March 20, 1863, The New York Herald
The reports of the burning of the Mississippi and the disabling of the Hartford, which have reached us through rebel sources, have led to many suppositions among naval officers. It is evident that Admiral Farragut intended to run the batteries at Port Hudson under the cover of night – a favorite and hitherto successful manoeuvre with him – and when above the rebel fortifications to work upon them from above, while the land forces should attack from below. If the map of the river is consulted it will be seen that the Union fleet must advance up a long reach and against a strong current; and no doubt the vigilance of the rebel pickets gave the different garrisons a timely warning, so that their guns opened upon the fleet as soon as they were within range.
To this raking fire the Hartford could only reply with two guns, the Mississippi one, and the Richmond one; so that this small return of metal would affect but little the steadiness and accuracy of the enemy’s fire. Owing to the strong current and the slow speed of the vessels, of course they were subjected to a terrible fire for a considerable length of time; and experience has long since taught us that under such circumstances it is fair to presume that the vessels were in some measure damaged.
The Mississippi is a large side-wheel steamer, and even in the darkness of the night she makes a good target for a disciplined gunner. Her machinery has always been liable to be injured by shot, while her paddle wheels were in no manner protected, nor could they be. In passing the forts below New Orleans she had a narrow escape from being disabled by a shot striking her wheel; but fortunately it struck at such an angle as to glance off. She may have been crippled in her wheels, and been unable to move, or her steam may have given out, so that when she was set on fire by the enemy’s shells there was no motive power to work the fire engines.
As to the Hartford, the rebels have no more positive knowledge of her being disabled because she withdrew from action than they had for saying that the Montauk was disabled at Fort McAllister. Some steering gear may have given way, which, owing to the strong current and the impracticability of anchoring under the fire of the batteries, led her commander to withdraw from the action until it could be repaired. All this would occupy time, and daylight coming on, it would be the height of foolishness to attempt to go up by sunlight. What the rebels may report to be a backing down may be only a ruse, or a reconoissance in force, or an effort to have a portion of the fleet above the batteries. The rebels say that one gunboat passed above in safety. They said only one passed the forts at New Orleans, when in truth fourteen not only passed the forts, but reached the city.
Of late the rebels have been startling us with monstrous stories, evidently to scare nervous old people, ignorant middle aged people, and create a sensation in Europe; so that, after such a shell as the Charleston affair, we should not give too much credit to the news via Richmond papers. We do not hesitate to credit the rebel journals so far as that the Mississippi was destroyed. She may have grounded and have been fired by her own people to prevent her falling into the hands of the enemy. Nothing is easier in a dark night, with a strong current, and while endeavoring to clear another vessel, than for her to have taken a broad sheer, and, despite the action of the helm, gone ashore. In such an event her commander would certainly set her on fire. Blowing up a vessel is at all times hazardous, as the case of the Westfield fully exemplifies.
A week or more will elapse before we can learn the truth of these reports.