+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: The Significance of the Day

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fort Wayne, IN, far from the sea
    Posts
    173

    Default The Significance of the Day

    In these Civil War sesquicentennial years, it is certain that, in 2013, the nation will be treated to significant observations of the epic Battle of Gettysburg. Acclaimed scholars will offer their versions of the three-day struggle, arm-chair historians will debate possibilities in endless "what if" scenarios, and there will undoubtedly be the most massive reenactment the world has ever seen that July, with tens of thousands of participants and hundreds of thousands of spectators. It will be an anniversary to remember—but not the one we all have been taught to believe was the turning point of the war.
    The truly pivotal engagement of the American Civil War took place more than a year earlier, when Flag-Officer D. G. Farragut fought his way past the forts at the mouth of the Mississippi on the morning of 24 April and, a day later, captured New Orleans. In so doing, he denied the Confederacy the use of the port as a privateering and supply base and bottled up the river; captured the Leeds Iron Works, which, with the Tredegar Works in Richmond, were the only modern foundries in the South; eliminated Texas beef and Louisiana salt from the already-meager rebel diet; and sent a shock through the governments of Europe, of which the result of Gettysburg would be but a faint echo. The North—then, as now, focused on the titanic land battles of the east—failed to fully appreciate the significance of the Navy's single-handed exploit, but Southerners were under no such delusion. In Richmond, the diarist Mary Chesnut summed up the fear of her fellow countrymen when she wrote, "New Orleans is gone, and with it the Confederacy! Are we not cut in two? The Mississippi ruins us if it is lost!" Less than a year after the beginning of the war, the Navy had captured the largest and most important city in the South.
    Farragut accomplished this feat with the loss of but three ships and less than two hundred casualties, with 800 lost on the Confederate side. These were numbers that could almost be overlooked on the scale to which people were accustomed by this point in the war—similar results could be expected in a clash of mere brigades. And, with combined losses of 48,000 at Gettysburg (about one-third of the combatants), it is no wonder that the later battle has held the attention of history.
    Only weeks before its capture, a New Orleans newspaper unwittingly wrote the epitaph for the entire Southern war effort: "We have nothing to fear from a land invasion of the enemy if he is unsupported by his naval armaments. . . . the right arm of his power in this war is in his gunboats on our seacoast; and that our only assurance of saving the Mississippi from his grasp is to paralyze that arm upon its waters." Today, as 150 years ago, the significance of the Navy's contribution to Union victory is unrecognized, with that branch perceived as a feature, rather than a factor, in the war. Yet nothing could be further from the truth.

    Chuck Veit
    President, Navy & Marine LHA

    References:
    http://usnlp.org/How_USN_Won.html
    http://usnlp.org/Dog_Before_A_Soldier.html
    Bob Dispenza
    US Naval Landing Party (www.usnlp.org)
    Navy and Marine Living History Association
    (www.navyandmarine.org)

    "George, you may be thankful that you can go to school instead of having the school houses used as Hospitals…And if you never see me again, remember that my advice was never to throw away three years of the best of youthful life in hunting for men with intent to kill."
    William Clark Allen, Company K, 72nd Indiana Volunteers, December 21, 1862

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    2,344

    Default

    Nice Post! To be the 'turning point'\'pivotal engagement' you (OK Chuck) is stating that there is no way that the South could win the war after the fall of NO.....I know many a thousand that would argue differently.... you know, when the Confederates fired upon Fort Sumter....

    This is kind of like saying the Germany lost WWII when they failed to invade Britain......or when they launched Barbarossa.....or the Japanese lost WWII when they bombed Pearl Harbor and failed to take care of the Carriers\Dry Docks\Fleet Infrastructure.

    And I don't know if the loss of LA Salt and TX Beef mattered to VA as much as you made it out here.....seems to me that would have made the South that much stronger in the Trans-Mississippi...on to Chicago!
    RJ Samp
    Horniste! Blas das Signal zum Angriffe!
    "But in the end, it's the history, stupid. If you can't document it, forget about it. And no amount of 'tomfoolery' can explain away conduct that in the end makes history (and living historians) look stupid and wrong. "

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,236

    Default

    I want to take the opportunity to note that Commander Porter in his report specifically praised the efforts of Mr. Oltmanns and Mr. Harris -- Federal civil servants of the Coast Survey -- for working under fire to select and mark the proper positions for the mortar boats that suppressed Fort Jackson.

    And in those days Feds didn't even get a pension...
    M. A. Schaffner
    Midstream Regressive Complainer

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts