View single post by Texas Defender
 Posted: Tue Jun 4th, 2013 01:25 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
Texas Defender

Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920

  back to top


  I completely agree that Mr. Lincoln would have occupied Maryland in any event. He could not allow WDC to be cut off from the rest of Union territory, and he needed to keep the railroad links intact for the use of Union troops.

  I cannot give General Benjamin Butler much, if any, credit, for Union victories in 1861 at Forts Hatteras and Clark or in 1862 in the operation to capture New Orleans. In the case of the forts in North Carolina, the operation to take them was under the control of the Navy and led by Flag Officer Silas Stringham. It was he who argued that the Union must occupy the inlets, instead of just trying to block them off.

  Flag Officer Stringham was effective in bombarding the Confederates by continually moving his ships. He also could outrange the guns of the defenders. The Confederates were low on ammunition and had problems getting reinforcements. The landings by Union troops were pretty much a disaster in the beginning. It was the continual pressure by the Union naval forces that made the forts indefensible.

  In the case of the Battle of New Orleans, the operation was conceived and ably carried out by then Flag Officer David G. Farragut. The victory was due to Farragut's ships breaking the river barriers, passing the forts, and defeating the CSA ships that opposed them. General Butler's troops were mainly along for the purpose of being an occupying force when Farragut's ships reached the docks of the city and forced its surrender. Confederate General Mansfield Lovell had recognized that he could not sucessfully defend the city and had abandoned it.The victory was mainly due to Flag Officer Farragut's belief that he could successfully pass the CSA forts, and his energetic execution of his operation to prove it.

Last edited on Tue Jun 4th, 2013 01:52 am by Texas Defender

 Close Window