The history of our Navy from its origin to the present day, 1775-1897, vol. 4 (of 4)Spears, John Randolph
History
The history of our Navy from its origin to the present day, 1775-1897, vol. 4 (of 4)
Spears, John Randolph
United States. Navy -- History; United States. Navy -- History -- Spanish-American War, 1898
No attempt to pass the silenced Sumter was made. In fact, Sumter was,
at the last, reduced to a wreck. It became a mere infantry post. On the
night of September 6th Fort Wagner was evacuated by the Confederates.
The Union soldiers were gaining ground. The navy planned an expedition
to carry Sumter by storm. Commander Thomas Holdup Stevens was placed
in charge. In all, 400 men, sailors and marines, were put into small
boats. But a lookout on the Confederate side was able to read the
“wigwag” signals by which the orders were transmitted between the
ships. So says Johnson. Of course the Confederates were ready when
the force came. All who landed on the fort, including ten officers
and 104 men, were taken prisoners, and three men were killed. These
were the men who led. The men in the rear were able to get off. It was
the most courageous deed on the Union side before Charleston. It was
worthy of Farragut, who planned to take the castle at Vera Cruz, during
the Mexican War, by laying the ships alongside, tricing up ladders
and calling away boarders. So the Confederates were allowed to hold
the wreck of the famous fort in comparative peace until Sherman, in
his famous march through the Confederate States, got into the rear of
Charleston, when the city and all the forts were abandoned.
Wilson’s “Ironclads in Action” has this to say of the Union naval
operations against Charleston:
“Never before had ships so invulnerable been in action, and probably
never again will so many hits be inflicted with such trivial damage
and such slight loss of life. If the impenetrable monitor could do
nothing against forts garrisoned by resolute men and efficiently armed,
what hope of success could our _Royal Sovereigns_ or _Majesties_
have? Artillery has progressed so much that cannon can be mounted
on land which can pierce armour thicker than any ship can hope to
carry. Considerations of weight and displacement limit the protection
which can be given to the ship, whilst they have no such determining
influence on the fort. The ironclad’s armour and ordnance then are
limited; the fort’s unlimited. How can the two fight on an equal
footing? There are these further considerations, too, to be taken into
account. The guns must be crowded into a limited space on board ship,
where several may be silenced by a single lucky shot. In the fort a
wide space can intervene between each weapon, and if properly mounted,
each gun must be actually struck before it is put out of action. Then,
too, the fort’s fire can be directed upon the ship’s water-line; hits
here will be every whit as efficacious as upon her battery, and she can
be driven off without a single one of her guns being struck. Thus a
close attack by ships upon forts has become almost impossible, though
it is beyond doubt perfectly feasible for war vessels to run through
an unobstructed channel, commanded by forts however numerous.”
[Illustration: Admiral Dahlgren and Staff on the _Pawnee_ at Charleston.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account