New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-09-26
NEW ORLEANS REPUBLICAN. SUNDAY. SEPTEMBER 2e 1875

I ny AoASOo AOhuCAo ~ llupDbSiUl6 WO 81
| present to detach any troops to cooperate
with you on Vicksburg" A few days later
General Hal!eck was ordered to Washing.
| ton TO supersede Mcclellan as General in.
Chief; but neither before his departure nor
subsequently, did he render, or attempt to
render military assistance to the navy in
that great undertaking.
The force under General Butler was not
30 large by several thousands. as had been
promised by the Secretary OF War, and was
barely sufficient to garrison and hold pos.
session OF the foits and cities captured by
the navy. 1t was wholly insufficient 10
make certain the capture of Vicksburg.
The naval vessels which passed above that
place remained several weeks after the re-
ceipt of General Halleck's dispatch. in ex-
| pectation OF promised army aid, until finally
| the low stage of water in the river, which
was still falling. necessitated the withdrawal
OF the We; sells and their return down the river.
The failure OF the army to support the navy
was disastrous. The lost opportunity to
take Nicllsburg cost the country many lives
and untold millions of treasure. 1t post
poned the capture of that place, which the
rebels soon fortified and strengthened. and
| doubtless prolonged the war for at least one
year The Secretary of War, in repeated
consultations, expressed his regret that the
army was remiss in coo operating with the
navy, as was understOod: but | am not
aware that the War Department or the
General n-Chief issued any orders or took
any measures to carry into effect the original
understanding of military cooperation.
The mistortunes of the armies, east and
west In the summer of 1862, appeared to
discourage the military officers and to so
paralyze their efforts that they could not
respond to the assurances which had been
given and to the calls that were made. The
naval successes under Fsrragut failed to il.
spire, it they did not actually di-pirit the
military sal or energy Of some of the
leaders.
am compelled to come to this conclu-
sion, and 1t perhaps has contributed to the
erroneous impressions of the Supreme
Court, in cone guence Of volume of over
100 pages. published by the War Depart
ment in 1866, as unjust to the navy as the
tictions of The hastily compiled histories of
partisan writers In that volume, elabor.
ately prepared in the office of the Adiutant-
General, and published by the War Depart
ment, which purports to be a "Chronologi-
cal table of battes. skirmishes etc., which
took place during the rebellion of 1861,
commencing with the evacuation of Fort
Moultrie, Charleston harbor, December
20, ioov. anu enning with tho zap.
ture OF Jefferson Davis, near Irwinsville.
Georgia, May 10, 1865, no mention is made of
the passage OF the forts of the Mississippi
or the capture of New Orleans. More than
800 names are specified in this volume of
officers, chiefly military, but the name of
tarragut nowhere appears in this volume.
No person in consulting this War Depart
ment volume would be informed of the bat
ties he fought, or even that an officer of
that name was ever in the United States
service. The passage of the forts, the bold
est and grandest deed of the var, and the
capture of New Orleans, having been per-
formed by the navy, are incidents not
worthy to be alluded to in this official vol
ume of the War DepaI tment.
1t Is stated, page l4-"April IS, 1862
Forts Jackson and ST. Philip. Mississippi
river, surrendered to Commander David d.
Porter, United States Navy"
The battle and passage of the forts by
Farragut, which rendered their surrender
inevitable, find no place in the pages of this
War Department volume.
1t is also recorded, chrOnolO gically:
"May New Orleans, Louisiana. occu.
pied by the forces commanded by Major
General Benjamin F. Butler, United States
Volunteers"
1t is not pretended, however in this Off
cial volume of the War Department as is
asserted by the Supreme Court, that "the
army captured New Orleans" but that the
city was occupied on the first of May by the
forces commanded by General Butler The
occupation was an incident deserving to be
mentioned, but the capture, and by whom
made, were passed without mention.
have felt it duty to the navy, to the
truth of history, and to the most distin-
guished hero of the war, to correct the per.
sistent misstatements which have been and
still are made in regard to the capture of
New Orleans, and TO some of the attending
circumstances and events of that period
The document which is sent out by the War
Department as chronological table OF
battles. skirnishes, etc, which took place
during the rebellion" is not truthful and
reliable, insomuch as it suppresses or fails
to make mention of some of the most i'm.
portant and conspicuous battles which took
place, and wholly omits the name OF the
most distinguished hero of the war.
Hartford. August 20, 1875.