Take Me to
List of Pages/Chapters
Previous Pages
Next Pages
Bibliography
CHAPTER 34
Confusion, Confusion, Confusion
pages 655 - 660
page 655
He stated this program would be in effect only if circumstances justified holding Alexandria for any period of time.58 Holding any place in that area was in conflict with his previous declarations and in conflict with the orders from Halleck and Lincoln to concentrate on Vicksburg. His superiors in Washington would react very negatively to these proposals, but by the time they knew all this Banks would be gone from the Red River.Because news arrived of Grierson's great cavalry dash down the state of Mississippi, Banks wrote a second letter on May 4. He expanded on the other announced plan, indicating that Grierson's force would be just what was needed to capture the Louisiana legislature at Shreveport en route back to Grierson's base in Tennessee. In this second letter he also announced to Halleck that a movement toward Alexandria would begin on the 5th in conjunction with the fleet. The city would be occupied, or not, "as events shall justify."59
Colonel Benjamin Grierson had been creating panic among the Confederates on the eastern side of the Mississippi. His nearly 1,000-man cavalry force started from Tennessee as Grant was preparing to cross the Mississippi. Sustaining very few casualties, they damaged a number of rail
58. May 4, 1863, OR, I, 15: 310.
59. May 4, 1863, OR, I, 15: 307.
page 656
connections, took the paroles of many hundreds of prisoners, and—more importantly—diverted thousands of Confederates away from Vicksburg who should have been concentrating on Grant. Grierson's men curved down into southwestern Mississippi, then through the rear of Port Hudson to Baton Rouge. On the same day that Farragut was astonished to see Union boats coming up the Atchafalaya, the people of Baton Rouge were amazed to see this Union cavalry force escorted into town for a victory parade at the end of its 600-mile odyssey.60 The Massachusetts general described Grierson's raid to Halleck as the "most brilliant expedition of the war."61
Grierson’s party was supposed to join up with General Grant south of Vicksburg, but that route was blocked. Grierson then moved down to Baton Rouge. In the process, he aided the Port Hudson situation immeasurably by destroying parts of the railroad from Mississippi to the Port Hudson area.62 The Federal gunboats on the Mississippi had earlier eliminated the Confederate command's ability to get more troops to Port Hudson by the river route. So it would be difficult now to send Confederate reinforcements to Port Hudson, making a Federal operation against the town much safer. In addition, Grierson had doubled the size of the cavalry available to Banks and made it easier thereby to attack Port Hudson. Banks would eventually decide to withhold the return of Grant's cavalry. His reason was likely Grant's own failure to provide the promised army corps.63
60. OR, I, 24, pt. I: 528.
61. OR, I, 26, pt. I: 524.
62. They would not rebuild the rail line connecting to near Port Hudson during the war.
63. General Ambrose Burnside was also trying to get back from Grant in that period troops which Grant borrowed.
page 657
For the present, the gloom the Waltham general had expressed a day earlier to his wife was suddenly gone in a new letter in which he explained he hoped the upper river forces would soon arrive as reinforcements. He said he was "never in better spirits."64 This change in attitude undoubtedly originated with the receipt of Grant's delayed, more encouraging note sometime on the 4th. This replaced Farragut's news that Grant was attacking Vicksburg. Grant's brief dispatch was dated April 14, in which he said he would have a corps of men for Banks north of Port Hudson "by the 25th."65 April 25 was a date that had long since passed. This note was written from Milliken's Bend across from Vicksburg. Without that heading and the earlier date, everything else suggested this was a more recent note. Grant said he would send his men to Bayou Sara near Port Hudson. Banks himself had spoken of Bayou Sara as the landing site in his April 30 letter.66
Grant also occupied Grand Gulf for the first time on May 3. In this newly received, but old, note, Grant also said: "I am concentrating my forces at Grand Gulf." This was a good description of Grant's army on May 3 but not when the note was written. It would seem that Banks did not read the dates and locations on Grant's note very well. Banks replied (received by Grant on May 10): "By the 25th [of May], probably, by the 1st, certainly we will be there."67 Banks had been even briefer than Grant, but, in this case, brevity was neither the soul of wit nor the nub of reality.
On May 5, Banks's men pushed on quickly towards Alexandria. The possibility of capturing steamboats should the army arrive before the Confederates moved upriver may have motivated this sudden move. The general held back a day, then rode rapidly to the front and to Alexandria. "In celerity and unity of movement the march left nothing to be desired," he reported. No straggling. No vandalism. Grover's division marched ninety miles in three days, and Weitzel's eighty-four miles in four days. Union Rear Admiral David Dixon Porter, Farragut's foster brother, who had brought up
64. N. P. Banks to Mary T. Banks, May 4, 1863, N. P. Banks papers, LOC, box 5.
65. OR, I, 24, pt. III: 192; Forrest Osburn indicated he delivered the dispatch on May 4, Osburn to Banks, Mar. 11, 1878, N. P. Banks papers, LOC, box 59.
66. This April 30 letter was likely sent by the messenger boat up the Atchafalaya to the admiral, but the admiral reported that the boat to Grant had just left before Banks's boat arrived. (OR, I, 15: 307.) It is unknown if Banks clearly understood that his most recent letter would not go through quickly. There had been two previous mailings to Grant via New Orleans, only one of which seems to have gotten to Farragut in time for the May 1 turn-around. The admiral could have helped communication considerably by mentioning to Banks which of the general's letters had gone forward to Grant.
67. May 6, 1863, OR, I, 24, pt. III: 276.
page 658
four ironclad gunboats from the Mississippi, greeted Banks on his arrival.68
There was apparently some Union sentiment up in the Alexandria area, the admiral being surprised to find the inhabitants cheering the gunboats along the river.69 Admiral Porter's note of May 4 provided Banks the first reliable news from the Vicksburg area. It is unclear whether this note or Porter himself reached Banks first. Since it is not known what Porter reported orally to Banks, the contents of his note will have to substitute. The admiral had previously downplayed the army's role at the capture of Arkansas Post in his reports, and Porter now similarly portrayed the capture of Grand Gulf as a naval operation in which a lengthy artillery duel ended in the surrender of the garrison. He made no mention of the fact that Grant's army got in the rear of Grand Gulf after crossing the river, causing the Confederates to blow up their own artillery prior to leaving.Of more importance to Banks than how Grand Gulf was captured, was Porter's intelligence that Grant now had 50,000 men on the eastern side of the river and that they intended to operate against Vicksburg.70 Porter even said the Rebels were likely to evacuate Vicksburg. After the war, Porter claimed Banks during his stay in Alexandria asked no questions about Grant's movements. But, said Porter, the Massachusetts general was at least
68. OR, I, 15: 313. One of the soldiers suggested straggling did exist on this march, but stuffing the trailing men into wagons and ambulances solved the problem. (Carpenter, History of the 8th Regiment Vermont Volunteers, 1861-1865, Press p. 107)
69. "Journal of Occurrences during the War of the Rebellion," [actually a memoir], p. 640, David D. Porter papers, LOC, box 22.
70. May 4, 1863, OR, I, 15: 312; Andrews to Emory, May 5, 1863, Natl. Archives, RG 393, pt. II, entry 6428, 19th Corps, Letters & Others Records; N. P. Banks to C. C. Augur, May 5, 1863, Christopher C. Augur papers, ALPL.
page 659
gentlemanly in his deportment.71
The same day that Porter wrote his note to Banks, Admiral Farragut provided his own intelligence about Port Hudson, telling Banks he thought that only 12,000 men were left there, 5,000 having departed.72
One of the concerns that may have held Banks back earlier from advancing north to Alexandria was that Taylor had placed much of his cavalry on Banks's western flank. This presence would subject any Union march northward to cavalry raids. By May 2, Banks knew that these troops had moved toward Texas and were out of the area.73 Six days later he sent word to subcommanders that the enemy was in no condition to attack his army or the wagon train in its rear.74
Based on a completely false perception of Grant coming to Port Hudson as listed in the arriving dispatch, Banks began to prepare in earnest to move there. Reality returned with the arrival of the May 10th dispatch saying Grant was not coming.
Grant wrote the May 10 dispatch from Rocky Springs, well inland from the Mississippi River. He indicated he had intended to send Banks a corps once he had taken Grand Gulf. But the Confederates had attacked him at Port Gibson. He pursued the enemy to the Big Black River near Vicksburg and now "could not afford to retrace his steps." In short, Grant could not now send the corps. Banks did not need to know the sequence of events at Port Gibson and Grand Gulf or how extended Grant might be in order to deduce that he was now on his own in dealing with Port Hudson. Grant softened the blow by telling Banks that he had reliable information that Port Hudson "is almost entirely evacuated." Grant also wanted Grierson's cavalry back, and he asked Banks to join him or send troops to Vicksburg.75 Grant had waited until the last minute before beginning his great sweep to the east of Vicksburg to write. The timing does not seem accidental.
It also may not have been accidental that Grant had selected John McClernand's corps for transfer to Banks at Port Hudson. He and McClernand did not get along. When Grant finally moved into the Mississippi interior, he
71. "Journal of Occurrences during the War of the Rebellion," [actually a memoir], p. 647, David D. Porter papers, LOC, box 22.
72. OR, I, 15: 718. This was apparently brought from Farragut by Capt. Sargent and was in Banks's possession by May 5, as per N. P. Banks to C. C. Augur, May 5, 1863, Christopher C. Augur papers, ALPL.
73. OR, I, 15: 305.
74. Banks's adjutant to Cuvier Grover and to Col. Thomas E. Chickering, Natl. Archives, RG 393, pt. I, entry 1738, Dept. Gulf, Letters Sent.
75. OR, I, 24, pt. III: 288
page 660
initially placed McClernand's corps in the reserve positions as he shuffled the three corps eastward around Vicksburg. He would not be able to keep McClernand's men out of the fray for long once he was headed away from the river area, but in selecting this corps for Port Hudson Grant seems to have considered them the least reliable of his forces.
All the latest dispatches from the lower river had arrived near Grant's headquarters by May 3.76 Why did he not reply to Banks after he had these letters? Admiral Porter departed Grand Gulf prior to midday of the 3rd with half his gunboats and accompanied by the messenger boat sent from Farragut.77 Grant had his hands full the previous several days with combat, and his only other letters during this period were to his subcommanders. He arrived at Grand Gulf several hours after Porter left.78 Without any word from Grant, Banks would have to rely on Admiral Porter for whatever news and impressions he might have.
Porter later claimed that Grant had already decided to go inland to Vicksburg at a meeting in Porter's cabin long before Grant's men marched down the west bank in the last weeks of April.79 Circumstances and Porter’s other letters suggest that the decision more likely came between the 17th and 25th of April.80
On May 1, Porter—while out of contact with Grant—wrote Washington that Grant ought to get to Vicksburg by May 3, but he doubted Grant would accomplish his goal.81 And when Porter arrived in Alexandria several days after he left Grant on May 3, he also spoke of Grant intending to go to Vicksburg. He seemed to have known this despite the fact he weighed anchor from Grand Gulf before Grant, whom he had not seen for days, arrived back
76. ORN, I, 24: 627, 692.
77. ORN, I, 24: 627, 645.
78. Grant, Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant, pp. 267-68; log of Carondolet, May 3, 1863, ORN, I, 24: 692; ltr. Commander E. K. Owen, May 3, 1863, ORN, I, 24: 628; Porter to Welles, May 3, 1863, Ibid., 626; Porter to Welles, May 7, 1863, Ibid., 645. The naval records show Porter left Grand Gulf at noon; Grant arrived at 2 p.m.
79. "Journal of Occurrences during the War of the Rebellion," [actually a memoir], p. 556, David D. Porter papers, LOC, box 22. If this were correct, Porter did not mention it in a letter to the navy department dated April 17.
80. Porter was never an accurate historian, but this cabin story was his explanation written shortly after the end of the war. In a mid-April letter he spoke instead of getting Farragut past Port Hudson in about a week. (Porter to G. V. Fox, Apr. 17, 1863, Thompson and Wainwright, Confidential Correspondence of Gustavus Vasa Fox, vol. II, p. 171) The next week, on the 25th, Porter was writing that the army had gone to look for a new route to Vicksburg. (Porter to G. V. Fox, Apr. 25, 1863, in Thompson and Wainwright, Ibid., p. 172.)
81. Porter to G. V. Fox, May 1, 1863, Thompson and Wainwright, Ibid., pp. 180-1.
Take Me to
List of Pages/Chapters
Previous Pages
Next Pages
Bibliography