Diary of Gideon Welles: Saturday, August 5, 1865

Captain Drayton died last night. The nation is not aware of the loss it has sustained. There will be difficulty in finding an equally good man for his position. Truthful, intelligent, discriminating, with no partialities or prejudices that were allowed to interfere with his duties, he was invaluable.

I recall more distinctly our last interview and conversation on the Wednesday before he died. He took great interest in the Naval Academy. Thought Porter well adapted for the place at this time when rigor and renovation were wanted. Blake he considered no disciplinarian, too much of a courtier, not severely and sternly truthful. I remarked to him that I had at one time thought of Foote as a proper successor to Blake, but it was before he was made an Admiral. He said that Foote had some excellent qualities but was not, perhaps, full up to the position. Knowing that Raymond Rodgers and Drayton had been pets of Du Pont, I thought it a good time to ascertain how far he had permitted himself to be mixed up with the Du Pont clique. Drayton said promptly and at once that Rodgers was not adapted to the post, that it would have been unfortunate to have given it to him. I told him I had become aware of that, though at one time partial to him for the position, chiefly on the recommendation of Du Pont, strongly favored and indorsed by Fox; but when I came personally to know more of Rodgers, and see how he chose to identify himself without reason with Du Pont's controversy – become a partisan – and to quarrel with the Department for no cause, [I saw] that it would not do to appoint him. In all this canvassing of characters there was coincidence of views between us, even when I had previously supposed there was a difference. It was no conforming of his opinions to mine, for Drayton was truthful; though modest, he was independent and frank.

I authorized Admiral Porter to take charge of the funeral ceremonies, as we heard nothing from his relatives and friends. Telegrams were again sent to Alexander Hamilton, Jr., also to relatives at Hyde Park, informing of Drayton's decease.

I called to see the President, but his family had just arrived from Tennessee, and, he not being well, I deferred my business, which was, among other things, to deliver a letter sent to me by Mrs. James K. Polk.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 353-4

Diary of Gideon Welles: Friday, June 23, 1865

Rear-Admiral Dahlgren returned this morning from Charleston. Two years since he left. Simultaneous with his return come tidings of the death of Rear-Admiral Du Pont, whom he relieved, and who died this A.M. in Philadelphia. Du Pont possessed ability, had acquirements, was a scholar rather than a hero. He was a courtier, given to intrigue, was selfish, adroit, and skillful. Most of the Navy were attached to him and considered his the leading cultured mind in the service. He nursed cliques. There are many intelligent and excellent officers, however, who look upon him with exceeding dislike; yet Du Pont had, two and three years ago, greater personal influence than any man in the service. He knew it, and intended to make it available in a controversy with the Department on the subject of the monitor vessels, to which he took a dislike. Although very proud, he was not physically brave. Pride would have impelled him to go into action, but he had not innate daring courage. He was determined not to retain his force or any portion of it in Charleston Harbor, insisted it could not be done, disobeyed orders, was relieved, and expected to rally the Navy and country with him, but was disappointed. Some of his best friends condemned his course. He sought a controversy with the Department, and was not successful. Disappointed and chagrined, he has been unhappy and dissatisfied. I believe I appreciated and did justice to his good qualities, and am not conscious that I have been at any time provoked to do him wrong. He challenged me to remove him, and felt confident I would not do it. I would not have done it had he obeyed orders and been zealous for operations against Charleston. As it was, I made no haste, and only ordered Foote and Dahlgren when I got ready. Then the step was taken. Du Pont was amazed, yet had no doubt the Navy would be roused in his favor, and that he should overpower the Department. Months passed. He procured two or three papers to speak for him, but there was no partisanship in the Navy for him, except with about half a dozen young officers, whom he had petted and trained, and a few mischievous politicians.

Returning to Delaware, he went into absolute retirement. None missed or called for him. This seclusion did not please him and became insupportable, but he saw no extrication. He therefore prepared a very adroit letter in the latter part of October, 1863, ostensibly an answer to a dispatch of mine written the preceding June. This skillful letter, I have reason to believe, was prepared in concert with H. Winter Davis, and was intended to be used in an assault on me at the session of Congress then approaching. Although much engaged, I immediately replied, and in such a manner as to close up Du Pont. Davis, however, made his attack in Congress, but in such a way as not to draw out the correspondence. Others remedied that deficiency, and Davis got more than he asked. Du Pont sank. He could rally no force, and the skill and tact at intrigue which had distinguished him in earlier years and in lower rank was gone. He felt that he was feeble and it annoyed him. Still, his talent was not wholly idle. False issues were put forth, and doubtless some have been deceived by them.

Admiral Porter is ordered to superintend the Naval School. In some respects a good officer, but is extravagant in expenditure sometimes, and I am apprehensive has a tendency to be partial. I trust, however, he may prove successful.

A letter of General Grant, urging the necessity of prompt action against the Imperial Government of Mexico, was read in Cabinet. Differences of opinion were expressed, but there was not a general concurrence in the apprehensions expressed by General Grant, who, naturally perhaps, desires to retain a large military force in service.

In a long conversation with Blair this evening he told me he had put himself in communication with some of the New York editors. Greeley had disappointed him, and was unreliable. Marble of the World he commends highly. I incline to think he has ability and he, or some of his writers, exhibits more comprehension of the true principles and structure of the government than in other journals. There is in the World more sound doctrine in these days than in most papers.

Blair still holds on to McClellan, — stronger, I think, than he did a year ago. Perhaps Marble and his New York friends have influenced him more than he supposes, and that he, instead of, or as well as they, may have been at least partially converted.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 320-22

Diary of Gideon Welles: Friday, September 2, 1864

Admiral Farragut’s dispatch relative to the capture of Fort Morgan and the infamous conduct of General Page in spiking his guns after his surrender is received. It was most disgraceful and would justify severe treatment.

Some of the Administration presses and leaders have undertaken to censure me for slighting Du Pont. Not one of them awards me any credit for selecting Farragut. Yet it was a great responsibility, for which I was severely criticized, and until he had proved himself worthy of my choice, I felt it.

The contrast between Farragut and Du Pont is marked. No one can now hesitate to say which is the real hero; yet three years ago it would have been different. Farragut is earnest, unselfish, devoted to the country and the service. He sees to every movement, forms his line of battle with care and skill, puts himself at the head, carries out his plan, if there is difficulty leads the way, regards no danger to himself, dashes by forts and overcomes obstructions. Du Pont, as we saw at Sumter, puts himself in the most formidable vessel, has no order of battle, leads the way only until he gets within cannon-shot range, then stops, says his ship would not steer well, declines, however, to go in any other, but signals to them to go forward without order or any plan of battle, does not enjoin upon them to dash by the forts; they are stopped under the guns of Sumter and Moultrie, and are battered for an hour, a sufficient length of time to have gone to Charleston wharves, and then they are signalled to turn about and come back to the Admiral out of harm's way.

When I appointed Du Pont to command a squadron, I met the public expectation. All but a few naval officers, most of whom were under a cloud, approved and applauded so judicious a selection. But no cheering response was made to the appointment of Farragut. Some naval officers said he was a daring, dashing fellow, but they doubted his discretion and ability to command a squadron judiciously. Members of Congress inquired who he was, and some of them remonstrated, and questioned whether I was not making a mistake, for he was a Southern man and had a Southern wife. Neither the President nor any member of the Cabinet knew him, or knew of him except, perhaps, Seward, but he was not consulted and knew nothing of the selection until after it was made. When told of the appointment, he inquired if Farragut was equal to it, and asked if it would not have been better to have transferred Du Pont to that command.

Farragut became a marked man in my mind when I was informed of the circumstances under which he left Norfolk. At the time the Virginia convention voted to secede he denounced the act, and at once abandoned the State, leaving his home and property the day following, avowing openly and boldly, in the face and hearing of the Rebels by whom he was surrounded, his determination to live and die owing allegiance to no flag but that of the Union under which he had served. This firm and resolute stand caused me not only to admire the act, but led me to inquire concerning the man. I had known of him slightly during Polk's administration, when I had charge of a naval bureau, remembered his proposition to take San Juan d'Ulloa at Vera Cruz, and all I heard of him was well, but he was generally spoken of as were other good officers. Fox, Foote, and Dahlgren gave him a good name. Admiral D. D. Porter was emphatic in his favor, and his knowledge and estimate of men were generally pretty correct. Admiral Smith considered him a bold, impetuous man, of a great deal of courage, and energy, but his capabilities and power to command a squadron was a subject to be determined only by trial.

Had any other man than myself been Secretary of the Navy, it is not probable that either Farragut or Foote would have had a squadron. At the beginning of the Rebellion, neither of them stood prominent beyond others. Their qualities had not been developed; they had not possessed opportunities. Foote and myself were youthful companions at school. And I have stated the circumstances under which Farragut was brought to my notice. Neither had the showy name, the scholastic attainments, the wealth, the courtly talent, of Du Pont. But both were heroes. Du Pont is a polished naval officer, selfish, heartless, calculating, scheming, but not a hero by nature, though too proud to be a coward.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 133-5

Diary of Gideon Welles: Tuesday, August 23, 1864

Received dispatches to-day from Admiral Farragut confirming intelligence received several days since through Rebel sources. The official account confirms my own previous impressions in regard to operations. Secretary Stanton in one of his bulletins represented that Fort Gaines had surrendered to General Granger and the army. It is shown that the proposition of Colonel Anderson, who commanded the fort, was to surrender to the fleet after the monitors had made an assault, that Admiral Farragut consulted with General Granger, that the terms were dictated from the squadron, that Colonel Anderson and Major Brown went on board the Admiral's vessel when the arrangement was consummated, etc.

Why should the Secretary of War try to deprive an officer like Farragut and the naval force of what is honestly their due? It is only one of many like occurrences during the War. I do not recollect a single instance of generous award to the Navy by Stanton or Halleck. Some will doubtless get in error by it, but I think the country mainly rightly appreciates it, and history may put all right. Not the history of this day and period; a generation at least must pass away before the errors, prejudices, and perversion of partisans will be dissipated, and the true facts be developed. I have had but brief opportunities to look into the so-called histories of the great events now passing, but the cursory examination which I have given let me see mountains of error, and much of it, I am sorry to say, was not unintentional on the part of the writers. Facts were made or worked to suit the partialities or prejudices of the person who professed to record them. Many in this day who read and hear of the capture of New Orleans believe it was taken by General Butler and the army, who were a hundred miles distant when the city surrendered, and it is obviously the purpose of the Secretary of War to so spread such an impression in regard to the capture of Fort Gaines, so that the Navy shall not have the credit.

It does not surprise nor grieve me that another and different class — the intense partisan - should wholly ignore the Navy Department in all naval victories. No word of credit is awarded us by them for the late achievement, yet I know the people are not wholly ignorant on the subject. Some of the more thoughtful will appreciate the labor and responsibility devolving on those who prepared the work, and furnished the means for the work in hand. Some credit is due for the selection of Farragut in the first instance. Mervine had been first assigned to command the blockade in the Gulf. I found when organizing the squadron at the commencement of the Rebellion that there was pressure and claim of usage for the senior officers. Many who were counted best had seceded and proved traitors. My thoughts turned to Gregory for that command, but Paulding, who was then the detailing officer, persuaded me to take Mervine. It was a mistake. Gregory is infinitely the better man. A few months satisfied me that Mervine, a worthy man doubtless, was good for nothing as an officer for such duties as the times required, and he was detached. He and his friends were greatly miffed and wanted a court of inquiry. Anxious to secure an efficient man for his successor, I consulted many and scrutinized carefully. The choice was eventually narrowed down to two, McKean and C. H. Bell. Foote, whom I consulted with others, after much hesitation inclined me to McKean, of whom I thought well from his promptness and patriotism immediately on his return from Japan in the Niagara. He was certainly an improvement on Mervine, but yet not the man, I was soon convinced, partly from ill health, — for the work that was wanted.

When the expedition to New Orleans was determined upon, the question as to who should have command of the naval forces became a subject of grave and paramount importance. I had heard that Farragut resided in Norfolk at the beginning of the troubles, but that he abandoned the place when Virginia seceded and had taken up his residence in the city of New York. The fact interested me. I had known something of him in Polk's administration, and his early connection with Commodore Porter was in his favor. All that I heard of him was to his credit as a capable, energetic, and determined officer, of undoubted loyalty. Admirals Joe Smith and Shubrick spoke well of him. The present Admiral D. D. Porter, who, with others, was consulted, expressed confidence in him, and as Porter himself was to take a conspicuous part in the expedition, it had an important influence. But among naval officers there was not a united opinion. Most of them, I think, while speaking well of Farragut, doubted if he was equal to the position, certainly not so well appointed a man as others, - but yet no one would name the man for a great and active campaign against Mobile or some other point. They knew not of New Orleans. After the question was decided, and, I believe, after Fox and D.D. Porter both wrote Farragut unofficially of his probable selection to command the new Gulf Squadron, I was cautioned in regard to the step I was taking. Senator Hale, when he learned the fact, asked me if I was certain of my man, — Southern born, a Southern resident, with a Southern wife, etc. Several Members of Congress questioned me closely; few knew Farragut, who had not then carved out a great name, and there was, I became conscious, a general impression or doubt whether I had not made a mistake. I will not follow the subject here. His works speak for themselves, and I am satisfied the selection was a proper one, probably the very best that could be made.

At that time Du Pont was in favor, almost a favorite. He had sought to be, or his friends had sought to have him, transferred to Washington to take the place of Paulding. Seward proposed it, and thought Paulding might be otherwise provided for, suggesting the navy yard at Philadelphia or Brooklyn, or a squadron. I did not assent to the arrangement, and the President, who saw I had some feeling on the subject, concurred with me emphatically. Seward said the subject had been brought to him by Winter Davis, — in other words, Du Pont.

I did not then, as I do now, know thoroughly either Davis or Du Pont. It was a skillful intrigue, yet it did not succeed. But the blockade, requiring a close and minute hydrographical knowledge of the coast, brought me in contact with Mr. Bache of the Coast Survey. Mr. Bache sought to make our acquaintance personal and intimate, and but for my unremitting and ceaseless devotion to pressing current duties I should have fully responded. But I had not time. I think he saw and appreciated it, and he intimated, not exactly proposed, a board to take up the subject of our Southern coast, its channels, approaches, inlets, and defenses in detail, and report to me. It struck me favorably, and Du Pont was put upon that board with him, was brought to Washington, and commenced forming a clique while reporting on the surveys of the coast. He moved with great skill, and I, being unsuspicious, was, I can perceive, to some extent deceived. But I think the ill success of the intrigue of H. Winter Davis and himself through Seward led Du Pont to the conclusion that he would not be likely to make head against me during this administration. He therefore changed his tactics, became greatly friendly and profoundly respectful, designing, if he could, to use me. To some extent he did so. Old Admiral Shubrick was his relative and patron. Mr. Fox was devoted to him, and I listened much to Fox as well as to Shubrick. Admiral Paulding, then here, was kindly disposed, as detailing officer, to second Du Pont, and Admiral Davis was his shadow. Of course with such surroundings, and with Du Pont himself, who became friendly, I think truly friendly, and almost deferential, I yielded much to his wishes and recommendations. It was early arranged that he should have a squadron to effect a lodgment at some port on the South Atlantic. Fernandina was much thought of, but Port Royal and Bull's Bay were mentioned. A division of the Atlantic Squadron, then commanded by Admiral Stringham, became indispensable, and Stringham himself, having taken offense, unwisely, at some order issued in my absence, proposed to resign just as the subject of dividing the squadron was taken up, which made the way clear for Du Pont. He took the Navy Register and made to a great extent his selection of officers. It was a Du Pont squadron emphatically. Poor Mercer, who had been his devoted friend, was detached from the Wabash, which was made Du Pont's flag-ship, and died of a broken heart. But neither Farragut nor David D. Porter were within the charmed circle. Du Pont had some jealousy, I saw, of Porter, but none of Farragut. I do not remember to have ever heard a complimentary remark of F. from Du Pont, but he evidently considered him a fair fighting officer, of ordinary standing, - not one of the élite, not of the Du Pont Navy. Of Porter he entertained a higher opinion, but he was no favorite, and, without any charge against him, I was given to understand that he was a troublesome fellow. . . .

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 114-9

Gustavus V. Fox to Flag Officer Samuel F. Dupont, June 3, 1862

Private

Navy Department         

June 3d 1862 

My Dear Flag Officer

I have yours of the 25th May. I noticed in the papers the approach into Sv'n'h. I also notice your remarks about the Harbor of Charleston. It may be impossible, but the crowning act of this war ought to be by the navy. I feel that my duties are two fold; first, to beat our southern friends; second, to beat the Army. We have done it so far and the people acknowledge and give us the credit.

Look at the New Orleans affair. It was like the Port Royal fight, the soldiers looked on and saw their forts knocked over. I know if it be possible, you will go on, and we will send you the “Monitor” and “Galena” and some double end boats to rendezvous at Bulls Bay so soon as we finish here. Goldsborough has had nothing to do except to watch and protect the Army, and consequently has lost in public estimation, therefore I am exceedingly anxious that he shall have the opportunity to take Fort Caswell with ships, which he is confident of doing, when they are at your service. I feel this is due to Goldsborough because Congress has not yet acted on his vote of thanks. Halleck never mentioned gun boats in his dispatches, but Beauregard renders them full justice—so do the people. The army never do us justice, not even when we win it, and I could convince you of this in all your operations if it did not make this letter too long. Farragut is nearly to Memphis and the Mississippi is ours. Mobile will then fall, which finishes the Gulf. Goldsborough will certainly take Caswell which leaves Charleston for the closing act, so far as the navy is concerned. As I know your feelings are the same as my own, I can add nothing, except that the “Monitor” can go all over the harbor and return with impunity. She is absolutely impregnable.

Davis has relieved Foote, and Lardner, McKean. Farragut having gone up the river with his feet and left a very small force off Mobile, where the rebels have quite a naval force, we were forced to send the Susquehanna there under Hitchcock.

I knew you would feel her loss but there was no help for it.

You shall however have the Powhatan or her equal. We have about twenty iron clad vessels under weigh, fit to meet on the ocean that power that has attempted our humiliation. If I can live to help administer the navy against that power, my highest ambition would be gratified. The capture of prizes by your Squadron, leaves little to be desired. The escape from Charleston of the Economist, troubled Mr. Seward a good deal, but the late successes of yourself and McKean are very satisfactory. What you say about Rodgers is true. The Secretary seemed some time since, a little inclined to give the Academy to Foote, but he has not made up his mind yet—besides Foote has nearly killed himself by devotion to his country. I pray you give us Charleston if possible, but in any event, the Dept relies upon your judgment. We should be inclined to skip Fort Caswell if you consider it imperative, for the Fall of Charleston is the fall of Satan's Kingdom.

Very truly Yours &c.

G. V. Fox.

SOURCE: Robert Means Thompson & Richard Wainwright, Editors, Publications of the Naval Historical Society, Volume 9: Confidential Correspondence of Gustavus Vasa Fox, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, 1861-1865, Volume 1, p. 126-8

Flag Officer Samuel F. Dupont to Gustavus V. Fox, April 14, 1862

Wabash 14th Ap. 62 

Port Royal. 

My Dear Sir 

Please publish my report about Pulaski and Rodgers' to me—in order to gratify as I think it will, Gen1. Hunter and the army people. 

In haste Yrs faithfully 

S. F. DUPONT. 

Ain't Foote a hero! he is leaving us all out of sight

S. F. DP. 

SOURCE: Robert Means Thompson & Richard Wainwright, Editors, Publications of the Naval Historical Society, Volume 9: Confidential Correspondence of Gustavus Vasa Fox, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, 1861-1865, Volume 1, p. 119