SAILORS LETTERS.
reprinted by Terry Foenander.
Newspapers of the Civil War period are a good source of locating research material, although there are many inaccuracies, and one must approach them with a degree of caution. However, there are also numerous letters written to the editors, which contain many observations from the point of the view of the common soldier and sailor, and these can be a very important source of first hand accounts of everyday life in camp and battle. Over the years I have collected copies of many of these letters from the newspapers available on microfilm, at several libraries in Australia.
Because the navy was often ignored by reporters and editors, letters to the editor from sailors in the Union and Confederate navies are very few and far between.
Transcribed below are examples of the few that have been located by this researcher. They have been previously reprinted in issue 5 of the now defunct ENSIGN, a privately printed newsletter "dedicated to the Union and Confederate Navies."
From the New York Herald of Sunday, August 16, 1863:
TO THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD,
UNITED STATES FLAGSHIP HARTFORD, BROOKLYN NAVY YARD, August 15, 1863. We are extremely sorry to be obliged to come before the public with any grievance at this time. We had no idea that our government would have appreciated our services so slightly when we have used our best endeavors to serve them in this their time of peril. It is true we have done no more than our duty to our country, and we are ready and willing to do it again; but we do wish for time to recruit our health, after having been locked up in the Mississippi river for nearly eighteen months, exposed to all manner of unpleasant weather, at times almost eaten up by mosquitoes, and the major portion of the time we have lived with our sidearms on, eat with them, slept with them, until it became almost second nature to us; much of our sleep has been obtained lying beside our broadside guns, or if it was considered safe for a watch to go below, then we had only the wet deck to sleep upon.
We have suffered everything from heat, chills and fever, and for much of the time, while we were above Port Hudson, we lived on half rations.
We desire it should be known that a large portion of the ship's company do not reside in New York, and we would like to see our friends, which it is impossible to do with twenty-four hours' leave and only five dollars in money. We appeal to our countrymen and the Navy Department to aid us in this matter. It is rumored that we are to be transferred to the North Carolina; but, rather than go to her, we would, half dead as we are, prefer to go to sea at once.
All we ask, provided we cannot be discharged, is, that we may have at least one month's liberty and one-half of the money that is due us. We have families who are depending upon us, and now our allotment tickets are stopped and we cannot get our dearly earned money. Give us our liberty and a portion of our money, and when the time comes we will be found on hand to serve our country with renewed vigor, and with credit to ourselves and our flag. THE SHIP'S COMPANY.
--------------
From the New York Herald of Sunday, August 23, 1863:
TO THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD.
NEW YORK, August 17, 1863. So frequently in the history of this war have noble men and women exerted themselves to aid our soldiers, both in the hospital and camp, that their good deeds have almost ceased to be noticed; yet those who are benefited, who receive the unexpected care and skill, feel most warmly towards their good Samaritan. I would record in your paper the name of J.H. Macomber, Surgeon United States Navy, recently attached to the gunboat Seneca. When the desperate assault of July 18 had been bravely made on Fort Wagner, and the large number of wounded had been gathered in, there was a scarcity of surgeons. In this emergency Surgeon Macomber, with some others, whose names I regret I cannot give, nobly volunteered to take care of them. It was my good fortune, with a number of officers, to be placed under the care of Dr. Macomber; and from the time we were taken on board the steamer Mary Benton, July 19, till we were placed on the steamer Cosmopolitan, to be brought North, July 27, he was unremitting in his attentions. Day and night he watched over us, handling us as tenderly as a woman, and by his pleasant words and cheerful smile exciting hope even in hearts soon to be stilled forever. To his own health he gave not a thought, although his incessant labor was wearing him out. We left him with regret; and, desiring to testify our admiration and esteem for him as a surgeon and gentleman, while on our way North, raised a sum with which a handsome watch has been purchased. It is now on exhibition at Tiffany & Co.'s. A neat letter on parchment has been prepared, which, with the watch, will in a few days be sent to this noble officer. ONE OF THE WOUNDED.
---------------
From the New York Daily Tribune of Monday, May 5, 1862:
To the Editor of the N.Y. Tribune.
SIR: I have this evening received a letter giving me the gratifying assurance that an error was unintentionally made by a reporter of the press, in placing the name of Commander Thatcher on the list of officers who left the United States Navy and joined that of the insurgents, a copy of which letter I forward you, and ask, as a matter of justice to him and his numerous friends, that it be published in THE TRIBUNE. The original mistake was not with you, but your paper has so extensive a circulation, that very serious injury may occur unless it is refuted. I am authorized by Secretary Welles, through the Hon. John H. Rice, Member of the House for the District, to publish this letter in THE TRIBUNE.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, GEO. A. THATCHER. Bangor, Me., April 24, 1862.
--------------------
From the New York Daily Tribune of Monday, May 5, 1862: [Addressed to GEO. A. THATCHER, Bangor, Maine.]
NAVY DEPARTMENT, April 19, 1862. SIR: I have received your communication of the 11th instant in reference to a list said to have been published in THE TRIBUNE at New York, on the 3d of March last, purporting to be the names of the officers who deserted the Navy of the United States and joined the navy of the insurgents, which list contains the name of Commander Henry K. Thatcher. Great injustice was unintentionally done by a reporter of the press in placing the name of Commander Thatcher on the list, and publishing him as a deserter to the Rebel cause. A correction of the error was made immediately on its being discovered by the newspaper in Washington which was the first to publish it.
The Department, however, takes great pleasure in stating to you that the name of Commander Thatcher is not in the original list captured at Roanoke, and in saying further that he is at present upholding the honor and flag of his country, and in command of the United States sloop-of-war Constellation in the Mediterranean.
I am respectfully your obedient servant, GIDEON WELLES.
--------------
From the New York Herald of Sunday, January 26, 1862:
TO THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD.
NEW YORK, Jan. 25, 1862. I beg to call your attention to a subject of great importance to the sailors of the navy, which I think will meet the approval of all naval officers, viz, the clothing furnished to the sailors on board men-of-war, particularly those serving on board of ships on exposed stations during the inclement weather at this season of the year. Jack wants something for his hard earned money that will keep him dry and warm. Some of the articles furnished for the navy are, in my opinion and many others, totally unfit; overcoats that, when wet, take two or three days to dry, and which, after a little wear, become so rotten you can pull them to pieces. Jack wants the good old fashioned pea or monkey jacket, for which he is willing to pay its full value, and it is very hard that, when he pays the price of a good article, to find it is shoddy, felt or cotton goods, instead of what is represented, wool.
If you will give the above a place in your valuable and wide spread journal you will be doing a kindness to the sailor, and perhaps lead the way to his being furnished with a better quality of clothing. ANTI SHODDY.
--------------
From the New York Herald of Thursday, October 8, 1863:
TO THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD.
NEW YORK, Oct. 6, 1863. I would like to be informed through your widely circulated sheet if an officer in the United States Navy can be taken from the ship he is attached to and be placed among the conscripts? On arriving home from St. George's I found a note at my house, from the Provost Marshal of the Ninth Congressional district, stating that I had been drafted, and requested me to appear at his office on the 6th day of October. I reported myself on the 6th, merely to prevent my name appearing in print as a deserter. On arriving there I informed the Marshal that I was employed in the navy and just returned from a cruise - supposing that would be sufficient. But I found that would not do. I then showed my commission papers. I procured an affidavit to show that I was not an impostor. The Provost Marshal would take no notice of the affidavit, and I was obliged to bring witness that I was over thirty-five years of age and had a family, before I could get clear of the Marshal. He informed me that any person acting on temporary service in the United States Navy was liable to be drafted, and obliged to go or furnish a substitute. By publishing these few lines and expressing your opinion on it, you will greatly oblige the undersigned and probably save a great many others from trouble and expense. ENGINEER.
----------------
From the New York Herald of Wednesday, February 12, 1862:
THE UNITED STATES GUNBOAT MIAMI.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD.
In a letter that appeared in the HERALD of the 4th inst. an error occurred that needs correction. It was in relation to the gunboat Miami, of Philadelphia, that was reported as having been picked up at sea in a sinking condition by the United States transport Constitution. It was there stated that "she had at the time nine feet of water in her hold, and that she was obliged to throw overboard all her guns in order to try and lighten her." Such is not the case, and her officers are anxious to have the true facts made known, which are as follows: - The boilers of the Miami are much too small, and are not able to generate sufficient steam to drive her engines, the wheels making only two or three revolutions, when they should make at least eighteen. The consequence was that she was unable to make any headway, and, meeting the Constitution, asked to be towed to the nearest port. Instead of having nine feet of water in her, her officers state that she had none, the only thing the matter with her being, as I before stated, that her boilers are too small. As she only draws seven feet of water at any time, she could hardly have nine feet of water in her hold. In regard to her guns having been thrown over, it is sufficient to say that they are all on board at the present time, and likely to remain there. Her officers speak of her in the highest terms, and only complain of the fact of her having been sent to seas without first having a trial trip. Before she can in any way be rendered effective as a gunboat there will have to be new boilers placed in her and a few alterations made. She at present lies in the Delaware, and her singular build attracts considerable attention.
A NAVAL OFFICER.
----------------
From the New York Herald of Monday, February 10, 1862:
TO THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD.
NEWPORT, Feb. 8, 1862. As you have published an article from the Boston Post containing charges against Lieut. Temple, will you be so kind as to do that officer the justice to publish the enclosed reply to these charges, and oblige FAIR PLAY?
Will you allow me space in your valuable columns to suggest to your readers that they suspend their opinion in regard to an article in the Post on the conduct of Lieutenant Temple, in command of the Flambeau, at Nassau, N.P. I have been intimate with this officer for years, and know that a man more decidedly and unconditionally loyal to the Union does not exist in the whole country. Secession and disunion in every form and shape are his utter abomination; and the question of the Union is the only political question in which he has been, or is, warmly interested; all others, with him, being secondary, or entirely insignificant. I know that the Navy Department has awarded him the highest praise for the manner in which he conducted affairs, in his delicate position at Nassau, and was most desirous that he should remain there on duty; but he has written to his friends that his health is such that he does not feel that he could properly discharge the duties devolved upon him at that post. He returned from the Pacific in the month of October last, and although he had not entirely recovered from the Panama fever, by which he had been prostrated during the summer, he immediately applied to the department for active service; but he has now discovered what sad inroads that fever has made upon his constitution. What he is reported to have said about "the bombardment of Boston," and "returning the compliment to the Caroline," may be all true, but I am sure that the remarks would appear very differently when all he did say, and all the circumstances in connection with the remarks were given. I would, therefore, again ask your readers to suspend their opinion until this matter is further elucidated.
-------------
From the New York Herald of Friday, September 25, 1863:
TO THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD.
NEW YORK, Sept. 23 1863. The crew of the United States steamer Richmond desire to express through the columns of your paper the high respect and esteem they entertain for Captain James Alden, United States Navy, their late commander, who led them in all the engagements with the enemy on the Mississippi river, from Forts Jackson and St. Phillip to Vicksburg. Our ship being now on the eve of again leaving this port to aid in bringing this rebellion to a close (which we anticipate will be soon), it would be to us most gratifying if Captain Alden were again to command our vessel. An officer like him, with such a vessel as the Richmond, is an acquisition for naval warfare. And it may not be here out of place to say that hopes exist he may be again our immediate commander. When leaving here again, should it be our happy lot to realize this hope, it will, we assure you, be but to add to the lustre of the battles he fought the Richmond in on the Mississippi, at Fort Jackson, Fort St. Philip, and several batteries going up to New Orleans, also from New Orleans up to Vicksburg, which fortifications we had some warm engagements with on several occasions. After leaving the Mississippi to go on the blockade off Mobile, the necessity of the service recalled us to co-operate with General Banks' army. Captain Alden showed the rebels, on every occasion that offered to him, his determination to bring them into submission. At Port Hudson, while acting in concert against the batteries, the Richmond became disabled from the enemy's works, and had to drop below their range, to which she did not return, being disabled for further service there. Captain Alden left us here for New Orleans, in a tug which was attacked by guerillas on her way down. Having only a small gun on board he was in no way daunted, but resisted the rebels by bringing the tug into action with them, remarking that "if I had the crew of the Richmond here I would soon subdue you." Not being able to stand a lengthy contest with them on that occasion he could not effect his wish, and had to leave them.
When it became known he was to leave our ship, all on board had feelings of gloom in their bosoms, for they felt they were parting with one who had been to them a friend on every occasion where friendship could be displayed, as well as being a strict disciplinarian and patriotic officer.
He has our best wishes, and we can assure him we will ever carry with us a grateful memory of him, and should he again be our commander, show him the Richmond's crew has every confidence in him while serving under the Stars and Stripes, feeling assured he is a true patriot.
THE CREW OF THE RICHMOND.
--------------
From the Richmond, Virginia, Enquirer of Tuesday, October 14, 1862, reprinted in the New York Herald of Monday, October 27, 1862:
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ENQUIRER.
The article under the caption "Promotion in the Navy," which has recently appeared in your columns, is so unmistakably the production of an individual recipient of the favors flowing from the late enactment of Congress, allowing a limited number of naval officers to be promoted for "gallant or meritorious services," that in this reply I shall be constrained to keep prominently in view this fact, or assumption, that I may the better illustrate the evils flowing from the execution of the law as it is, rather than for any purpose of attacking the law itself.
The intent and purposes of the article in question, I assume, is not merely to convince the navy, the people at large and the Congress of the propriety of the law promoting for "gallant or meritorious services," but it aims at inducing the Congress, at least, to conclude that, the law itself being a good one, no evil consequences need be apprehended from a firm adherence to it. This being the prominent intent of the writer - well knowing, as he does, the universal dissatisfaction occasioned among naval men by the recent promotions under the law - I shall proceed to refute his arguments by a simple narration of facts, leaving the instructive moral to be deduced therefrom. But, first, let me deny the writer's assertion that naval officers generally object to the principle of promotion, by merit, or for gallant achievements. It most probably suited the writer's case to leave out the latter clause, he having, as I believe, "studied to live long and comfortably," achieving only the merit of having achieved his promotion over the heads of his superiors in rank, as in professional ability, by studiously remaining in Richmond during the war, and thus giving practical evidence of his own advocacy of the "longevity system." The practice of the navies of the Old World is to promote for gallant and meritorious services - the conjunction, and not the preposition "or," has been used in framing our law - being deemed the essential concomitant to entitle one to the honors under the law. This seems perfectly plain; but however it may be, I believe it to have been the unmixed desire of Congress in passing the law to have promoted the efficiency of the naval service thereby. I am unable to say positively that the framer of the law had only in view the promotion of a favorite, who "aspired to distinction in paths allied to the service." The sphere of naval action is legitimately upon the waters, the rewards should be rigidly confined to performances within that sphere, except for very rare cases, where mere merit, uncoupled with gallantry, may be so conspicuous as to have excited the attention of the nation at large. No one will deny that Commander Mathew F. Maury is a meritorious officer, but his merit is intrinsic rather than manifested by special actions, and so he could not hope to be promoted.
But to facts. Those who are not conversant with naval affairs will be surprised to learn that, out of the five commanders made under the law, but one - certainly not more than two of the number - have been under the fire of the enemy during the war. The purpose of the law was to promote for gallant and meritorious services some very few, five being the highest number eligible in any grade.
Those who are not conversant with naval affairs will be surprised to learn, further, that the conspicuously gallant and meritorious officers (in the world renowned action of the Virginia, alias Merrimac) Tucker, Barney, Parker and Catesby Jones - all with separate commands - have not only not been promoted, but they have suffered the mortification of having had their juniors placed over their heads by the snap judgment under which the existing law is left to be executed. The command of Farrand, at Drury's Bluff, saved the city of Richmond from certain capture. His reward was displacement after having made the fight, and more recently his junior has been passed over his head. And so it has been with Cook, whose gallantry at Roanoke Island, in the defence of his vessel, was most meritorious. There are other cases, but the most grievous one remains to be recited. I allude to the appointment of Bullock to the grade of commander, from civil life, over the heads of all the lieutenants of the navy proper, some seventy odd in number, including several who have since been promoted for "gallant and meritorious services," and quite a number who have not been promoted for gallant and meritorious services, such as Fairfax, Mafett and others.
But it must be spoken to the honor of Bullock, that he placed on record his protest against being made, to use his own language, a firebrand in the navy, by being placed over the heads of men who had always ranked him, saying to the Navy Department that all that he asked or could ask, without doing gross injustice to such, was, that he might be placed upon the naval register in the relative position he would have occupied had he never resigned.
There is much magnanimity in his course, yet had his wishes merely been complied with there would still have remained some forty lieutenants who would have felt deeply as all have been made to feel, the implied stigma upon their professional capabilities in having an outsider placed over their heads, and this done at a time when, for the most part, these very officers were serving, as they only could, with the army, there being no naval duties to command their services.
Whilst no one pretends that the country has not the unquestioned right to place any of her sons in positions where their merit can most conduce to her interests and success in this great struggle for freedom, all feel the slight - nay, gross wrong - done them by the act of the government which thus plainly publishes their unfitness to command, by deliberately passing over their heads, without a pretended exigency, an individual from civil life.
If more commanders were needed why were not the selections made from the naval lieutenants for the purpose? It cannot be pretended that such were unavailable, neither that the requisite qualifications were lacking within the range of their numbers. In proof of which position it is only necessary to point to the subsequent promotions from the list of Cook, North, Pegram; and, probably, the author of the very article in question himself. And, just here, I must draw the contrast of the manly, chivalrous conduct of Pegram (in protesting against the injury to the service by his being placed over the heads of his brother officers - "men who had been tried and never found wanting") and the individual who I fancy to be the author of the article signed "Navy" - himself promoted - who, whether he be the same person or not, has nevertheless an entity. Non-entity he might have been for me but for his covert attack upon the navy in his late transparent effort to defend his own unassailed position.
Pegram says, "I protest that I have done nothing to entitle me to promotion over the heads of my brother officers who have for thirty years stood above me - men who have never been found wanting," & c. The other party says, "the more he considers the subject the more surprising it is that any one can be found so oblivious to his merits as to object to his promotion." Modest worth, unselfish patriotism that so manfully defends the law, the abuse of which alone makes him meritorious.
It is, then, most apparent, from the brief history of the promotions under the law, that the aim and legitimate ends of the law may be perverted, and the esprit de corps of the service thereby injured. By a simple amendment directing a naval board of officers - some nine or twelve in number - chosen for the most part from the grade above the individual nominee, to pass upon the merits of each case sent up for promotion. The opinions of this advisory board will be worth more in arriving at the relative merits of naval men than can possibly be the judgement of a single individual, who is, under our system, necessarily ignorant of both naval men and matter. QUASI NAVY.
Copyright, Terry Foenander.
June, 2000.