≡ Menu

[Engagement of Federal fleet with Confederate ironclads and shore batteries at Howlett’s, June 21, 1864.]

Special order of Flag-Officer [John K.] Mitchell, C. S. Navy, commanding James River Squadron.

C. S. Ironclad Virginia,
Flagship James River Squadron, off Graveyard, June 21, 1864.

Battery Dantzler, at Howlett’s house, will open on the enemy’s vessels in Trent’s Reach to-day at noon.

Flag Officer John K. Mitchell faced a daunting task as commander of the James River Squadron in 1864-65.

The ironclads VirginiaRichmondand Fredericksburg will be placed in position and be in readiness to open fire at the same time on any of the enemy’s vessels within reach of their fire, whether in Trent’s Reach or Varina Reach, using shells and cast-iron bolts. The wrought-iron bolts are not to be used except within point blank range and against the monitors.

Before getting underway, every preparation will be made for battle on board of each vessel, which will have to be anchored in her proper position, using light anchors and kedges carried out on lines run to the river bank from the bows or quarters, to steady and spring ship as required. These lines or kedges should be placed in boats before getting underway, in readiness to run out the moment the positions are reached, the inward ends under the shields, or other cover, so as to avoid exposing the men on deck as much as possible.

Some eligible height in the vicinity will be selected and used as a station for one of the signal corps from each ironclad, who will give information as to the flight of the projectiles.

After reaching their positions, each vessel will immediately use every effort and means to determine the line of fire and establish ranges for any of the enemy’s vessels (especially his gunboats and transports) within range, but fire will not be opened until it is commenced by Battery Dantzler, or to return the fire of the enemy, unless expressly ordered.

Great care should be taken in dropping down to avoid noises of any kind to attract the attention of the enemy, especially in letting off steam, which can be distinctly seen and heard at a great distance. The bell is not to be struck.

Particular attention should be given to a plentiful supply of water in buckets and tubs for extinguishing fires below, as well as for the use of the crew.

The gunboat Drewry will keep within signal distanced of the flagship, but out of the line of fire of the enemy as much as possible, and be ready to use her gun if ordered, or whenever it can be done with effect, and to render such assistance to other vessels as may be required.

The other gunboats will keep out of the line of fire of the enemy, and at the same time, if possible, keep within signal distance and be in readiness to render such assistance as may be required by any of the vessels, in towing, carrying out kedges, hawsers, etc. They will be prepared for action and use their guns should they be brought within effective range of the enemy. When out of signal distance they will be under the orders of the senior officer present, who will be governed by these instructions.

All the vessels in the squadron will be underway by — a. m., and will move down in open order.

The position assigned the Fredericksburg is in the vicinity of the ferry, with her tender (the Nansemondwithin signal distance above her.

The positions assigned the Virginia and the Richmond are near Dutch Gap, so as to command as much as possible the lower part of Trent’s Reach and Varina Reach.

Steam will [be| kept up so as to enable new dispositions to be made at any moment they may be required.

Jno. [Jonathan] K. Mitchell,
Commanding James River Squadron.1

Map of the June 21, 1864 Action at Howlett's Bluff

This map shows the June 21, 1864 Action at Howlett’s Bluff, resulting from this order by Flag Officer Mitchell.

Source/Notes:

  1. Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion, Series 1, Volume 10, pp. 185186
{ 0 comments }

[Engagement of Federal fleet with Confederate ironclads and shore batteries at Howlett’s, June 21, 1864.]

Letter from Acting Rear-Admiral Lee, U. S. Navy, to Lieutenant-General Grant, U. S. Army.

Flagship Agawam [sic, Malvern?]1,
James River, June 23, 1864.

Illustration of Howlett Battery and Trent's Reach in the London Illustrated News

Illustration of Howlett House Battery and the Union monitors at Trent’s Reach in the London Illustrated News.  (October 22, 1864 London Illustrated News)

General: In the engagement day before yesterday with the rebel battery at Howlett’s, in which their ironclads, out of view in a reach above, participated, we silenced one of the guns at Howlett’s, but expended a good deal of our heavy and expensive ammunition.

One of the monitors was injured by a X-inch solid shot from the battery at Howlett’s.2

The XV-inch gun has a short life, so far as it has been proved, and it is difficult to replace it in the turret of a monitor. We have to fire it at extreme elevation to reach Howlett’s battery, which increases the strain on the gun and breaks its long screws.

As it was arranged yesterday between Assistant Secretary Fox and yourself to increase the obstructions already placed by the army in Trent’s Reach, so that two monitors would be sufficient here for the present, leaving the Navy Department to withdraw the other two, one of which is now under orders for sea for more pressing service elsewhere, I respectfully suggest that the cheapest and most convenient control of rebel battery at Howlett’s, of Trent’s Reach, and its obstructions, and of Dutch Gap, would be by mounting a few heavy guns at the lower end of the reach. This would allow the ironclads to drop around the point, withdrawing a few hundred yards, where they could keep their hatches off in hot weather, whence they could in a few minutes return and engage the rebel ironclads, should they appear in the upper part of the reach or interfere with the obstructions.

Our naval resources would thus be reserved for their ironclads and not exhausted on their earthworks.

I have the honor to be, general, very respectfully, yours,

S[amuel]. P. Lee,
Actg. Rear Admiral, Comdg. North Atlantic Blockading Squadron.

Lieutenant-General US. Grant, U. S. Army,
Commanding Forces in the Field.3

Source/Notes:

  1. SOPO Editor’s Note: I rarely comment on the Official Records, because they are almost always correct. In this case, the flagship is listed as Agawam, even though every other report, telegram and order from this time frame but one shows the flagship had shifted from Agawam to Malvern. Also, Lee sent several messages throughout June 21, 1864 from Malvern and listed her as his flagship.  So was this a typo, or did Lee switch flagships during an active fight? It seems pretty clear the reference to Agawam as the flagship was a typo, and Malvern should be listed instead, but I do not suggest corrections to the ORs lightly.
  2. SOPO Editor’s Note: Saugus is probably the monitor to which Admiral Lee is referring, though the Canonicus also suffered some damage.
  3. Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion, Series 1, Volume 10, p. 184
{ 0 comments }

Image of Official Records, Volume XLII, Part 1 and Broadfoot Supplement to the ORs, Volume 7SOPO Editor’s Note: This is a listing of the reports published in Broadfoot Publishing’s Supplement to the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Part I, Reports, Vol. 7, pp. 422-425. If these reports had been found in time, they would have been included in The Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies in the War of the Rebellion, Volume XLII, Pt. 1.  The latter volume focuses on the Richmond-Petersburg Campaign, aka The Siege of Petersburg, from August 1 to December 31, 1864. Please note THIS IS ONLY A LIST.  I DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THESE REPORTS! It is provided as a courtesy to researchers.

August 1-December 31, 1864.—The Richmond, Virginia, Campaign.1

Note: These reports belong with those in the Officials Records, Volume XLII, Part 1.

 

  • Report of Lieutenant-Colonel Arthur Russell Curtis, Twentieth Massachusetts, of the loss of colors during the Richmond, Virginia, campaign, August 25, 1864. ….. 427

 

  • Report of Lieutenant Andrew Knox, First Connecticut Heavy Artillery, of encounter at Petersburg, Virginia, December 28, 1864. ….. 429

 

  • Extract of report of Surgeon William Radcliffe De Witt, Jr., U.S. Volunteers, of Division Hospital operations, November, 1864. ….. 429

 

  • Postwar statement of Brigadier-General Joseph Hayes, U. S. Army, of operations on the Weldon Railroad, August 18, 1864. ….. 431

 

  • Report of Colonel Charles Shiels Wainwright, First New York Light Artillery, of operations of the Fifth Corps in the vicinity of Petersburg and Hatcher’s Run, Virginia, August-October, 1864. ….. 435

 

  • Report of Captain John R. Ross, Eighty-fourth Pennsylvania Volunteers, of encounters at Peebles’ Farm, September 30-October 5, 1864. ….. 439

 

  • Report of Colonel John Lord Otis, Tenth Connecticut, of operations around New Market Road, Virginia, October 1, 1864. ….. 441

 

  • Report of Colonel John Lord Otis, Tenth Connecticut, of engagement near Four-Mile Creek, Virginia, October 7 1864. ….. 442

 

  • Excerpt from diary of Brigadier-General August Valentine Kautz, U. S. Army, December 6-12, 1864. …. 443

 

  • Postwar account of Sergeant William Hankins Welch, Seventh Carolina Cavalry, C. S. Army, of the Battle of Johnson’s Farm, Darbytown Road, Virginia, October 7 1864. ….. 445

 

  • Extract from the Journal of Brigadier-General Edward Porter Alexander, C. S Army, of the events at Chaffin’s Farm and Darbytown Road, Virginia, August 15-December 10, 1864.

 

  • Report of Captain John T. Wingfield, Eleventh Georgia Artillery, of operations of artillery (Company C), September-November 1864. ….. 450

 

  • Newspaper account of demonstrations at Richmond and Deep Bottom, Virginia, August 13-20, 1864. ….. 453

 

  • Journal of William Harvey, Company H, Eighteenth Virginia Infantry, of troop movement and battles, November 17-December 1, 1864. ….. 457

 

  • Journal of Major-General Bushrod Rust Johnson, C. S. Army, August 1-December 14, 1864. ….. 459

 

  • Letter of Colonel Dudley McIver DuBose, Fifteenth Georgia Infantry, of the Richmond, Virginia, campaign, September 29, 1864. ….. 462

 

  • Account of Colonel Hector McAllester McKethan, Fifty-first North Carolina, of Confederate assault on Fort Harrison, Virginia, September 30, 1864. ….. 465

 

  • Report of Brigadier-General George Hume Steuart, C. S. Army, on the Richmond, Virginia, campaign, November 17, 1864. ….. 467

 

  • Report of Captain James Gilmer Harris, Seventh North Carolina Troops, C. S. Army, of the Battle of Reams’ Station, Virginia, August 25, 1864. ….. 468

 

  • Report of Captain William J. Callais, Thirty-third North Carolina, C. S. Army, on the Battle of Reams’ Station, Virginia, August 25, 1864. ….. 470

 

  • Postwar account of Brigadier-General Nathaniel Harrison Harris, C. S. Army, of the Battle of Burgess’ Mill, Virginia, October 27, 1864. ….. 471

 

  • Report of Major-General Henry Heth, C. S. Army, on the Battle of Reams’ Station, Virginia, August 26, 1864. ….. 473

 

  • Report of Major-General Henry Heth, C. S. Army, on the Battle of Burgess’ Mill, Virginia, October 27, 1864. ….. 479

 

  • Report of Major-General Henry Heth, C. S. Army, of the engagement at Jarratt’s Station, Virginia, December 10, 1864. ….. 487

 

  • Report of Captain James Gilmer Harris, Seventh North Carolina Regiment, of operations around Fussell’s Mill, Virginia, July 28, 1864. ….. 488

 

  • Report of Captain James Gilmer Harris, Seventh North Carolina Report of Colonel William Lee Davidson, Seventh North Carolina Regiment, on operations, August 18, 1864. ….. 490

 

  • Report of Colonel William Lee Davidson, Seventh North Carolina Regiment, on the Battle of Pegram’s Farm, Virginia, September 30-October 6, 1864. ….. 490

 

  • Report of Captain Benjamin Franklin Rinaldi, Eighteenth North Carolina Regiment, of the engagement at Reams’ Station, Virginia, August 25, 1864. ….. 492

 

  • Report of Lieutenant-Colonel John Wright McGill, Eighteenth North Carolina Regiment, of the engagement at Fussell’s Mill, Virginia, August 18, 1864. ….. 493

 

  • Report of Lieutenant-Colonel John Wright McGill, Eighteenth North Carolina Regiment, of operations near Jones’ Farm, Virginia, September 30 and October 1, 1864. ….. 494

 

  • Report of Major Thomas Jones Wooten, Eighteenth North Carolina Regiment, of the engagement at Peebles’ Farm, Virginia, September 30, 1864. ….. 496

 

  • Report of Major Samuel Neel Stowe, Twenty-eighth North Carolina Regiment, of the engagement at Reams’ Station, Virginia, August 25, 1864. ….. 498

 

  • Report of Captain Edward F. Lovill, Twenty-eighth North Carolina Regiment, of the engagement at Fussell’s Mill, Virginia, August 18-September 20, 1864. ….. 499

 

  • Report of Captain Gold Griffin Holland, Twenty-eighth North Carolina Regiment, of the campaign around Petersburg, Virginia, September 30, 1864. ….. 500

 

  • Report of Colonel Robert V. Cowan, Thirty-third North Carolina Regiment, of the engagement at Jones’ House, Virginia, September 30, 1864. ….. 502

 

  • Report of Major Jackson Lafayette Bost, Thirty-Seventh North Carolina Regiment, of the engagement at Fussell’s Mill, Virginia, August 18, 1864. ….. 503

 

  • Report of Major Jackson Lafayette Bost, Thirty-Seventh North Carolina Regiment, of the engagement at Reams’ Station, Virginia, August 25, 1864. ….. 504

 

  • Report of Major Jackson Lafayette Bost, Thirty-seventh North Carolina Regiment, of the engagement at Jones, House, Virginia, September 30, 1864. ….. 505

 

  • Report of Brigadier-General Samuel McGowan, C. S. Army, on the Battle of Reams Station, Virginia, August 25, 1864. ….. 506

 

  • Report of Colonel Joel R. Griffin, Sixty-second Georgia Cavalry, of the action in the Richmond, Virginia, Campaign, October 2, 1864. ….. 510

 

  • Excerpt from memorandum of Major James Dugue Ferguson, Assistant Adjutant-General, staff of Fitzhugh Lee, C. S. Army, on the Richmond, Virginia, campaign, September 19-October 3, 1864. ….. 512

 

  • Report of Major Roger Preston Chew, C. S. Army, of operations of the Horse Artillery in Virginia, June 29, 1864. ….. 518

 

  • Report of Major Roger Preston Chew, C. S. Army, of operations around Burgess’ Mill, Virginia, October 27, 1864. ….. 519

 

  • Excerpt of report of Major Roger Preston Chew, C. S. Army, of operations in the Richmond, Virginia, Campaign, July 1-December 7, 1864. ….. 520

 

  • Report of Captain William Morrell McGregor of McGregor’s Battery, C. S. Army, of the Richmond, Virginia, campaign, July-December 1864. ….. 523

 

  • Letter of Master’s Mate Lorenzo D. Pitt, C. S. Navy, on the loss of the Albemarle, October 27, 1864. ….. 526 [MISFILED?]

 

Source:

 

Source:

  1. Supplement to the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Part I, Reports, Vol. 7, pp. 422-425
{ 2 comments }

P12BenningBde18640908FBConfederate Inspection Report:

Benning’s Brigade, Field’s Division, First Corps, Army of Northern Virginia1

September 8, 1864

The Confederate Army of Northern Virginia produced inspection reports at approximately monthly intervals late in the Civil War.  Luckily, many of these reports have been preserved and are available on microfilm from the National Archives and Records Association. I have produced transcriptions of the key information from these reports. See the bottom of this page for freely downloadable transcriptions of most of these reports. This transcription is copyrighted by Brett Schulte and may not be distributed, changed, or reproduced in any manner without the written consent of the transcriber.

M935 Roll #: 10

Image # from Digitized Copy: 0025-0034.jpg

Date of Inspection: September 8, 1864

Commander: Colonel Dudley M. DuBose (of the 15th Georgia)

Inspection Location: Chaffin’s Farm on the James River

Aggregate Present & Absent: 1,8962

Aggregate Effective for the Field: 1,896

Officers and Men Present for Duty (PFD): 671 officers and men

Weapons: Enfield Rifles, Springfield Rifles, and Richmond Rifles

Sub-Units:

  • 2nd Georgia, Lt. Col. William S. Shepherd, 145 officers and men PFD
  • 15th Georgia, Major Peter J. Shannon, 217 officers and men PFD
  • 17th Georgia, Lt. Col. William A. Barden, 143 officers and men PFD
  • 20th Georgia, Captain William Craig, 166 officers and men PFD

Downloadable Spreadsheet:

 

Source/Notes:

  1. Confederate Inspection Report P-12: Benning’s Brigade, September 8, 1864; Inspection Reports and Related Records Received By the Inspection Branch in the Confederate Adjutant and Inspector General’s Office. (National Archives Microfilm Publication M935, Roll 10: Inspection Reports P-12 – 39-P-24); War Department Collection of Confederate Records, Record Group 109; National Archives Building, Washington, D.C.
  2. SOPO Editor’s Note: Clearly the inspector was not accurately representing one of either “aggregate present & absent” or “aggregate effective for the field.”  The former should be much larger at this point in the war.  I wanted to point out the inspector filled out the report this way.  I did not have a typo here.
{ 0 comments }

[Engagement of Federal fleet with Confederate ironclads and shore batteries at Howlett’s, June 21, 1864.]

[Enclosure 5.]

U. S. S. AGAWAM,
James River, June 23, 1864.

USSAgawamJamesRiverJuly1864

The Agawam, pictured here, fired her forward guns at the new Confederate Battery above Howlett’s House, and her aft guns at the Confederate fleet near Cox’s Landing in the June 21, 1864 Action at Howlett’s Bluff.

Sir: I respectfully present the following report of the participation by this vessel in the firing on the 21st instant with the rebel battery at Howlett’s Bluff and vessels stationed, as near as we could judge, in the reach at Cox’s place.

At 11: 50 a. m. the enemy opened fire from Howlett’s and about the same time from their vessels. Signal being made from the flag vessel to prepare for action, we went to quarters at 12:30 and commenced firing deliberately, using the forward guns on the battery at Howlett’s, and the after toward the enemy’s vessels. As the firing had to be directed from aloft, the objects aimed at not being in sight from the deck, we discontinued it at 2:30 p. m. The fire of the enemy was kept up till near sunset. This vessel was not hit. I enclose a report of the ammunition expended.

Respectfully, your obedient servant,

A[lexander]. C. Rhind,
Commander.

Acting Rear Admiral S[amuel]. P. Lee,
Commanding North Atlantic Blockading Squadron.

 

[Subenclosure.]

U. S. S. Agawam,
James River, June 23, 1864.

Report of expenditures and firing on board of the U. S. S. Agawam, James River, June 21, 1864.

100-pounder short percussion shell……………………………….11

100 pounder 15-second shrapnel…………………………………….1

100-pounder 10-second shrapnel…………………………………….1

IX-inch 5-second shell………………………………………………………1

IX-inch 10-second shell…………………………………………………….2

IX-inch 15-second shell…………………………………………………….2

18 10-pound charges of powder = 180 pounds.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

Henry F. Dunnels,
Acting Gunner, U. S. Navy.

Commander A[lexander]. C. Rhind, U. S. Navy,
Commanding U. S. S. Agawam, James River, Virginia.1

Map of the June 21, 1864 Action at Howlett's Bluff

This map shows the June 21, 1864 Action at Howlett’s Bluff, covered in this report.

Source:

  1. Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion, Series 1, Volume 10, pp. 183184
{ 0 comments }

THE ONONDAGO IN ACTION.
—–

U.S. IRON CLAD “ONONDAGO”1
“DUTCH GAP,” JAMES RIVER,
Va., June 22d, 1864.

To the Editors of the Irish-American:

33961v: Double turretted i.e. turreted monitor "Onondaga", James River, Va.

“Garryowen,” a Fireman on the powerful double turreted monitor Onondaga, gives an account of her first battle. (Library of Congress)

I avail myself of the earliest opportunity to inform the numerous readers of your journal of our recent actual engagement with the “Rebels.” The dull monotony which prevailed in this part of the [James] river2 for the past few weeks was broken yesterday [June 21, 1864], by the whizzing of balls and shells around us.3 In order to allay the anxiety of those fond ones who are represented on board here by husbands, brothers, and sons. I will state that “nobody is hurt,” notwithstanding a vigorous fire was kept up for about six hours.4 Tuesday, the 21st of June [1864], will be long remembered by the crew of the “Onondago,” [sic, Onondaga] as the day she, for the first time encountered the enemy.  Well and nobly she acted her part, and sustained the reputation she so richly deserves as being “monarch of all she surveys.” We were aware for some time that the rebels intended to build a battery some two miles above us on the bend of the river, and we occasionally sent a few shells daily in that direction, not having water enough in the river to ascend higher;—but notwithstanding our efforts to battle them, they succeeded in firmly establishing themselves in the place designated.5 In order more clearly to illustrate our position, I might say that the course of the river in in this locality resembles that of a “horse shoe”—with our four monitors, viz, Onondago [sic, Onondaga], Tecumseh, Canonicus, and Saugus, at the left hand heel, the rebel battery [Battery Dantzler] at the toe, and the rebel iron clads [CSS Virginia II, CSS Richmond, and CSS Fredericksburg] at the right hand heel, from whence they can send us their respects across the peninsula thus formed, in the shape of shell and shot, which, however, is at random, as we are not visible to them, nor they to us6: but their movements in the battery we can easily discern with the aid of a glass. At noon, on the day mentioned, the Tecumseh opened fire on the battery, which, to our surprise and consternation, elicited a reply from that quarter in the shape of a shell going whiz-zr-zr-zr over our heads; while eating dinner on deck under the awning, as is our wont this fine warm weather. Such a gathering up of tinpots, pans, mess-kettles, &c., &c., was never before seen, and the jokes and larks which usually prevail on such assemblages, were quickly dispensed with, and more sedate and solemn countenances substituted.  A general rush was made for the hatchway; every man feeling that he had a duty to perform, and in less time than it takes to mention it, all hands were at “quarters.” We kept up a vigorous fire alternately from both our “turrets,” accompanied by the other “monitors,” until night. The rebels, on the other hand, were no way sparing in their efforts to cripple us, as their shot and shell flew around, about, above, and below us; but failed to hit us at any time, except a small splinter of a shell which scratched our deck a little, doing no damage whatever.7

What casualties occurred among the “Rebels,” I cannot say; be we observed that we dismounted one of their guns, and if not some of themselves, it is, indeed, marvellous. Today [June 22, 1864] everything is quiet, and only that the President has come to visit us, everything would wear its usual aspect;–but, true enough, “Uncle Abraham” [President Abraham Lincoln] is in our midst, on a tour of inspection, I presume; he came on board here, just as I was writing, accompanied by his young son, Lieut. Gen. [Ulysses S.] Grant, Major-Gen. [Benjamin F.] Butler, and a host of gold laced gents of lesser note; they remained about twenty minutes when they again departed. There were no demonstrations made, on our part, to receive them, and they came and went as other less distinguished visitors do.

Yours very truly,

A. GARRYOWEN BOY.8,9

SOPO Editor’s Note: This article was transcribed by Gary Schoen.

If you are interested in helping us transcribe newspaper articles like the one above, please CONTACT US.

Article Image

A newspaper article from the July 9, 1864 New York Irish-American describing the Action at Howlett's Bluff, June 21, 1864

Source/Notes:

  1. SOPO editor’s Note: The Onondaga was a double-turreted monitor, the most powerful vessel in either Navy on the James River on June 21, 1864. Click here for Onondaga’s ship page for details on the ship and a photo.
  2. SOPO Editor’s Note: See this map for details of the Trent’s Reach area, which had become a “no man’s land” of sorts between the Union and Confederate navies.
  3. SOPO Editor’s Note: “Garryowen” is about to describe the June 21, 1864 Action at Howlett’s Bluff.  Newly created and unmasked Battery Dantzler near the Howlett House on the western end of Trent’s Reach opened fire on the Union ironclads, including the Onondaga, stationed on the eastern end of the reach. They were 2,000+ yards apart during the entirety of the engagement.  The Onondaga was barely hit and suffered no damage, though Battery Dantzler saw one rifle dismounted, and the single turreted monitor USS Saugus suffered minor damage to her deck and turret, which is described in great detail in the official report of that ship. Click here to see an original map I created of this small fight.
  4. SOPO Editor’s Note: See yesterday’s post for the official report of the Onondaga’s part in this affair.
  5. SOPO Editor’s Note: This was Confederate Battery Dantzler, constructed just northwest of the Howlett House at the western end of Trent’s Reach.  It was meant to control the entire reach. Four guns were active on June 21, 1864, with one being dismounted by the fire of USS Tecumseh.
  6. SOPO Editor’s Note: Farrar’s Island formed a barrier to visibility in the area.  Vessels very near to each other as the crow flies but on opposite stretches could not see the hulls of their enemies.  It was an interesting tactical situation to be sure.
  7. SOPO Editor’s Note: In addition to Battery Dantzler, the Confederates utilized their entire James River Squadron of ironclad rams and wooden gunboats to fire on the Union monitors from the north, creating a cross fire.  However, Union reports, both official and unofficial, mention the fire of the Confederates to have been quite wild. The Union monitors ignored the Rebel squadron and concentrated their fire on Battery Dantzler, though Union double ender Agawam appears to have fired at them with her aft guns.
  8. Damian Shiels at Irish American Civil War has positively identified “Garryowen” as Fireman Michael J. Callinan.
  9. “The Onondago in Action.” The Irish-American (New York, NY). July 9, 1864, p. 1 col. 7
{ 0 comments }

[Engagement of Federal fleet with Confederate ironclads and shore batteries at Howlett’s, June 21, 1864.]

[Enclosure 4.]

U. S. S. Canonicus,
James River, Virginia, June 24, 1864.

Image of US monitor Canonicus taking on coal from a schooner on the James River

USS Canonicus, picture here with a schooner supplying her with coal, took hits to her smokestack and deck on June 21, 1864 during the Action at Howlett’s Bluff. (Library of Congress)

Sir: On the 21st instant, near noon, the rebels unmasked near Howlett’s a battery of four guns, whose completion we had been for some time endeavoring to prevent or retard by occasional shots, and opened a fire upon us and the vessels in our vicinity, which was kept up until dark. They had a large smoothbore, a large rifle, and two smaller guns. As soon as they commenced unmasking, we opened on them with our two XV-inch guns, firing rapidly at first, but afterwards only occasionally, to economize ammunition.

One of their guns was dismounted by a shell from the ironclads, and another shell was seen to traverse an embrasure, but the distance, 2,200 yards, was large for firing at single guns.

We were struck twice. The effect of these shot is described in the accompanying report of Chief Engineer Macomb. The injury is slight. We fired forty shells with 35-pound charges. Everything stood well about the guns and gun carriages. The rebel ironclads came down the river, but not in sight, and opened upon us a random fire, over the trees, which hit nothing, and which, I believe, was not noticed.

The batteries have since continued silent and their guns are again masked.

I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,

E. G. Parrott,
Commander.

Acting Rear-Admiral S. P. Lee,
Commanding North Atlantic Blockading Squadron.

 

[Subenclosure.]

U. S. Ironclad Steamer Canonicus,
James River, June 23, 1864. 

Sir: In obedience to your order, I have to make the following report in relation to the effect and position of the shot upon the deck and smoke pipe (they being the only parts struck) of this vessel:

The indentation in the deck plating was made by a solid shot from a 7 or 8 inch rifle gun, as the groove from the rifle can be plainly discerned upon the plating. The position on the deck of the place struck is 45 inches from the side of the vessel, being 40 inches from the outside of bulwark timbers, the shot striking nearly in the center of an 18-inch by 12-inch beam, where three beams of 12 inches by 12 inches, 18 inches by 12 inches, and 12 inches by 12 incites are bolted together, 6 feet forward of the center line of smoke pipe, and in a line with starboard main boiler, but not over it, being just between the line of hull proper and the boiler. There are two deck plates injured, as the shot struck where they butted, the indentation extending fore and aft 25 inches, 7 ½ inches athwartships, and 1 ½ inches deep in the center. There are six slight fractures in the plates, five in one and one in the other. There were 38 deck plate bolts loosened in the two plates, from slightly loose to three-eighths of an inch up from deck, but these were driven down again by a slight blow from a sledge. There are no perceptible fractures of the beams, or starting of bolts in the beams, or planking underneath the deck. The plate iron of deck seems to be of good quality, or else I judge it would have been fractured much more than it is. The deck under the plating where it has been struck does not leak.

The shot hole through the smoke pipe is about 8 ½ inches in diameter, the shot passing through both sides about 2 feet from the top or upper edge, being 22 ½ feet from the deck. The fragments which were detached from the hole on front side were driven with such force that they went through the other side of the pipe, making three ragged holes about 2 feet from the shot hole in the port side. The upper tier of pipe is made of quite thin iron, only full one-eighth inch thick, and was put up merely to prevent water from coming down while at sea. I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

David B. Macomb,
Chief Engineer, U. S. Navy.

Commander E[noch]. G. Parrott, U. S. Navy,
Commanding U. S. Ironclad Canonicus.1

Map of the June 21, 1864 Action at Howlett's Bluff

This map shows the June 21, 1864 Action at Howlett’s Bluff, covered in this report by Rear Admiral Lee.

Source:

  1. Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion, Series 1, Volume 10, pp. 182183
{ 0 comments }
Image of Official Records, Volume XL, Part 1 and Broadfoot Supplement to the ORs, Volume 7

SOPO Editor’s Note: This is a listing of the reports published in Broadfoot Publishing’s Supplement to the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Part I, Reports, Vol. 7, pp. 212-216. If these reports had been found in time they would have been included in The Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies in the War of the Rebellion, Volume XL, Pt. 1.  The latter volume focuses on the Richmond-Petersburg Campaign, aka The Siege of Petersburg, from June 13 to July 31, 1864. Please note THIS IS ONLY A LIST.  I DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THESE REPORTS! It is provided as a courtesy to researchers.

June 13-July 31, 1864.—The Richmond, Virginia, Campaign.1

Note: These reports belong with those in the Officials Records, Volume XL, Part 1.

Summaries and Online Status

 

Index

  • Excerpt from report appended to the diary of First Lieutenant Edmund D. Halsey, Fifteenth New Jersey Volunteers, of the Richmond, Virginia, campaign, June 1[3]-July 10, 1864. ….. 217

 

  • Extract from a report by Surgeon Roger Williams Pease, U. S. Volunteers, on the operations of the Cavalry Corps of the Army of the Potomac, June 19-26, 1864. ….. 218

 

  • Excerpt of report of Colonel John Coldwell Tidball, Fourth New York Heavy Artillery, of operations around Petersburg, Virginia, June 12-July 2, 1864. ….. 219

 

  • Journal of Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas R. Allcock, Fourth New York Heavy Artillery, of the Richmond, Virginia, Campaign, June 13-[30], 1864. ….. 223

 

  • Report of Captain Edwin Barlow Dow, Sixth Maine Battery, of operations in the Richmond, Virginia, campaign, June 13-30, 1864. ….. 224

 

  • Excerpt from report of Captain John E. Burton, Eleventh New York Battery, of casualties from the Rapidan River to the James River, June 17-24, 1864. …. 225

 

  • Report of Lieutenant Aaron F. Walcott, Third Massachusetts Light Artillery, of operations in the Richmond, Virginia, campaign, June 13-July 30, 1864. ….. 226

 

  • Report of Captain Charles Appleton Phillips, Fifth Massachusetts Light Artillery, of operations, June 18-July [30], 1864. ….. 227

 

  • Report of Captain John Bigelow, Ninth Massachusetts Artillery, of operations from June 13-July 30, 1864. ….. 229

 

  • Report of Lieutenant James Stewart, Fourth United States Artillery [Battery B], of operations in the Richmond, Virginia, campaign, June 6-July 30, 1864. ….. 230

 

  • Report of Lieutenant William Edward Van Reed, Fifth United States Artillery, Battery D, of artillery operations in the Richmond, Virginia, campaign, June 13-July 30, 1864. ….. 231

 

  • Report of Captain Patrick Hart, Fifteenth New York Independent Light Battery, of operations in the Richmond, Virginia, campaign, June 12-July 13, 1864. ….. 232

 

  • Report of Brigadier-General Edward Ferrero, U. S. Army, of actions during the Richmond, Virginia, campaign, May 4-November 1, 1864. ….. 233

 

  • Report of Colonel James Harvey Kidd, Sixth Michigan Cavalry, of the Richmond, Virginia, campaign, June-July 1864. ….. 234

 

  • Report of Lieutenant-Colonel Alvin Coe Voris, Sixty-seventh Ohio Infantry, on Bermuda Hundred, Virginia, June 16, 1864. ….. 235

 

  • Journal of Brigadier-General August Valentine Kautz, U. S. Army, June 13-July 31, 1864. ….. 237

 

  • Journal of Lieutenant William C. Miller, First Pennsylvania Artillery, of the part taken by Battery B, First Pennsylvania Artillery during the Richmond, Virginia, campaign, June 13-[30] 1864. ….. 247

 

  • Report of Captain George B. Easterly, Fourth Wisconsin Horse Artillery, of action during the Richmond, Virginia, campaign, June [4]-July [31] 1864. ….. 248

 

  • Report of Lieutenant-General Richard Heron Anderson, C. S. Army, while temporarily assigned to the operations of Longstreet’s Corps, [June 13-October 19] 1864. ….. 249

 

  • Account of Colonel William Wallace, Second South Carolina, on Petersburg, Virginia, June[-December], 1864. ….. 261

 

  • Extract from the journal of Brigadier-General Edward Porter Alexander, C. S. Army, on the Richmond, Virginia, campaign, June 13-3[0], 1864. ….. 262

 

  • Statement of Captain Henry G. Flanner, Flanner’s North Carolina Artillery, of the Battle of the Crater, Petersburg, Virginia, July [30], 1864. ….. 263

 

  • Report of Major Roger Preston Chew, C. S. Army, of operations of the Horse Artillery in Virginia, June 20-23, 1864. ….. 264

 

  • Journal of William Harvey, Company H, Eighteenth Virginia Infantry, of troop movement and battles in the Richmond, Virginia, campaign, June 13-[25], 1864. ….. 265

 

  • Extract of diary of Captain John Franklin Heitman, Forty-eighth North Carolina, John Rogers Cooke’s Brigade, Army of Northern Virginia, July 1-[29], 1864. ….. 266

 

  • Newspaper account of Lieutenant Thomas Watkin Lindsay, Forty-ninth North Carolina, of engagement at Staunton River Bridge, Virginia, June 25, 1864. ….. 268

 

  • Excerpt from article by Captain John Willis Lewis, Confederate States Artillery, on Staunton River Bridge, Virginia, June 24, 1864. ….. 269

 

  • Excerpt from journal of Major-General Bushrod Rust Johnson, C. S. Army, June 13-July 30, 1864. ….. 276

 

  • Report of Brigadier-General Henry Alexander Wise, C. S. Army, of operations around Petersburg, Virginia, June 15[-16], 1864. ….. 284

 

  • Report of Lieutenant Oliver D. Cooke, Twenty-fourth North Carolina Infantry, on the operations around Richmond, Virginia, June [15-July 4] 1864. ….. 287

 

  • Excerpt of report of Major Jackson Lafayette Bost, Thirty-seventh North Carolina, of the campaign in Southeast Virginia, June 15-July 27, 1864. ….. 289

 

  • Report of Captain James Gilmer Harris, Seventh North Carolina, on the skirmish at the Jerusalem Plank Road, Virginia, June 22, 1864. ….. 290

 

  • Extract of report of Lieutenant-Colonel John Wright McGill, Eighteenth North Carolina, on the operations around Petersburg, Virginia, June 13-July 2[7], 1864. ….. 291

 

  • Statement of Major Thomas Jones Wooten, Eighteenth North Carolina, of the engagement at Jerusalem plank Road, Virginia, June 22, 1864. ….. 293

 

  • Report of Lieutenant-Colonel John Wright McGill, Eighteenth North Carolina, of the engagement at [First Deep Bottom], Virginia, July 28, 1864. ….. 294

 

  • Report of Lieutenant-Colonel William Henry Asbury Speer, Twenty-eighth North Carolina, of operations during the Southeast Virginia campaign, July 28, 1864. ….. 296

 

  • Report of Lieutenant Romulus Sydenham Folger, Twenty-eighth North Carolina, of the skirmish at Jerusalem Plank Road, Virginia, June 22, 1864. ….. 297

 

  • Report of Colonel Robert Van Buren Cowan, Thirty-third North Carolina, of the skirmish at Jerusalem Plank Road, Virginia, June 22, 1864. ….. 298

 

  • Report of Major Jackson Lafayette Bost, Thirty-seventh North Carolina, of action around [First Deep Bottom], Virginia, July 28, 1864. ….. 299

 

  • Report of Captain William J. Callais, Thirty-third North Carolina, of action during the Southeast Virginia [campaign], July [28], 1864. ….. 301

 

  • Report of Major Jackson Lafayette Bost, Thirty-seventh North Carolina, of the engagement at Jerusalem Plank Road, Virginia, June 22, 1864. ….. 302

 

  • Report of Major-General Robert Frederick Hoke, C. S. Army, of operations around the Crater, Petersburg, Virginia, July 30, 1864. ….. 303

 

  • Letter of Brigadier-General Thomas Lanier Clingman, C. S. Army, of engagement at Petersburg, June 17, 1864. ….. 304

 

  • Statement of Lieutenant-Colonel Matthew Robert Hall, Forty-eighth Georgia, of engagement in the Richmond, Virginia, campaign, July 30, 1864. ….. 309

 

  • Newspaper account of the Sixty-second Georgia Cavalry, a[t] Petersburg, Virginia, June 21[-30], 1864. ….. 310

 

  • Report of Colonel Dennis Dozier Ferebee, Fourth North Carolina Cavalry, C. S. Army, of operations near Petersburg, Virginia, June [10-15] 1864. ….. 315

 

  • Postwar account of Brigadier-General Nathaniel Harrison Harris on operations during the Richmond, Virginia, campaign, June [18-August 21] 1864. ….. 317

 

  • Report of Lieutenant-Colonel John Wright McGill, Eighteenth North Carolina, during the Richmond, Virginia, campaign, June [2]-July [18] 1864. ….. 320

 

  • Report of Lieutenant-Colonel William Henry Asbury Speer, Twenty-eighth North Carolina, of operations around Southeast Virginia, June 13-July 3, 1864. ….. 322

 

  • Report of Lieutenant-Colonel Robert Van Buren Cowan, Thirty-third North Carolina Infantry, on operations in Richmond, Virginia, campaign, June 13-July [3], 1864. ….. 324

 

  • Extract from abstract report of Colonel William James Hoke, Thirty-eighth North Carolina Troops, on the Richmond, Virginia, campaign, June 14-25, 1864. …..325

 

  • Journal of Captain John T. Wingfield, Eleventh Georgia Artillery, of operations of artillery (Company C), June 13-July 31, 1864. ….. 326

 

  • Report of Major-General Henry Heth, C. S. Army, on the operations of his division in the area of Riddell’s Shop and Reams’ Station, Virginia, June [13-August 17] 1864. ….. 330

 

  • Postwar report of Major-General Fitzhugh Lee, of operations of the Cavalry Corps in Virginia, June [21]-July [31], 1864. ….. 331

 

  • Report of Brigadier-General Williams Carter Wickham, on the engagement of Reams’ Station, Virginia, June 29[-30], 1864. ….. 334

 

  • Excerpt from the diary of William Johnson Black, containing report of Captain John Jordan Shoemaker, Shoemaker’s Battery, Stuart Horse Artillery (Virginia), Fitzhugh Lee’s Cavalry, C. S. Army, of the Richmond, Virginia, Campaign, June 13-July 31, 1864. ….. 335

 

  • Report of Captain William Morrell McGregor, C. S. Army, of operations of McGregor’s Battery, Stuart’s Horse Artillery, at Petersburg, Virginia, July 1-31, 1864. ….. 336

 

  • Excerpts from memorandum of Major James Dugue Ferguson, Assistant Adjutant-General, staff of Fitzhugh Lee, C. S. Army, on the Richmond, Virginia, campaign, June 15-July 31, 1864. ….. 337

 

Source:

  1. Supplement to the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Part I, Reports, Vol. 7, pp. 212-216
{ 0 comments }

[Engagement of Federal fleet with Confederate ironclads and shore batteries at Howlett’s, June 21, 1864.]

[Enclosure 3.]

U. S. S. Onondaga,
James River, Virginia, June 23, 1864.

An image of the double turreted monitor Onondaga

The Onondaga fired with both of her turrets during the Action at Howlett’s Bluff, June 21, 1864. (National Archives)

Sir: In obedience to your order, I submit the following report of the part taken by this vessel in the exchange of fire between the rebel battery near Howlett’s house and the ironclads of this squadron.

At 12:45 p. m., June 21, went to quarters in obedience to signal and opened fire on the battery with both rifle guns and forward XV-inch. At 1:30 ceased firing with after rifle and forward XV-inch. At 3:30 ceased firing with forward rifle and opened fire with after rifle. At 5 p. m. ceased fire altogether.

Expended 2 XV-inch charges, 45 pounds; 2 XV-inch shell, 10-second; 39 16-pound charges, 8-inch rifles; 39 percussion shell, 8-inch rifles.

The 45-pound charge in XV-inch was just able to reach over the battery; distance, say, 2,300 yards. Elevation of battery, say, 90 feet.

The rifles reached with about 7 degrees elevation, and all the projectiles fell near or at their mark, many with excellent effect.

The battery appeared much cut up by the fire of the ironclads.

The return fire from the battery, and also that from the direction of Cox’s Landing, supposed to be from the rebel ironclads, came near, but was not of importance.

Neither this vessel nor any of those on board were injured.

Some projectiles struck quite near, and one exploded near enough to throw pieces on deck, but beyond this the vessel was not struck.

Everything worked to my entire satisfaction and the vessel was comfortable.

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

C[harles]. H. CUSHMAN,
Lieutenant- Commander.

Acting Rear-Admiral S[amuel]. P. Lee,
Comdg. North Atlantic Blockading Squadron, James River.1

Map of the June 21, 1864 Action at Howlett's Bluff

This map shows the June 21, 1864 Action at Howlett’s Bluff, covered in this report.

Source:

  1. Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion, Series 1, Volume 10, pp. 181182
{ 0 comments }

DEATH OF GEN. A. P. HILL.—The following letter in regard to the death of [Third Corps commander] Gen. A[mbrose]. P[owell]. Hill, from our mutual friend, Lieut. C. P. Calhoun [of the 138th Pennsylvania], will be read with pride by many of our patriotic citizens. Bedford county truly has turned out as brave and daring soldiers as ever carried a musket or drew a sabre:

DANVILLE, Va., May 5, 1865.

EDITORS INQUIRER:—The following taken from the Norristown Herald and Free Press, of April 27th, I hope you will publish, that your readers may know that Bedford county can boast as brave patriots as ever fired a gun in defence of their country.

“Just after the assault upon the rebel works, April 2d [April 2, 1865], some of our men penetrated the country as far as the Southside Railroad, and two men of Co. “F,” [of the 138th Pennsylvania] named Corp. John W. Mauk and private Daniel Wolford were among the number.1 They tore up two rails of the track, and when returning to the command, they encountered two rebel mounted officers, who at once demanded their surrender. It was, however, refused, and Corp. Mauk shot one of them dead. Private Wolford shot at the other, but he escaped apparently unhurt. The men returned to their regiment and reported their adventure. It appears that information gained from rebel prisoners gives the circumstances of Gen. A. P. Hill’s death as similar to that of the officer shot by Corp. Mauk, and it is officially believed by our Brigade, Division and Corps commanders that the noted rebel officer above named met his well deserved death at the hands of a soldier of the 138th [Pennsylvania].2

The names of these men have been forwarded in the commanding officer’s report, and they are recommended for a suitable reward for their meritorious services.”

Since the above was written additional evidence has been established without doubt the correctness of the statement. It however appears that it was only an Orderly that accompanied A. P. Hill and he was severely though not mortally wounded. Corp. Mauk is from Cumberland Valley and private Daniel Wolford from Londonberry township. May a grateful country reward them, as well as all their brave comrades who participated in the crowning successes of the war, and the final overthrow of the rebellion.

Yours,

C[hrist.]. P. Calhoun3,
1st Lieutenant Co. “F.”4

If you are interested in helping us transcribe newspaper articles like the one above, please CONTACT US.

Article Image

18650519BedfordPAInquirerP3C3

Source/Notes:

  1. SOPO Editor’s Note: The Union Sixth Corps, of which these men and their regiment were a part, had broken through the Confederate lines southwest of Petersburg early on the morning of April 2, 1865, kicking off the Third Battle of Petersburg. The Southside Railroad ran west from Petersburg and was behind the extended Confederate lines.  Mauk and Wolford were trying to disrupt one of the last remaining rail lines out of Petersburg and Richmond.
  2. SOPO Editor’s Note: For a detailed discussion of Hill’s death and background on both Hill and Mauk, see “The Man Who Shot A.P. Hill” by Jon Guttman.
  3. SOPO Editor’s Note: A quick glance at the roster of the 138th Pennsylvania taken from Bates’ classic reference work led me to Christ. P. Calhoun of Company F.  He had been promoted from Sergeant back in January 1865. See his earlier letter to the Bedford Inquirer.
  4. “Death of Gen. A. P. Hill.” The Bedford Inquirer (Bedford, PA), July 14, 1865, p.3, col. 4.
{ 0 comments }