapid current of the Mississippi. The surrender of New Orleans was, indeed, inevitable; but even that catastrophe would not involve complete possession of the river by the enemy while we held the forts near its mouth. The gigantic efforts afterwards made by the Federal forces for the capture of Vicksburg showed the vital importance attached by the United States Government to the possession of the fortified positions on the Mississippi, while the equally desperate exertions made by the Confederacy to hold it, demonstrated our consciousness of its value to us.

Commodore Mitchell ordered his boat and proceeded with all haste to remonstrate with General Duncan; but all was unavailing; the General informing the Commodore that he had already dispatched a boat to the United States fleet, offering to surrender his command under certain conditions; disclaiming, in the offer, all control over the forces afloat. The Commodore's boat had scarcely got back to the Louisiana, when the quartermaster on duty reported one of the ships of the fleet below steaming up the river towards us, with a white flag flying at the mast-head. General Duncan, it is said, stated to the citizens of New Orleans a few days afterward, that a large number of his guns had been spiked by the mutineers of the garrison; and that he had no alternative but to surrender.

A hasty council of war was held on board the Louisiana, during which it was decided to transfer the officers and crew to our two tenders and to burn the ship. This was speedily carried into effect, and the two transports steamed across the river as the flames burst through the Louisiana's hatchway.[6]Those who wished to make theattempt to escape through the bayous, received permission to do so; and a few of the number, familiar with the locality, succeeded in evading the Federal pickets, and getting within the Confederate lines. The rest of us were entrapped; passing several hours of very unpleasant suspense, while the forts were being surrendered. It was a grand spectacle when the flames reached the Louisiana's magazine. The hawsers, securing her to the river-bank, having been burnt in two, she floated out into the stream a few minutes before the explosion; and at the moment of its occurrence, a column of pure white smoke shot rapidlyhigh into the air from the blazing hull, wreathing itself at the top into the shape of a snow-white "cumulus" cloud; and in a few seconds afterwards, huge fragments of the wreck showered down, far and wide, upon the river and the adjacent shore. The Louisiana had disappeared before the deafening report attending the catastrophe reached our ears.

Immediately after the United States flag was hoisted upon the forts, the steamer "Harriet Lane" steamed slowly toward us, and sent a shot over our heads as a summons to haul down the Confederate flag which was then flying at our peak. The demand was promptly complied with, and we were prisoners of war.

Upon the pretext that we had violated the usages of war by burning the Louisiana while a flag of truce was flying, we were for a time subjected to unusual humiliations; learning afterwards, indeed, that Commodore Porter had recommended to the Secretary of the Navy a continuance of harsh treatment toward us upon our arrival at Fort Warren, where we were destined. The reply to the charge brought against us is obvious, viz., we were no parties to the flag of truce; nor were we included in the terms of the surrender;General Duncan treating only for the garrisons under his command, and expressly disclaiming any connection with us.

We were kept for a few days in close confinement on board the United States gunboat "Clifton,"[7]and were transferred from her on the 7th of May to the frigate Colorado, lying off the mouth of the Mississippi. Here we found Kennon, who had been consigned to a "lower deep" than ourselves. He was placed under a sentry's charge behind a canvas screen on the opposite side of the gun deck from us; and strict orders were given that no one should hold any communication withhim. The charge against him was, that he had caused the death of some of his wounded crew by setting fire to his ship before their removal, a charge denied by him; but even if it were true, or admitted, that some of his crew were unable to escape, he was only responsible to his own government. In a few days, however, he was released from solitary confinement, and many restrictions were removed from all of us. But humiliations or physical discomforts weighed as a feather upon our spirits compared with our reflections upon the consequences of the disaster which we had witnessed; and our consciousness that this sad fate had been brought upon the country chiefly by treachery and want of concert. And, indeed, the extent of the disaster could scarcely be exaggerated. It gave the United States Government possession of the State of Louisiana, the almost complete control of the Mississippi river, and separated Texas and Arkansas from the rest of the Confederacy for the remainder of the war.

FOOTNOTES:[4]Extract from Commodore Mitchell's official report dated August 19th, 1862. "The following is believed to be a correct list of the vessels that passed up by Forts Jackson and St. Philip during the engagement of the 24th April; mounting in the aggregate one hundred and eighty-four guns, viz.,Hartford steamer,28 guns1st class sloop.Richmond, "28 ""Brooklyn, "28 ""Pensacola, "28 ""Mississippi, "21 ""Iroquois, "10 "2d class sloop.Oneida, "10 ""Verona, "11 ""Cayuga, "5 ""Penola, "5 ""Wissahickon, "5 ""Winona, "5 ""How any controversy could arise as to which branch of the U. S. Service deserves the credit of the capture of New Orleans is a matter of wonder to those who were present at the time. The following article from the Richmond Enquirer of September 10th, 1875, written by an eye-witness of many of the scenes in the city which he describes, would seem conclusively to establish the fact that the navy alone achieved the capture."The question has again been raised as to whether the army or the navy is entitled to the credit of having captured New Orleans from the Confederates in April or May, 1862. It has been a mooted point in history ever since the event happened, and its discussion has caused no little angry feeling between the two branches of the service. Ben Butler, of course, laid claim to the honors of the capture, and proclaimed himself "the hero" of New Orleans, completely overshadowing Farragut and his fleet, and the lying histories of the day, written in the Radical interest on the other side of the line, have perpetuated the fraud. No citizen of New Orleans who personally knows anything of the circumstances of the fall of the city into the hands of the Federals has ever had any doubts as to who was or is entitled to the credit; but the persistent efforts of Butler and his friends to claim the lion's share in that exploit, have at last called out the Hon. Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy in Mr. Lincoln's Cabinet, as the champion of Admiral Farragut and his gallant tars. In the course of an article in the HartfordTimes, Mr. Welles shows that "In January, 1862, the plan for the reduction of the forts below New Orleans and the capture of the city was fully matured in the Navy Department, Farragut receiving orders in detail for the work on the 20th of that month; that the memorable passage of the forts was made, and the surly submission of the Mayor of New Orleans received by Farragut on the 26th of April, formal possession being immediately taken and the United States flag displayed on the public buildings; that the army was not only absent alike from the plan and the execution of this great movement, but did not appear until May 1, when General Butler's troops arrived, and on the day following entered upon the occupation of the city captured by Farragut."Quite correct, Mr. ex-Secretary. Farragut passed the forts as stated, with the Hartford and one or two other vessels, destroyed the ram Manassas, and the other Confederate vessels of war, after a most desperate battle, in which at least one of his best ships was sunk, and then made his way in his flag-ship unmolested up the river. He arrived alone in front of New Orleans on the 26th of April, and at noon brought his guns to bear on the city at the head of Girod street. He immediately dispatched Lieutenant Bailey with a flag of truce to the authorities demanding the surrender, and giving them thirty-six hours in which to reply,—at the expiration of which time he should open fire and bombard the place, if an answer favorable to his demand were not received. The city at this time had been partially evacuated by General Lovell and his troops, and all authority had been surrendered by the military to the mayor. The terms submitted by Farragut were discussed for fully twenty-four hours by the Council, assembled at the Mayor's office, and all this time the city was in the hands of a wild, reckless and excited mob of citizens, while people everywhere were flying or preparing for flight, many even in such haste as to leave their houses open and valuables exposed to the depredations of servants or the mob. Perhaps no more fearful scene of confusion was ever witnessed outside of Paris when in the throes of a periodic revolution. It was a novelty then for an American city to be captured or to fall into the hands of an enemy, and the people had some very queer notions about defending it to the last, and fighting the enemy with all sorts of weapons amid its ruins. It was with the utmost difficulty the police could protect Bailey and his middies with their flag of truce. But on the following day, and before the time of grace expired, the Council determined that as they had no means of defence against the enemy's ships, which held the city at the mercy of their guns, it was best to enter into negotiations for the surrender. Farragut then demanded that as a sign of submission the Confederate flag should be hauled down from all points where displayed in the city and replaced by the stars and stripes, and in the meantime he would send a battery with his sailors and marines ashore to maintain order. But no one was found in the city to take the Confederate flags down, and hoist the starry banner in their place; so a battery of ships' guns was landed and hauled through the streets till it reached the City Hall, and there it was placed in position to cover every point of approach. A young middy, apparently about fifteen years of age, then made his appearance at the entrance of the City Hall, bearing a United States flag. He was admitted without opposition, and was shown the way to the top of the building. The lad ascended to the roof, and in full view of an assembled multitude of thousands in the streets and on the housetops, deliberately undid the halyards and hauled down the Confederate, or rather Louisiana State flag; then replacing it with the one he carried, hoisted it to the peak of the staff in its place, and the capture of New Orleans by the navy was complete. Many who witnessed the act of this daring boy trembled for his life, as a rifle shot from any of the houses surrounding, or even from the street, would have proved fatal and put an end to his young life at any moment. So excited was the crowd in the street, when the middy came down, and so fierce the thirst for vengeance upon any object that might present itself, that it was found necessary to hurry him into a close carriage and drive with all speed through back streets, to keep clear of the pressing mob, who, in the blindness of their passion, would perhaps have sacrificed the youngster, had they caught him, to appease their rage.After this the city began to quiet down. The foreign residents formed themselves into a police and took charge of the streets; and had succeeded pretty well in restoring order, when, on the 2d of May, Butler landed at the levee from his transports, and marched to the St. Charles, where he established his headquarters and took formal possession of the city. Still he found it no easy matter to subdue the spirit of a people who did not hesitate to jeer at his soldiers or jostle them from the sidewalks as they marched through the streets. But he soon enough became master of the situation, and made the most for himself out of what Farragut had so readily placed in his hands. The navy was certainly entitled to all the credit of the capture; one ship in front of the city with open ports was enough, it did what the entire army of Butler, had it been ten times as numerous, could never have accomplished. New Orleans never would have been taken by the army alone; but the guns of a sloop-of-war in front of an open city are conclusive and irresistible arguments. If it was heroism to capture that city the Confederacy will always be as free to admit that Farragut was the hero of New Orleans, as that Butler was the tyrant, robber, and oppressor of its conquered people.[5]Extract from Commodore Mitchell's official report, dated Aug. 19th, 1862."During the night of Sunday the 27th we had so far succeeded in operating the propellers that we expected early the next day to make a fair trial of them in connection with the paddle wheels, when at daylight an officer sent by Gen. Duncan came on board to inform us that many of the garrison at Fort Jackson had deserted during the night; that serious disturbances had occurred; and that the disaffection of the men was believed to be general on account of what appeared to them to have become the desperate character of the "defence," etc."[6]Extract from Commodore Mitchell's official report:"I at once returned on board and called a council of war composed of Lieutenants Wilkinson, (commanding) W. H. Ward, A. F. Warley, Wm. C. Whittle, Jr., R. J. Bowen, Arnold, F. M. Harris, and George N. Shryock, by whom—in consequence of the enemy's having the entire command of the river above and below us, with an overwhelming force, and who was in the act of obtaining quiet and undisturbed possession of Forts Jackson and St. Philip, with all their material defences intact, with ordnance, military stores and provisions, thus cutting the Louisiana off from all succor or support; and her having on board not more than ten days' provisions, her surrender would be rendered certain in a brief period by the simple method of blockade; and that, in the condition of her motive power and defective steering apparatus, and the immediate danger of attack, she was very liable to capture—it was unanimously recommended that the Louisiana be destroyed, forthwith, to prevent her falling into the hands of the enemy, while it remained in our power to prevent it; first retiring to our tenders."[7]The first and only time that I ever saw the notorious General B. F. Butler, who subsequently claimed for himself and the troops under his command, the honor of capturing New Orleans, was on board the "Clifton." He took passage in her to the city. No one who has ever looked upon that unique countenance can ever forget it; and as his glance rested for a moment upon us, each one conceived himself to be the special object of the General's regard; for owing to his peculiar visual organs, that distinguished individual seems to possess the Argus like faculty of looking steadily at several persons at one and the same time. With the pride that apes humility, or perhaps with the eccentricity of genius, he affected, upon the occasion, a rough costume; wearing a slouch hat, and having his trowsers tucked inside of his soiled boots; and he carried in his hand a long stick like a pilgrim's staff. Heprecededhis troops to the city, however, and might therefore, with equal propriety and regard for truth, claim thesoleglory of its capture.

[4]Extract from Commodore Mitchell's official report dated August 19th, 1862. "The following is believed to be a correct list of the vessels that passed up by Forts Jackson and St. Philip during the engagement of the 24th April; mounting in the aggregate one hundred and eighty-four guns, viz.,Hartford steamer,28 guns1st class sloop.Richmond, "28 ""Brooklyn, "28 ""Pensacola, "28 ""Mississippi, "21 ""Iroquois, "10 "2d class sloop.Oneida, "10 ""Verona, "11 ""Cayuga, "5 ""Penola, "5 ""Wissahickon, "5 ""Winona, "5 ""How any controversy could arise as to which branch of the U. S. Service deserves the credit of the capture of New Orleans is a matter of wonder to those who were present at the time. The following article from the Richmond Enquirer of September 10th, 1875, written by an eye-witness of many of the scenes in the city which he describes, would seem conclusively to establish the fact that the navy alone achieved the capture."The question has again been raised as to whether the army or the navy is entitled to the credit of having captured New Orleans from the Confederates in April or May, 1862. It has been a mooted point in history ever since the event happened, and its discussion has caused no little angry feeling between the two branches of the service. Ben Butler, of course, laid claim to the honors of the capture, and proclaimed himself "the hero" of New Orleans, completely overshadowing Farragut and his fleet, and the lying histories of the day, written in the Radical interest on the other side of the line, have perpetuated the fraud. No citizen of New Orleans who personally knows anything of the circumstances of the fall of the city into the hands of the Federals has ever had any doubts as to who was or is entitled to the credit; but the persistent efforts of Butler and his friends to claim the lion's share in that exploit, have at last called out the Hon. Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy in Mr. Lincoln's Cabinet, as the champion of Admiral Farragut and his gallant tars. In the course of an article in the HartfordTimes, Mr. Welles shows that "In January, 1862, the plan for the reduction of the forts below New Orleans and the capture of the city was fully matured in the Navy Department, Farragut receiving orders in detail for the work on the 20th of that month; that the memorable passage of the forts was made, and the surly submission of the Mayor of New Orleans received by Farragut on the 26th of April, formal possession being immediately taken and the United States flag displayed on the public buildings; that the army was not only absent alike from the plan and the execution of this great movement, but did not appear until May 1, when General Butler's troops arrived, and on the day following entered upon the occupation of the city captured by Farragut."Quite correct, Mr. ex-Secretary. Farragut passed the forts as stated, with the Hartford and one or two other vessels, destroyed the ram Manassas, and the other Confederate vessels of war, after a most desperate battle, in which at least one of his best ships was sunk, and then made his way in his flag-ship unmolested up the river. He arrived alone in front of New Orleans on the 26th of April, and at noon brought his guns to bear on the city at the head of Girod street. He immediately dispatched Lieutenant Bailey with a flag of truce to the authorities demanding the surrender, and giving them thirty-six hours in which to reply,—at the expiration of which time he should open fire and bombard the place, if an answer favorable to his demand were not received. The city at this time had been partially evacuated by General Lovell and his troops, and all authority had been surrendered by the military to the mayor. The terms submitted by Farragut were discussed for fully twenty-four hours by the Council, assembled at the Mayor's office, and all this time the city was in the hands of a wild, reckless and excited mob of citizens, while people everywhere were flying or preparing for flight, many even in such haste as to leave their houses open and valuables exposed to the depredations of servants or the mob. Perhaps no more fearful scene of confusion was ever witnessed outside of Paris when in the throes of a periodic revolution. It was a novelty then for an American city to be captured or to fall into the hands of an enemy, and the people had some very queer notions about defending it to the last, and fighting the enemy with all sorts of weapons amid its ruins. It was with the utmost difficulty the police could protect Bailey and his middies with their flag of truce. But on the following day, and before the time of grace expired, the Council determined that as they had no means of defence against the enemy's ships, which held the city at the mercy of their guns, it was best to enter into negotiations for the surrender. Farragut then demanded that as a sign of submission the Confederate flag should be hauled down from all points where displayed in the city and replaced by the stars and stripes, and in the meantime he would send a battery with his sailors and marines ashore to maintain order. But no one was found in the city to take the Confederate flags down, and hoist the starry banner in their place; so a battery of ships' guns was landed and hauled through the streets till it reached the City Hall, and there it was placed in position to cover every point of approach. A young middy, apparently about fifteen years of age, then made his appearance at the entrance of the City Hall, bearing a United States flag. He was admitted without opposition, and was shown the way to the top of the building. The lad ascended to the roof, and in full view of an assembled multitude of thousands in the streets and on the housetops, deliberately undid the halyards and hauled down the Confederate, or rather Louisiana State flag; then replacing it with the one he carried, hoisted it to the peak of the staff in its place, and the capture of New Orleans by the navy was complete. Many who witnessed the act of this daring boy trembled for his life, as a rifle shot from any of the houses surrounding, or even from the street, would have proved fatal and put an end to his young life at any moment. So excited was the crowd in the street, when the middy came down, and so fierce the thirst for vengeance upon any object that might present itself, that it was found necessary to hurry him into a close carriage and drive with all speed through back streets, to keep clear of the pressing mob, who, in the blindness of their passion, would perhaps have sacrificed the youngster, had they caught him, to appease their rage.After this the city began to quiet down. The foreign residents formed themselves into a police and took charge of the streets; and had succeeded pretty well in restoring order, when, on the 2d of May, Butler landed at the levee from his transports, and marched to the St. Charles, where he established his headquarters and took formal possession of the city. Still he found it no easy matter to subdue the spirit of a people who did not hesitate to jeer at his soldiers or jostle them from the sidewalks as they marched through the streets. But he soon enough became master of the situation, and made the most for himself out of what Farragut had so readily placed in his hands. The navy was certainly entitled to all the credit of the capture; one ship in front of the city with open ports was enough, it did what the entire army of Butler, had it been ten times as numerous, could never have accomplished. New Orleans never would have been taken by the army alone; but the guns of a sloop-of-war in front of an open city are conclusive and irresistible arguments. If it was heroism to capture that city the Confederacy will always be as free to admit that Farragut was the hero of New Orleans, as that Butler was the tyrant, robber, and oppressor of its conquered people.

How any controversy could arise as to which branch of the U. S. Service deserves the credit of the capture of New Orleans is a matter of wonder to those who were present at the time. The following article from the Richmond Enquirer of September 10th, 1875, written by an eye-witness of many of the scenes in the city which he describes, would seem conclusively to establish the fact that the navy alone achieved the capture.

"The question has again been raised as to whether the army or the navy is entitled to the credit of having captured New Orleans from the Confederates in April or May, 1862. It has been a mooted point in history ever since the event happened, and its discussion has caused no little angry feeling between the two branches of the service. Ben Butler, of course, laid claim to the honors of the capture, and proclaimed himself "the hero" of New Orleans, completely overshadowing Farragut and his fleet, and the lying histories of the day, written in the Radical interest on the other side of the line, have perpetuated the fraud. No citizen of New Orleans who personally knows anything of the circumstances of the fall of the city into the hands of the Federals has ever had any doubts as to who was or is entitled to the credit; but the persistent efforts of Butler and his friends to claim the lion's share in that exploit, have at last called out the Hon. Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy in Mr. Lincoln's Cabinet, as the champion of Admiral Farragut and his gallant tars. In the course of an article in the HartfordTimes, Mr. Welles shows that "In January, 1862, the plan for the reduction of the forts below New Orleans and the capture of the city was fully matured in the Navy Department, Farragut receiving orders in detail for the work on the 20th of that month; that the memorable passage of the forts was made, and the surly submission of the Mayor of New Orleans received by Farragut on the 26th of April, formal possession being immediately taken and the United States flag displayed on the public buildings; that the army was not only absent alike from the plan and the execution of this great movement, but did not appear until May 1, when General Butler's troops arrived, and on the day following entered upon the occupation of the city captured by Farragut."

Quite correct, Mr. ex-Secretary. Farragut passed the forts as stated, with the Hartford and one or two other vessels, destroyed the ram Manassas, and the other Confederate vessels of war, after a most desperate battle, in which at least one of his best ships was sunk, and then made his way in his flag-ship unmolested up the river. He arrived alone in front of New Orleans on the 26th of April, and at noon brought his guns to bear on the city at the head of Girod street. He immediately dispatched Lieutenant Bailey with a flag of truce to the authorities demanding the surrender, and giving them thirty-six hours in which to reply,—at the expiration of which time he should open fire and bombard the place, if an answer favorable to his demand were not received. The city at this time had been partially evacuated by General Lovell and his troops, and all authority had been surrendered by the military to the mayor. The terms submitted by Farragut were discussed for fully twenty-four hours by the Council, assembled at the Mayor's office, and all this time the city was in the hands of a wild, reckless and excited mob of citizens, while people everywhere were flying or preparing for flight, many even in such haste as to leave their houses open and valuables exposed to the depredations of servants or the mob. Perhaps no more fearful scene of confusion was ever witnessed outside of Paris when in the throes of a periodic revolution. It was a novelty then for an American city to be captured or to fall into the hands of an enemy, and the people had some very queer notions about defending it to the last, and fighting the enemy with all sorts of weapons amid its ruins. It was with the utmost difficulty the police could protect Bailey and his middies with their flag of truce. But on the following day, and before the time of grace expired, the Council determined that as they had no means of defence against the enemy's ships, which held the city at the mercy of their guns, it was best to enter into negotiations for the surrender. Farragut then demanded that as a sign of submission the Confederate flag should be hauled down from all points where displayed in the city and replaced by the stars and stripes, and in the meantime he would send a battery with his sailors and marines ashore to maintain order. But no one was found in the city to take the Confederate flags down, and hoist the starry banner in their place; so a battery of ships' guns was landed and hauled through the streets till it reached the City Hall, and there it was placed in position to cover every point of approach. A young middy, apparently about fifteen years of age, then made his appearance at the entrance of the City Hall, bearing a United States flag. He was admitted without opposition, and was shown the way to the top of the building. The lad ascended to the roof, and in full view of an assembled multitude of thousands in the streets and on the housetops, deliberately undid the halyards and hauled down the Confederate, or rather Louisiana State flag; then replacing it with the one he carried, hoisted it to the peak of the staff in its place, and the capture of New Orleans by the navy was complete. Many who witnessed the act of this daring boy trembled for his life, as a rifle shot from any of the houses surrounding, or even from the street, would have proved fatal and put an end to his young life at any moment. So excited was the crowd in the street, when the middy came down, and so fierce the thirst for vengeance upon any object that might present itself, that it was found necessary to hurry him into a close carriage and drive with all speed through back streets, to keep clear of the pressing mob, who, in the blindness of their passion, would perhaps have sacrificed the youngster, had they caught him, to appease their rage.

After this the city began to quiet down. The foreign residents formed themselves into a police and took charge of the streets; and had succeeded pretty well in restoring order, when, on the 2d of May, Butler landed at the levee from his transports, and marched to the St. Charles, where he established his headquarters and took formal possession of the city. Still he found it no easy matter to subdue the spirit of a people who did not hesitate to jeer at his soldiers or jostle them from the sidewalks as they marched through the streets. But he soon enough became master of the situation, and made the most for himself out of what Farragut had so readily placed in his hands. The navy was certainly entitled to all the credit of the capture; one ship in front of the city with open ports was enough, it did what the entire army of Butler, had it been ten times as numerous, could never have accomplished. New Orleans never would have been taken by the army alone; but the guns of a sloop-of-war in front of an open city are conclusive and irresistible arguments. If it was heroism to capture that city the Confederacy will always be as free to admit that Farragut was the hero of New Orleans, as that Butler was the tyrant, robber, and oppressor of its conquered people.

[5]Extract from Commodore Mitchell's official report, dated Aug. 19th, 1862."During the night of Sunday the 27th we had so far succeeded in operating the propellers that we expected early the next day to make a fair trial of them in connection with the paddle wheels, when at daylight an officer sent by Gen. Duncan came on board to inform us that many of the garrison at Fort Jackson had deserted during the night; that serious disturbances had occurred; and that the disaffection of the men was believed to be general on account of what appeared to them to have become the desperate character of the "defence," etc."

[5]Extract from Commodore Mitchell's official report, dated Aug. 19th, 1862.

"During the night of Sunday the 27th we had so far succeeded in operating the propellers that we expected early the next day to make a fair trial of them in connection with the paddle wheels, when at daylight an officer sent by Gen. Duncan came on board to inform us that many of the garrison at Fort Jackson had deserted during the night; that serious disturbances had occurred; and that the disaffection of the men was believed to be general on account of what appeared to them to have become the desperate character of the "defence," etc."

[6]Extract from Commodore Mitchell's official report:"I at once returned on board and called a council of war composed of Lieutenants Wilkinson, (commanding) W. H. Ward, A. F. Warley, Wm. C. Whittle, Jr., R. J. Bowen, Arnold, F. M. Harris, and George N. Shryock, by whom—in consequence of the enemy's having the entire command of the river above and below us, with an overwhelming force, and who was in the act of obtaining quiet and undisturbed possession of Forts Jackson and St. Philip, with all their material defences intact, with ordnance, military stores and provisions, thus cutting the Louisiana off from all succor or support; and her having on board not more than ten days' provisions, her surrender would be rendered certain in a brief period by the simple method of blockade; and that, in the condition of her motive power and defective steering apparatus, and the immediate danger of attack, she was very liable to capture—it was unanimously recommended that the Louisiana be destroyed, forthwith, to prevent her falling into the hands of the enemy, while it remained in our power to prevent it; first retiring to our tenders."

[6]Extract from Commodore Mitchell's official report:

"I at once returned on board and called a council of war composed of Lieutenants Wilkinson, (commanding) W. H. Ward, A. F. Warley, Wm. C. Whittle, Jr., R. J. Bowen, Arnold, F. M. Harris, and George N. Shryock, by whom—in consequence of the enemy's having the entire command of the river above and below us, with an overwhelming force, and who was in the act of obtaining quiet and undisturbed possession of Forts Jackson and St. Philip, with all their material defences intact, with ordnance, military stores and provisions, thus cutting the Louisiana off from all succor or support; and her having on board not more than ten days' provisions, her surrender would be rendered certain in a brief period by the simple method of blockade; and that, in the condition of her motive power and defective steering apparatus, and the immediate danger of attack, she was very liable to capture—it was unanimously recommended that the Louisiana be destroyed, forthwith, to prevent her falling into the hands of the enemy, while it remained in our power to prevent it; first retiring to our tenders."

[7]The first and only time that I ever saw the notorious General B. F. Butler, who subsequently claimed for himself and the troops under his command, the honor of capturing New Orleans, was on board the "Clifton." He took passage in her to the city. No one who has ever looked upon that unique countenance can ever forget it; and as his glance rested for a moment upon us, each one conceived himself to be the special object of the General's regard; for owing to his peculiar visual organs, that distinguished individual seems to possess the Argus like faculty of looking steadily at several persons at one and the same time. With the pride that apes humility, or perhaps with the eccentricity of genius, he affected, upon the occasion, a rough costume; wearing a slouch hat, and having his trowsers tucked inside of his soiled boots; and he carried in his hand a long stick like a pilgrim's staff. Heprecededhis troops to the city, however, and might therefore, with equal propriety and regard for truth, claim thesoleglory of its capture.

Transferred to the "Rhode Island."—Meeting with an old Friend.—Arrival at Fort Warren.—Treatment there.—Correspondence, and its Result.—Prison Life.—Exchanged.—The Crew at quarters.—Burial of the "Unknown."

On the 9th of May we were transferred from the Colorado to the steamer Rhode Island, bound to Fort Warren. On board of this vessel we were "tabooed" even more completely by the officers, than on board the Colorado; for the Rhode Island was officered, with the single exception, I believe, of her captain, by volunteers, who were not connected with us by any associations of friendship or congeniality of taste. The harsh order to hold no intercourse with us, had been evaded or violated, "sub rosa," on board the Colorado by old friends and shipmates. On board the Rhode Island, much to our satisfaction, it was strictly obeyed; for we would have lost our patience to be "interviewed" by fledgling naval heroes, many of whom had reached the quarter deck through the hawseholes. Upon one occasion,many years ago, when the question of increasing the United States Navy was under discussion by Congress, a rough western member, opposed to the measure, stated that his section of the country could supply droves of young officers whenever they were needed. The United States Government must have "corralled" lots of youngsters, without regard to their fitness or capacity, to send on board the ships of war during our civil conflict. The "noble commander" of the Rhode Island most of us had known of old as a prim little precisian, and a great stickler for etiquette, and by no means a bad fellow; but so strict a constructionist that he would probably have refused to recognize his grandfather, if it were against orders. But he had a humane disposition under his frigid exterior; and allowed us all the comfort and privileges compatible with discipline and safety.

We touched at Fortress Monroe; and while the vessel was at anchor there I received a gratifying evidence that this fratricidal war had not destroyed all kindly feelings between former friends and messmates. The executive officer of the Rhode Island called me aside to say that a friend wished to see me in his state-room; and as he didnot mention the name, I was surprised to find myself warmly greeted by Albert Smith. We had served together during the Mexican war, and our cruise had not been an uneventful one; for the vessel to which we were attached ("the Perry") after considerable service in the Mexican Gulf, was dismasted and wrecked, during one of the most terrific hurricanes that ever desolated the West India Islands. Thirty-nine vessels, out of forty-two, which lay in the harbor of Havana, foundered at their anchors, or were driven ashore; all of the light-houses along the Florida reef were destroyed, and hundreds of persons perished. The Perry lost all of her boats, her guns, except two, were thrown overboard, and she escaped complete destruction almost by a miracle. She encountered the hurricane off Havana, and after scudding for many hours under bare poles, describing a circle as the wind continued to veer in the cyclone, she passed over the Florida reef with one tremendous shock as she hung for a moment upon its rocky crest. Her masts went by the board, but we had passed in a moment from a raging sea into smooth water. Captain Blake, who commanded her, achieved the feat of rigging jury masts with his crew, andcarrying the vessel to the Philadelphia navy yard for repairs. Albert Smith and I had not met for many years. He offered me any service in his power, and pressed me to accept at least a pecuniary loan. The kind offer, although declined, was gratefully remembered; and I was glad, too, to find that he, in common with many others, who remained to fight under the old flag, could appreciate the sacrifices made by those who felt equally bound, by all the truest and best feelings of our nature, to defend their homes and firesides.

On our arrival at Fort Warren we were assigned quarters in one of the casemates. Little more than a year had passed away since I had planted a signal staff upon its parapet toangleupon; being then engaged, as chief of a hydrographic surveying party, in surveying the approaches to Boston Harbor.Thenits garrison consisted of a superannuated sergeant whose office was a sinecure;nowit held an armed garrison, who drilled and paraded every day, with all the "pomp and circumstance" of war, to the patriotic tune of "John Brown's body lies a-moulding in the grave, but his spirit is marching on;" and it was crowded with southern prisoners of war.

For a few days, in pursuance of Commodore Porter's policy, we were closely confined; but all exceptional restrictions were then removed and we fell into the monotonous routine of prison life. The following correspondence took place previous to the removal of the restrictions, and explains the reason of their withdrawal.

Fort Warren, Boston Harbor, May 25, 1862.Sir,—I was much surprised last evening on being informed by Colonel Dimmick that Lieutenants Wilkinson, Warly, Ward, Whittle and Harris, together with myself, have been, by your order, denied the "privileges and courtesies that are extended to other prisoners," on the ground that the act of burning the Confederate States Battery "Louisiana," late under my command, was held by the United States Navy Department as "infamous." In my letter to the Department, dated on board of the United States Steamer Rhode Island, Key West, May 14th, 1862, and forwarded through Commander Trenchard on the arrival of that vessel in Hampton Roads, together with a copy of my letter to Flag officer Farragut, and his reply thereto, I felt assured that all the facts connected with the destruction of the Louisiana wereplaced in such a light as not to be mistaken, nor my motives misconstrued. To render the affair still more clear I enclose herewith a memorandum of W. C. Whittle Jr., Confederate States Navy, who was the bearer of my message to Commodore Porter respecting my fears that the magazine of the Louisiana had not been effectually drowned. With all these statements forwarded by me to the United States Navy Department I am perfectly willing to rest the case with impartial and unprejudiced minds, as well as with my own Government, satisfied that nothing has been done by the foregoing officers, nor myself, militating at all against the strictest rules of military honor and usage.Though I will not affect an indifference to the personal annoyance to us by the action of the United States Navy Department in our case as prisoners of war, yet my chief solicitude is to have placed on file in that office such a statement of facts as will, on a fair investigation, vindicate all the officers of the Confederate States Navy concerned from the odium of infamous conduct unjustly attempted to be fixed upon them by those of the United States Navy; against which and the infliction of punishment as directedby the Navy Department I enter my solemn protest.I most emphatically assert that the Louisiana, when abandoned and fired by my order, was not only not "turned adrift" or intended to injure the United States forces as charged by Commander Porter; but that she was actually left secured to the opposite bank of the river and distant quite three-fourths of a mile from the said forces, for the very reason that they were flying a flag of truce, and for that reason I dispatched the warning message to Commander Porter respecting the magazine. That it is not only the right, but the duty, of an officer to destroy public property to prevent its falling into the hands of an enemy does not admit of question; and in addition to all which, it must not be overlooked that the forces under my command flew no flag of truce, and that I was not in any way a party to the surrender of Forts Jackson and St. Philip.I have the honor to beVery respectfully your obedient servant,(Signed)Jno. K. Mitchell,Commander C. S. Navy.Hon.Gideon Welles,Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D. C.

Fort Warren, Boston Harbor, May 25, 1862.

Sir,—I was much surprised last evening on being informed by Colonel Dimmick that Lieutenants Wilkinson, Warly, Ward, Whittle and Harris, together with myself, have been, by your order, denied the "privileges and courtesies that are extended to other prisoners," on the ground that the act of burning the Confederate States Battery "Louisiana," late under my command, was held by the United States Navy Department as "infamous." In my letter to the Department, dated on board of the United States Steamer Rhode Island, Key West, May 14th, 1862, and forwarded through Commander Trenchard on the arrival of that vessel in Hampton Roads, together with a copy of my letter to Flag officer Farragut, and his reply thereto, I felt assured that all the facts connected with the destruction of the Louisiana wereplaced in such a light as not to be mistaken, nor my motives misconstrued. To render the affair still more clear I enclose herewith a memorandum of W. C. Whittle Jr., Confederate States Navy, who was the bearer of my message to Commodore Porter respecting my fears that the magazine of the Louisiana had not been effectually drowned. With all these statements forwarded by me to the United States Navy Department I am perfectly willing to rest the case with impartial and unprejudiced minds, as well as with my own Government, satisfied that nothing has been done by the foregoing officers, nor myself, militating at all against the strictest rules of military honor and usage.

Though I will not affect an indifference to the personal annoyance to us by the action of the United States Navy Department in our case as prisoners of war, yet my chief solicitude is to have placed on file in that office such a statement of facts as will, on a fair investigation, vindicate all the officers of the Confederate States Navy concerned from the odium of infamous conduct unjustly attempted to be fixed upon them by those of the United States Navy; against which and the infliction of punishment as directedby the Navy Department I enter my solemn protest.

I most emphatically assert that the Louisiana, when abandoned and fired by my order, was not only not "turned adrift" or intended to injure the United States forces as charged by Commander Porter; but that she was actually left secured to the opposite bank of the river and distant quite three-fourths of a mile from the said forces, for the very reason that they were flying a flag of truce, and for that reason I dispatched the warning message to Commander Porter respecting the magazine. That it is not only the right, but the duty, of an officer to destroy public property to prevent its falling into the hands of an enemy does not admit of question; and in addition to all which, it must not be overlooked that the forces under my command flew no flag of truce, and that I was not in any way a party to the surrender of Forts Jackson and St. Philip.

I have the honor to beVery respectfully your obedient servant,(Signed)Jno. K. Mitchell,Commander C. S. Navy.Hon.Gideon Welles,Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D. C.

Copy in Substance.Navy Department, Washington, May 29, 1862Sir,—The explanations of Commodore J. K. Mitchell are satisfactory, and the restrictions imposed on him and his associates by the department's order of the 2d instant will be removed, and they will be treated as prisoners of war.This does not relieve Beverly Kennon from the restrictions imposed on him.(Signed)Gideon Welles.Colonel Justin Dimmick,Commanding Fort Warren, Boston.

Copy in Substance.

Navy Department, Washington, May 29, 1862

Sir,—The explanations of Commodore J. K. Mitchell are satisfactory, and the restrictions imposed on him and his associates by the department's order of the 2d instant will be removed, and they will be treated as prisoners of war.

This does not relieve Beverly Kennon from the restrictions imposed on him.

(Signed)Gideon Welles.Colonel Justin Dimmick,Commanding Fort Warren, Boston.

(Copy.)Navy Department, June 25, 1862.Sir,—The letter of John K. Mitchell of the 20th inst., concerning the restrictions imposed on you, by order of this Department, at Fort Warren, has been received.Will you please furnish the Department with the particulars of the destruction of the gunboat of which you had command in the engagement below New Orleans, withwoundedmen on board.I am respectfully your obedient servant,(Signed)Gideon Welles.Beverly Kennon, Fort Warren, Boston.

(Copy.)

Navy Department, June 25, 1862.

Sir,—The letter of John K. Mitchell of the 20th inst., concerning the restrictions imposed on you, by order of this Department, at Fort Warren, has been received.

Will you please furnish the Department with the particulars of the destruction of the gunboat of which you had command in the engagement below New Orleans, withwoundedmen on board.

I am respectfully your obedient servant,(Signed)Gideon Welles.Beverly Kennon, Fort Warren, Boston.

(Copy)Fort Warren, Boston, June 28, 1862.Hon. Gideon Welles,Secretary U. S. Navy.Sir,—Colonel Dimmick, the commander of this post, delivered to me yesterday a letter signed by you under date of June 25th directed to me as "Beverly Kennon" and referring to a communication addressed to you on the 20th inst. by my superior officer, Commander J. K. Mitchell, of the Confederate States Navy, whom you are pleased to designate as "John K. Mitchell."The purport of your letter is a request that I will furnish your Department of the United States Government with the "particulars of the destruction of the gunboat of which I had command in the engagement below New Orleans withwoundedmen on board."When I destroyed and left the vessel which I had commanded on the occasion referred to, all the wounded men had been removed, the most of them lowered into boats by my own hands. I was, myself, the last person to leave the vessel.Anystatements which you may have received to the contrary are wholly without foundation. It would not be proper, under any circumstances, that I should report to you the "particulars" of her destruction; that being a matter which concerns myown Government exclusively, and with which yours can have nothing to do. Should any charges be made against me, however, of which you have a right to take cognizance under the laws of war, I will with pleasure, respond to any respectful communication which you may address me on the subject. Indeed I shall be glad of the opportunity to vindicate my character as an officer from the unjust and unfounded imputations which have been cast upon it in the connection to which you allude, and upon the faith of which I have already been disparaged by unusual restrictions and confinements, here and elsewhere, since I have been a prisoner of war, without having been furnished an opportunity for such vindication. But your letter of the 20th inst. so studiously denies, both to Commander Mitchell and myself, not only our official designations, but those of common courtesy, that while I am unwilling to believe you would intentionally offer an indignity to prisoners of war in your power, I can not now make further reply without failing in respect to myself as well as to my superior officer and Government.I am Sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,(Signed)Beverly Kennon,Commander in Provisional Navy of the Stateof Louisiana in the Confederate service.

(Copy)Fort Warren, Boston, June 28, 1862.

Hon. Gideon Welles,Secretary U. S. Navy.

Sir,—Colonel Dimmick, the commander of this post, delivered to me yesterday a letter signed by you under date of June 25th directed to me as "Beverly Kennon" and referring to a communication addressed to you on the 20th inst. by my superior officer, Commander J. K. Mitchell, of the Confederate States Navy, whom you are pleased to designate as "John K. Mitchell."

The purport of your letter is a request that I will furnish your Department of the United States Government with the "particulars of the destruction of the gunboat of which I had command in the engagement below New Orleans withwoundedmen on board."

When I destroyed and left the vessel which I had commanded on the occasion referred to, all the wounded men had been removed, the most of them lowered into boats by my own hands. I was, myself, the last person to leave the vessel.Anystatements which you may have received to the contrary are wholly without foundation. It would not be proper, under any circumstances, that I should report to you the "particulars" of her destruction; that being a matter which concerns myown Government exclusively, and with which yours can have nothing to do. Should any charges be made against me, however, of which you have a right to take cognizance under the laws of war, I will with pleasure, respond to any respectful communication which you may address me on the subject. Indeed I shall be glad of the opportunity to vindicate my character as an officer from the unjust and unfounded imputations which have been cast upon it in the connection to which you allude, and upon the faith of which I have already been disparaged by unusual restrictions and confinements, here and elsewhere, since I have been a prisoner of war, without having been furnished an opportunity for such vindication. But your letter of the 20th inst. so studiously denies, both to Commander Mitchell and myself, not only our official designations, but those of common courtesy, that while I am unwilling to believe you would intentionally offer an indignity to prisoners of war in your power, I can not now make further reply without failing in respect to myself as well as to my superior officer and Government.

I am Sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,(Signed)Beverly Kennon,

Commander in Provisional Navy of the Stateof Louisiana in the Confederate service.

The restrictions were removed from Kennon in a few days after the close of this correspondence.

Many distinguished political prisoners were at that time confined at Fort Warren; and all of the officers captured at Fort Donelson. Among the former class, were those members of the Maryland Legislature, and of the Baltimore City Council, who had been arrested and imprisoned by the United States Government for alleged treason. It was my good fortune to be invited into this mess. It is not my purpose to inflict upon the reader a detailed account of prison life during the war, which has been described by far abler pens than mine. All the members of our mess took their turns, either at carving or waiting upon the table, and guests were never better served. The graceful and accomplished old Commodore B. and General T. shone conspicuous as carvers; while Colonels, Majors and Captains, with spotless napkins on their arms, anticipated every wish of the guests at the table. Colonel Dimmick was honored and beloved by the prisoners for his humanity, and he and his family will ever be held in affectionate remembrance by them; many of us having received special acts of kindness, whilesuffering from sickness. When his son was ordered to active service in the field I believe there was an unanimous prayer by the prisoners that his life would be spared through the perils he was about to encounter. The prisoners, first giving their parole not to attempt to escape, were allowed the range of nearly the whole island during the day; and not unfrequently suffered to see relatives and friends who had received permission from the proper authorities to visit them. In happier "ante bellum" times, I had known some of the good people of Boston, and had spent a portion of a summer with several families at that pleasant watering place, Nahant. One of my most esteemed friends—Mrs. L.—with the charity of a noble and Christian heart, wrote to me as soon as she learned that I was a prisoner; but she was too loyal to the flag not to express regret and distress at what she believed to be a mistaken sense of duty. The reader may remember the definition once given of "Orthodoxy" by a dignitary of the church of England to an inquiring nobleman. "Orthodoxy, my Lord, ismydoxy, heterodoxy isyourdoxy if you differ from me." The same authority, it has always appeared to me, was assumed by a large portion of the Northernpeople. They demanded a Government to suit their ideas, and disloyalty consisted in opposing them.

We were permitted to write once a month to our friends in the Confederacy; the letters being left open for inspection. There were a few Northerners among us, but I know of only a single case where the individual concerned so far yielded to the persuasion of his friends outside, as to renounce the cause which he had sworn to defend.

Aside from the confinement, and the earnest desire to be doing our part in the war, there could be no cause to repine at our lot. We were allowed, at our own expense, to supply our tables from the Boston market, not only abundantly, but luxuriously; the Government furnishing the usual rations; and the prisoners grew robust upon the good fare and the bracing climate. A tug plied daily between Boston and the island on which Fort Warren is situated. We were permitted to receive the daily papers and to purchase clothing and other necessaries, either from the sutler, or from outside; and many of the prisoners were indebted to a noble charity for the means of supplying many of these needs; ofclothing especially, which was chiefly furnished by the firm of Noah Walker & Co. of Baltimore. The firm itself was said to be most liberal, not merely dispensing the donations received in Baltimore and elsewhere, but supplying a large amount of clothing gratuitously. The policy of retaliation had not then been adopted. It is conceded that the United States Government, towards the close of the war, subjected the Confederate prisoners in their hands to harsh treatment in pursuance of this policy; but in justice to the Confederate authorities it should be borne in mind that they repeatedly proposed an exchange of prisoners upon the ground of humanity, seeing that neither provisions nor medicine were procurable; and, I believe, it is also a conceded fact that General Grant opposed exchanges. The testimony of General Lee given before the "reconstruction" Committee, clearly establishes the fact thathedid all in his power to effect this object. In answer to a question he says: "I offered to General Grant around Richmond that we should ourselves exchange all the prisoners in our hands, and to show that I would do whatever was in my power, I offered them to send to City Point all the prisoners in Virginia and NorthCarolina, over which my command extended, providing they returned an equal number of mine, man for man. I reported this to the War Department, and received for answer, that they would place at my command all the prisoners at the South, if the proposition was accepted." The Rev. J. Wm. Jones, D.D., author of "Personal Reminiscences of General R. E. Lee," writes as follows upon this subject (page 194, et seq.) viz:

"1st—The Confederate authorities gave to prisoners in their hands the same rations which they issued to their own soldiers, and gave them the very best accommodations which their scant means afforded.

"2d. They were always anxious to exchange prisoners, man for man, and when this was rejected by the Federal authorities, they offered to send home the prisoners in their hands without any equivalent.

"3d. By refusing all propositions to exchange prisoners, and declining even to receive their own men without equivalent the Federal authorities made themselves responsible for all the suffering, of both Federal and Confederate prisoners, that ensued.

"4th. And yet notwithstanding these facts,it is susceptible of proof, from the official records of the Federal Department, that the suffering of Confederate prisoners in Federal prisons was much greater than that of Federal prisoners in Confederate prisons. Without going more fully into the question, the following figures, from the report of Mr. Stanton, Secretary of War, in response to a resolution of the House of Representatives, calling for the number of prisoners on both sides and their mortality, are triumphantly submitted.

That is, the Confederate States held as prisoners nearly 61,000 more men than the Federals; and yet the death of Federal prisoners fell below those of the Confederates four thousand."

Lastly, the Southern Historical Society, Richmond, Va., has recently published a "Vindication of the Confederacy against the Charge of Cruelty to Prisoners," which is conclusive on the whole question. It was compiled by the Secretary of the Society, the Rev. J. Wm. Jones, just quoted, who concludes with the following summing up ofhis argument. "We think that we have established the following points:

"1st. The laws of the Confederate Congress, the orders of the War Department, the Regulations of the Surgeon General, the action of our Generals in the field, and the orders of those who had the immediate charge of the prisoners, all provided that prisoners in the hands of the Confederates should be kindly treated, supplied with the same rations which our soldiers had, and cared for, when sick, in hospitals placed onprecisely the same footing as the hospitals for Confederate soldiers.

"2d. If these regulations were violated in individual instances, and if subordinates were sometimes cruel to prisoners, it was without the knowledge or consent of the Confederate Government, which always took prompt action on any case reported to them.

"3d. If the prisoners failed to get their full rations, and had those of inferior quality, the Confederate soldiers suffered in precisely the same way and to the same extent; and it resulted from that system of warfare adopted by the Federal authorities, which carried desolation and ruin to every part of the South they could reach, andwhich in starving the Confederates into submission, brought the same evils upon their own men in Southern prisons.

"4th. The mortality in Southern prisons (fearfully large, although over three per cent less than the mortality in Northern prisons) resulted from causes beyond the control of our authorities, from epidemics, etc., which might have been avoided or greatly mitigated had not the Federal Government declared medicines "contraband of war," refused the proposition of Judge Ould, that each Government should send its own surgeons with medicines, hospital stores, etc., to minister to soldiers in prison, declined his proposition to send medicines to its own men in southern prisons, without being required to allow the Confederates the same privileges—refused to allow the Confederate Government to buy medicines for gold, tobacco, or cotton, which it offered to pledge its honor should be used only for Federal prisoners in its hands, refused to exchange sick and wounded, and neglected from August to December, 1864, to accede to Judge Ould's proposition to send transportation to Savannah and receivewithout equivalentfrom ten to fifteen thousand Federal prisoners, notwithstanding the fact that this offer wasaccompanied with a statement of the utter inability of the Confederacy to provide for these prisoners, and a detailed report of the monthly mortality at Andersonville, and that Judge Ould, again and again, urged compliance with his humane proposal.

"5th. We have proven by the most unimpeachable testimony, that the sufferings of Confederate prisoners in Northern "prison pens," were terrible beyond description; that they were starved in a land of plenty, that they were frozen where fuel and clothing were abundant; that they suffered untold horrors for want of medicines, hospital stores and proper medical attention; that they were shot by sentinels, beaten by officers, and subjected to the most cruel punishments upon the slightest pretexts; that friends at the North were refused the privilege of clothing their nakedness or feeding them when starving; and that these outrages were perpetrated not only with the full knowledge of, but under the orders of E. M. Stanton, United States Secretary of War. We have proven these things by Federal as well as Confederate testimony.

"6th. We have shown that all the suffering of prisoners on both sides could have been avoidedby simply carrying out the terms of the cartel, and that for the failure to do this, theFederal authorities alonewere responsible; that the Confederate Government originally proposed the cartel, and were always ready to carry it out both in letter and spirit; that the Federal authorities observed its terms only so long as it was to their interest to do so, and then repudiated their plighted faith and proposed other terms which were greatly to the disadvantage of the Confederates; that when the Government at Richmond agreed to accept the hard terms of exchange offered them, these were at once repudiated by the Federal authorities; that when Judge Ould agreed upon a new cartel with General Butler, Lieutenant-General Grant refused to approve it, and Mr. Stanton repudiated it; and that the policy of the Federal Government was to refuse all exchanges while they "fired the Northern heart" by placing the whole blame upon the "Rebels," and by circulating the most heartrending stories of "Rebel barbarity" to prisoners. If either of the above points has not been made clear to any sincere seeker after the truth, we would be most happy to produce further testimony. And we hold ourselves prepared to maintain against allcomers, thetruth of every proposition we have laid down in this discussion. Let the calm verdict of history decide between the Confederate Government and its calumniators."

These extracts are inserted with the hope that the fair minded reader may be induced to read the evidence upon the Confederate side.

Back to Index Next