The National tribune., 1894-03-01
WILL NOTHR ETREAT.
Comrade WEIGH Makes His Position Plain
to the Naval Veterans.

EDITOR NATIONAL TRIBUNE: Comrade
Winters, q. S. s. Monticello, holds that 1
should not criticize Comrade Simmons for
any thing he may choose to say, because was
not in the naval engagements that Simmons
writes about. / have criticized Simmons
only on account of joint engagements, where
he has claimed every thing for the navy and
has not given the army any credit at all.
In your paper of Jan. IS Comrade Simmons,
speaking of the San Jacinto says she 81 took
part in the attack upon the rebel batteries
on Sswell's Point, Va, May, 1862.
The result of the attack was the evacuation
of the city of Norfolk by the enemy, which
occurred few days later.#
Now, this is what call fragrant case of
claiming for the navy something that it is
not entitled to. In The Blockade and the
Cruisers" Solely says the batteries were
shelled to feel the strength of the position
and as to the chance to land troops, but moth
ing further was done. The Smelling of Sew
ellis Point had nothing to do with the evac-
uation of Norfolk. The Smelling was done
May s, and it might have continued weeks
and not made the execution necessary. The
evacuation was caused by the linding of
several thousand troops under Gems. Wool,
Mansfield and Weber early Saturday morn
ing, May TO- at Ocean View, some miles be-
low Norfolk, on the coast, and the march to
and surprise of the rebels, who evacuated
Norfolk, destroyed the Maynard, blew up
the Merrimac, etc, and the navy wasn't in
it," except to come up the river after the
forts were empty.
Now, suppose I ought not to criticize
body who claims for the navy that it
caused the evacuation of Norfolk, because
l was not in the navy. Secretary of War
Stanton says (See pagas 634-5, Chapter %,
Volume H. Part 1, of War Record.): THE
skillful and gallant movements of Maj Gen.
John E. Wool and the forces under his COM
mand which resulted in the surrender of
Norfolk and the evacuation of strong bat
teries erected by the rebels ON Sewell's Point
and Craney Island" etc.
| guess Stanton was pretty near correct,
and here / rest my case. AS to my friend,
Charles Winters, of the navy, now, will own
] was not in the navy, but If | had been l
think / would have remembered something
about what | saw. Winters says the beach
was lined with rebels in plain view to all
on board, marching toward Hatteras; now
I'll wager ga quarter" that neither Winters
nor anyone on the Monticello saw rebel
on the beach that day. What they did
see was the Goth Ind, some 500 strong,
marching down toward Cape Hat'eras. The
rebels landed on the west side of the strip
of land (insid-) below, or south of the Goth
Ind, and the Goth Ind. to get by them went
down the east side (outsde) under cover of
the gunboats, which were undou btedly
Smelling the woods and sand-hills to keep
the rebels off
Gen. j. K. Mansfield reports to Gen. Wool:
"Col. Brown, Goth Ind, took up his line of
march Oh the east beach for Hatteras light
house." Il did not learn that
vessel of the rebels was taken or sunk, or
that man was killed by the shells from the
ships of war"
The last part of the quotation above must
refer to the report of the navy on this she'll
ing business, for Gen. Mansfield says he
could not understandable report of the navy,
so | think that am not the only one that
feels or has felt like critczing things that l
am not in.
No one disputes that the Monticello shelled
something. She shielded the woods, sand
hills, etc, but not the rebels, for they were
not in sight, and my criticism of Simmons
applied to his statement that the result of
the Smelling by the Monticello, assisted by
the Goth Ind, was the gallant repulse of the
enemy, with very heavy loss to them. The
Goth Ind. didn't fire gun, but got out lively,
because of the force under Col. Wright, of
the Sd Ga. There was landed some 800 to
500 men (Gen. Mansfield so guesses) between
them and their support at Hatteras.-WILL
l.. WEIGH, Boston, Mass.