lead up, with my Division, and to receive, but torical muddle, as the history of the Battle has not answer, the fire of Fort Jackson, which I been written on the basis of the published prowas directed to leave to you to take care of when gramme of the twentieth of April, never carried you should come up--as you expressed it, "I out; the formation and position of the attack"will take care of Fort Jackson." I was then ing force is, therefore, entirely misunderstood by to open on Fort St. Philip and pass it; but you the historians-one (Rev. Mr. Boynton's) hisdirected that, in case, at any time you should come tory not even mentioning my name; although it up in the Hartford, we should leave room for did those of officers commanding vessels under you on the port or West side. I accordingly me. My name was merely inserted, as commandpassed up at the head of my Division, in the ing a Division, at the instance of a friend, who Cayuga, receiving, but not returning, the fire of discovered the omission too late to make a furFort Jackson. After passing the obstructions, I ther correction. The Resolution of the United ordered the helm put a-port and led close to the States Senate, of the sixth of June, of which two levee, and under the guns of Fort St. Philip, thousand copies were ordered to be printed, perthinking that the guns of that fort would be petuates the error of our passing the forts in two trained and sighted for mid-river, and that they columns. abreast. Mr. Greeley, in his American would consequently overshoot me, which they Conflict, and other authors, are led into the same did, their shot and shell riddling our masts, spars, misstatements. Lossing's Pictorial History ersails and rigging, with comparative little damage roneously describes the Cayuga as retiring from to the hulls. At this time, something occurred the fight on account of her damages, whereas she to the Pensacola's machinery, which caused a de- was continually in action, notwithstanding she tention of the vessels of my Division astern of was much cut up, with forty-two shot-holes. The her. Losing sight of them, we in the Cayuga, | Varuna, which had passed us while heavily enalone, encountered the Rebel iron-clads, Louis-gaged, went up the river and drew off three of iana and Manassas, and their flotilla of Gun- the Cayuga's assailants; the fight of the Varuboats, and maintained, unaided, a conflict with the na with two of which, is treated as the great Gunboats, until Boggs, in the Varuna, came up, event of the Battle; while the leading up and and after delivering a broadside, which came into heavy single-hand fighting of the Cayuga, Harthe Cayuga instead of the enemy in conflict with rison's Gun-boat; her taking the surrender of us, he passed up the river, out of sight. The three enemy's Steamers and of the Chalmette RegiOneida, Commander Lee, came up, soon after, and ment of Infantry; and the cutting of the telegraphfired into a Steamer that had already surrendered ic communication between the forts and New Orto us of the Cayuga, being her third prize. I leans, and other circumstances, are not mentioned. then ordered Lee to go to the assistance of Boggs Now, as I do not wish to be compelled, even in jusof the Varuna, then engaged with two of the tice to myself or to the officers of my Division, to enemy's Steamers, up the river, which had been go into the system of correcting history by pamdrawn off from their attack on us of the Cayuga, phleteering or newspaper articles, now so comto follow and head off Boggs of the Varuna. mon, I must ask of you to correct this error, After seeing our Cayuga's third prize in flames, which I know you will not hesitate to do, seeing we steamed up the river and captured the Chal- how much annoyance it is giving your friends mette Regiment, encamped on the West bank of and followers; or, if you still have any delicacy the river, opposite the Quarantine-hospital. This in doing this, as you appeared to have when I Rebel Regiment of Infantry I had the honor to spoke to you before, in consequence of a Regulahand over to you, for your disposition, when you tion of the Department that you seemed to concame up the river, after your severe contest with sider in the way, may I ask if you see any impro the forts and fire-ships below. priety in my requesting a Board of Inquiry, in order to get the facts on record, since the truth of history, my duty to my officers, and that to my family, require that I should see it done while 1 am here to do it. To give a history of all the incidents of the Battle within my observation, or the part which each vessel of my Division took, would make this communication too long. The great object of this letter is to call your attention to the fact that, in the hurry of making up your Dispatches, after the Battle, you sent home the written Order of the twentieth of April, I have the honor to be, respectfully, which has been published and has passed into To Admiral D. G. FARRAGUT, U. S. Navy. history, instead of your verbal Order of the twenty-third, which was the one in accordance with which the fleet passed up the river and the Battle was fought. B.-Admiral Farragut's Reply. NEW YORK, April 8, 1869. MY DEAR ADMIRAL: I have received your let This error has resulted in an inextricable his-ter of the 1st, and am really at a loss to under stand how you, or even historians, can take the views you express in relation to the part in the memorable fight on the Mississippi, in 1862. I have just re-read my Report of the sixth of May and your two Reports following, and cannot conceive how you could be more prominently mentioned to the Department. In the former, you are reported as "leading the "right column in the Gunboat Cayuga; " as having "preceded me up to the Quarantine Station;" and as having "captured the Chalmette Regi"ment;" and every possible credit is given you for the manner in which you conducted your line, and preceding us, to attack the Chalmette forts. As to historians, I can, of course, do nothing. I have read but one account to which you allude (Dr. Boynton's); and that, in reference to Mobile Bay, in which several mistakes occur, goes to prove that historians are not always correct. I do not see how it is possible for me to give you greater credit for your services than is embodied in that Report, where your name is always prominent; but, if you think that full credit has not been done you, which I confess I regret to learn, you have, of course, a perfect right to make your appeal to the Department: for my own part, I always maintain the conviction that whatever errors may be made in the records of historians and others, posterity will always give justice to whom justice is due. Very truly, yours, D. G. FARRAGUT, Admiral. D. G. F. WASHINGTON, D. C., April 27, 1869. 66 " You state, "I have just re-read my (your) Re- 66 How could there have been a "right" and a left column, practically, when I led my Division to the attack and passage of the Forts, an hour before you lifted anchors in the Hartford and your centre Division? What I did, was done by your orders and inspiration; and to you the world has given the credit or the attack and its success. as fully as it gave to Lord Nelson the credit of the Battle of the Nile; but, did it detract from his glory, that the Report of the Battle described how it was fought, and the exact position of his own vessel and those of his subordinates? This matter has been the subject of much discussion among officers then commanding vessele in my Division: all say that no vesse of your Practically, the effect of your centre Division came up abreast of, nor lapped, their vessels. verbal Order was, to divide the fleet into four Di visions, viz: 1st. The Mortar fleet, Commander Porter. 2d. The first Division of the Gunboats, urder my command, to which were added the two Sloops-of-war, Pensacola and Mississippi, of which the Gunboat Cayuga (with my divisional-flag) was the leading vessel. 3d. The centre Division, with your flag on the Hartford; and 4th. The rear Division, bearing the flag of Captain H. H. Bell. The first, centre, and rear Divisions went up to the attack in single file, or line ahead. I went up, at the head of my Division, at two, A. M., or as soon thereafter as it took the Pensacola, the next vessel astern of the Cayuga, to purchase her anchors-supposed to be about twenty minutes. You followed, without lapping the sternmost vessel of my Division; and the Division of Gunboats commanded by Captain Bell followed in the wake of your Division. The fact practically was, that the First Division, the Mortar feet, covered the advance; the Second was the vanguard; the Third, the main body of the fleet; and the Fourth, the rear; and that, the advance being made up a river and line ahead, the Diagram does not give any idea of the action other than to produce confusion and error. How could it be otherwise, when no vessel of the Third Division lapped any one of the Second? I enclose a copy of this (to us) unfortunate Diagram, as attached to your Report of the Battle, which you will notice places the Cayuga, my flagGunboat, third in line of my Division; whereas, according to your own statement, of two columns abreast, that Gunboat should have been recorded as first in line, leading. I would ask of your friendship and your fairness, whether this Diagram gives the faintest idea of the action; and whether, if the names of the vessels were altered, it would not apply equally well or better to many other Battles. "ORDER OF FLEET. "2d Div. Gunboats, Capt. Bell, "Winona, Lt. Com❜g Nichols. "Itasca, Lt. Com'g Caldwell. "Pinola, Lt. Com'g Crosby. "Kennebec, Lt. Com'g Russell. "Iroquois, Commander DeCamp. "⚫ Sciota, Lt. Com'g Donaldson. Com'g. 1st Div. Ships. Captain Craven. "Richmond, Commander Alden. "Brooklyn, May, and the accompanying Diagram, you do not give the circumstances of the fight, as they occurred, but those which would apply to your former plan, which was abandoned. From that Report, the reader would infer that the fleet went to the attack of the Forts in two columns, abreast, when it was done in single column, line ahead; that the Hartford was the leading vessel, when, in reality, it was the ninth in line astern of the Cayuga, in a single line, or line ahead; and that there was no left or right of line, but single file. That you should for a moment leave so erroneous a Report or record uncorrected, is a matter of surprise to your officers; and that you should not have made the correction as soon as your attention was called to it, is still more embarrassing to us. They know that, under your orders, I led the vanguard of your fleet, not as represented on the Diagram you have filed, but in an entirely different order, and received forty-two certificates in the way of rebel shots striking my vessel, in corroboration to what is known to every one of our "1st Div. Gunboats, Capt. Bailey Com'g. 2d Div. Ships. gallant companions in that engagement. As an evidence how far the Cayuga was ahead of the rest of the fleet, the first news received at the North was announced in the New York Times of Sunday, the twenty-seventh of April, 1862, thus: "An important report from the Rebels."One of our Gunboats above Forts Jackson and "San Philip. WASHINGTON, Saturday, April 26th. The Richmond Examiner of the 25th, "announces that one of our Gun-boats passed "Forts Jackson and San Philip, sixty miles "below New Orleans, on the 24th. The report was telegraphed to Norfolk, and brought to Fort"ress Monroe, under a flag of truce, and received "from there to-day by the Navy Department." The next Rebel telegram announced the arrival of the fleet before the city. The Cayuga, in the interval, had captured the Chalmette Regiment, five miles above the Forts, and cut the telegraphic communication, so that the fleet were not again reported until they arrived opposite the city. Now, my dear Admiral, you have entirely misconceived the object of my addressing you. It is not to complain that you have not mentioned me prominently in your Dispatch; but it is because, in your Report of the Battle, dated the sixth of I have delayed my reply, both because I have been occupied, and since have heard you were ill, which I deeply regretted, and because I wished to be certain that I said nothing, in haste, that would be annoying to you or improper in me to say; and I hope you will now see the matter as I and others do, and make the correction, so necessary to justice, in your Report, dated the sixth of May, 1862, and substitute a Diagram of the actual positions your vessels and officers occupied in the line of attack, in place of those now on the files of the Navy Department. I have the honor to be, respectfully, your obedient servant, THEODORUS BAILEY, Rear-admiral. NEW YORK, May 19, 1869. MY DEAR ADMIRAL: I have received your two letters,* the first one of which was not given to me As Admiral Bailey's letter of the twenty-seventh of April, alone, of the two referred to in the text, appeared in The Army and Navy Journal, we wrote to him concerning what we conceived might possibly have been an accidental omission in this series of exceedingly interesting letters; and we have been informed by him, in reply, that, because it was not considered important, the art of the two letters, referred to by Admiral Farragut, was not filed in the Department nor furnished for publication to our contemporary. From the following copy of draft, our readers will perceive how important a part it the letter referred to, which we print from the original evidently played in securing this notable correction of the records of the War, and how poorly historical students could afford to have done without it. [Admiral Bailey's third letter to Admiral Farragut.] "WASHINGTON, D. C., May 18, 1869. "MY DEAR ADMIRAL: I was much pleased on calling upon "the Honorable Secretary of the Navy, this morning, to "hear that you had recovered your health so far as to re "port for duty, and that the present Administration have until to-day, as my physician has advised a total suspension of business until I should become fully convalescent, which, I am happy to say, is now the case. It affords me pleasure to make the correction you desire, in the Diagram of the Mississippi Battle, as I now fully comprehend what you wish in this matter. In fact, I cannot understand how this sketch of the first proposed order of battle-wherein you are placed third instead of at the head of the column-should have been attached to the Report, in lieu of one which was afterward adopted. By referring to this Report, you will observe that the Diagram accompanies a General Order, issued four days before the action, as a preparatory plan of attack, which was subsequently changed. But still, I cannot understand why, even in this sketch, you should not have been placed at the head of the starboard column. This Diagram, as you are aware, was the original plan, to be changed, as a matter of course, as circumstances might justify; and the vessels were placed according to the rank of the officers respectively commanding them; but it should not have been made part of the Report of the final action, as, on reflection, I decided that, when the chains were parted, the plan of "line ahead" should be adopted, as the best calculated for the preservation of the vessels and for avoiding all chances of fouling. Therefore, when the time arrived, and the signal given, the order of sailing was changed to line of battle; the verbal instructions to which you allude, carried out; and you led, at the head of your Division; and it has always afforded me the greatest pleasure to say that you performed your duties most fearlessly and gallantly. For this reason, I was, at the outset, a little surprised that you should have apparently complained of my Report; but my examination of the printed Diagram has fully satisfied me of the justice of your appeal. "recognized your distinguished rank and services by giv"ing you the well-earned position of Commander-in-chief "of the fleets and squadrons of the Navy, with a suitable "Staff and duties. I take pride in having been the second "in command under you, and in having contributed my earnest efforts to the success of your first great victory, "viz.: the passage of the Forts and capture of New Or"leans having commanded the Vanguard of your fleet on that occasion;-also, in advocating, at all times, and, on "all occasions, your well-deserved reputation of being the great Naval Admiral of the War and of the present Age. I hope that the letters which I had the honor to address you, under dates of the 1st and 27th of April, will be "taken as they were meant, as a desire merely to correct "the truth of History by placing on file an accurate account and Diagram of the Order and Manner that the fleet under your command advanced to attack and passed "Forts Jackson and St. Philip, on the morning of the 24th April, 1862. 26 "That you will do so, and thus correct the truth of his- "THEODORUS BAILEY, Distinguishing pennants, Red and White. The first and leading Division, under the command of Captain Theodorus Bailey, as follows: Cayuga, Division flag-gunboat, Lt. Com. N. B. Harrison. Pensacola, Capt. H. W. Morris. Mississippi, Capt. M. Smith. Oneida, Commander S. P. Lee. Varuna, Commander Charles S. Boggs. * Kathadin, Lt. Commanding G. H. Preble. Kineo, Lt. Commanding Ransom. • Wissahickon, Lt. Commanding A. N. Smith. Centre Div'n, Admiral Farragut, following. • Hartford, flag-ship, Commander Wainwright. * Brooklyn, Capt. T. T. Craven. * Richmond, Commander James Alden. Third Division following, under command of Capt. H. H. Bell. Sciota, Divisional flag-gunboat, Lt. Command ing Donaldson. Iroquois, Commander DeCamp. Kennebec, Lt. Commanding Russell. Pinola, Lt. Commanding P. Crosby. * Itasca, Lt. Commanding Caldwell. * Winona, Lt. Commanding Nichols. The Mortar Fleet under Porter remained below the Forts, to operate from that direction, also the Sloop-of-war Portsmouth, Commander S. Swartwout. Attest. THEODORUS BAILEY, Rear Admiral. II.-LETTER FROM ADMIRAL FARRAGUT TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY. NEW YORK, May 24, 1869. SIR: My attention having been called by Rearadmiral Bailey to an incorrect sketch which accompanied my Report of the sixth of May, 1862, upon the passage of Forts Jackson and St. Philip, I have the honor to forward herewith, a corrected Diagram, showing the position of the vessels at the time they passed through the obstructions, after the chains had been separated. This will demonstrate that Rear-admiral (then Captain) Bailey led the fleet, in the Cayuga, up to the attack on the Forts, as had been previously ordered, he taking St. Philip with his Division, while I reserved Jackson for the remainder of the Squadron, under my command. The skeleton lines show how the vessels moved up from the original position of two lines into the line ahead. This correction has not been made before, because I was not aware of the existence of the mistake the Diagram being, evidently, a clerical error and in opposition to the text, in which I distinctly state that Rear-admiral Bailey not only led, but performed his duty with great gallantry, to which I called the attention of the Depart VI.-FLOTSAM. [These scraps have been picked up in various places and brought to this place, "as they are," without any voucher for their correctness and with no other object than to secure for them the attention of our readers. We invite discussion concerning each of them; and if tions.-EDITOR HISTORICAL MAGAZINE. tion of them are incorrect or doubtful, we invite correcTHE COSTUME OF WILLIAM PENN. To the Editors of the Sunday Dispatch: Some time since, in the History of Philadelphia, it was suggested that William Penn's costume, as generally represented in pictures, was incorrect. I always thought that it too much resembled the Doctor Johnson's dress, by that formal stiff cut and style of George II. era, extending down to the early days of George III. Penn died in 1718, in George I's reign, when the fashions were on the change, as we find by portraits and pictures [ENCLOSURE REFERRED TO BY ADMIRAL FAR- in the time of Georges II. and III., especially the RAGUT.] The "Corrected Diagram."* full-bottomed wig of Dr. Johnson, his squarecut coat, tight short sleeves, lappets on the pockets, breeches and knee-buckles, large round but Order of the Fleet in passing up to the attack of Forts tons, flapped waistcoat below the hips, low collar Jackson and St. Philip, April 24th, 1862. and white narrow scarf round the neck, the ends falling on the breast, etc. 66 66 William Penn received his Charter and came to this country in the reign of Charles II., when the shape dress of Elizabeth or James I. costume was yet worn, or rather when that style of dress was undergoing a modification, which came in gradually, through the influence of the Puritan sects and other primitive sectarians of simple and severe principles. In this, the then early sect of Quakers doubtless participated. But, at all events, the full-bottomed wig, as given to Penn-in West's Treaty-picture-should not, in my opinion, be so given. The flowing curled wigs came in the reign of Charles II. Pepys, a chronicle writer of merit and truth, says: The Duke of York [afterwards James II.] first put on a "perriwig, February 15, 1663-4, and King Char"les II, on 18th of April. The fashion was in. "troduced from the Court of Versailles." The best way to trace costumes and their changes is to look at the portraits of the first and second Charles', and examine the Vandyke delineations. They wore the loose doublet, with something like tabs at the bottom of the surcoats; loose slashed sleeves; loose breeches, tied with ribbons below the knees; (the chausseur) or stockings of some colored silk. There were no neckties, like those. given to Penn, in 1682. They then wore the ruff flat on the shoulders and breast as you see it in the portraits of Vandyke, and so named, by the actors of the theatres, "Vandykes." Holbien, the artist of Germany, has left the costume and head-gear of Henry VIII's. time. He was followed by Rubens and Vandyke, Lely and KnellHogarth has given the costume of his day er. |