at a fairly high stage of the river. and that's late spring. but he was not happy about this prospect. in letters to his wife he complained of the navy department's pressure on him in ignorance of the difficulties he faced. they will keep us in the river until the vessels break down and the reputation we have made has evapora evaporated, he wrote. the government appears to think we can do anything. fighting is nothing to the river. to secretary wells farragut reported the elements of destruction to the navy in this river are beyond anything i have ever encountered. more anchors lost and vessels ruined than any i have seen in a lifetime. and those vessels that do not run into others are themselves run into and crushed in such a manner as to render them unsea worthy.

no doubt an exaggeration. and wells' reaction to this letter is unknown. he knew that farragut would be named the first rear admiral in the history of the united states navy. wells told farragut we know that the job of capturing vicksburg will be challenging but we also know you can do anything and are about to become an admiral so go do it. so farragut took his beloved flagship "hartford" to vicksburg in june 1862. and when i will go back down again god only knows he wrote to one of his naval colleagues. it appears the department is under the belief that it is easier for me to encounter the difficulties of the mississippi and ascend a thousand miles

against a strong current than it is for foot and davis with vessels constructed for the river to come down the stream. farragut's reference here was to andrew hull foot and charles e. davis and to the western flotilla of ironclad river gunboats built by eads of st. louis and supported by the timber clads which it worked with the army on the tennessee and cumberland rivers and moved into the mississippi where they helped capture island number ten and had destroyed the confederate river defense fleet at memphis and captured that city in early june 1862. foot had been wounded in the ankle at fort donaldson and by may 1862, his wound was giving

him so much trouble that he took a leave and was replaced by charles davis. at the end of june and beginning of july the two fleets met in vicksburg. davis coming down river from above and farragut from below trying to capture the fortress which had then become the principal bastion on the mississippi. deciding to test vicksburg's defenses farragut repeated by tactics by steaming up with broad sides ablazing. porter's schooner standed behind to pound the enemy positions. the river was too difficult to navigate at night at that stage of the water. the river was now dropping so they had to begin this maneuver at dawn on june 28. all but three of farragut's ships made it past the battery at the cost of about ten men killed in the fleet.

farragut was lucky, again, not to be one of them. for the "hartford" he reported was riddled from stem to stern. farragut had just climbed down from his favorite spot when the enemy cut to shrouds above his head, the same shot that hoisted my flag he informed his wife which dropped to half mast. without being perceived by us. this circumstance caused the other vessels to think that i had been killed. this experience convinced farragut that while the fleet could pass the batteries and drive the gunners from their weapons, they, as he put it, they returned to them as soon as we had passed and rake us. naval guns and mortars could not knock out all of the enemies dug in batteries at vicksburg nor could they capture the town and hold it against confederate infantry, 15,000 of whom under

major general earl vandorn were reported to be in the vicinity. i am satisfied, farragut wrote to wells that it is not possible for us to take vicksburg without an army force of 12,000 to 15,000 men. general butler had sent 3,000 soldiers with the fleet but they were far too few to do anything but to start digging a canal across the peninsula between the loops in the river in the vai th hope it would create a new channel beyond range of the confederate batteries. farragut wrote to general henry halek whose 100,000 men had occupied mississippi and asked for enough troops to help capture vicksburg in a combined operation with the navy. not for the last time would helic prove himself to be general can't be done in response to such requests from the navy. he replied to farragut the scattered and weakened condition of my forces renders it

impossible for me to detach any troops to cooperate with you at vicksburg. while waiting for a reply from halek, farragut fwan to fred about the dropping level of the river in the summer drought which threatened to strand his deep draft vessels a thousand miles from salt water touring the summer heat that was already taking a toll on his sailors and on the army soldiers trying to dig that canal. so were the ravages of typhoid, malaria, diarrhea. the captain much of the "uss richmond," a sister ship of "the hartford" was depressed by the prospect of being stuck in the river for the rest of the summer as he put it, smitten with insects, heat intolerable, fevers, chills and dysentery. and inglorious inactivity losing all but the flaet eet as one in honor.

farragut and charles davis were concerned about reports and rumors concerning an iron clad, the "css arkansas" which was, in fact, almost completed and ready to come into the mississippi to challenge the union fleet at the vicksburg. davis and farragut sent three gun boats on a scout on july 15. they found "the arkansas" to their regret for she was coming down with the ten guns blazing damaging two of the union gunboats and sending the third fleeing before her. as "the arkansas" emerged into the mississippi she found both union fleets at anchor with their steam down to conserve scarce coal. as "the arkansas" passed through the gauntlet of inert union ships they fired at her but couldn't stop her. in return as commander isaac brown of "the arkansas" later

wrote, his vessel fired back to every point in the circumference without fear of hitting a friend or missing an enemy. she finally reached the protection of vicksburg batteries below the union fleet. it was an impressive achievement but a costly one. in the fights on the mississippi "the arkansas" lost 25 men killed and 28 wounded. the scene around the gun deck up on our arrival was ghastly and extreme, wrote a masters mate. blood and brains bespattered everything while arms, legs and headless trunks were strewn about. the exploit was praised at the most brilliantly ever recorded. that seems a little bit over the top but it was acutely embarrassing to farragut and his fleet admitting they were caught

with their britches down. farragut reported the incident to wells with what he confessed was deep mortification. farragut was determined to destroy "the arkansas" whatever it took. he led his own fleet down river past vicksburg hoping to blow the crippled "arkansas" out of the water but couldn't spot her in the gathering darkness. this failure only whetted farragut's wrath. he intended, he said, to try to at the stroi her until my squadron is destroyed or she is. there's no rest for the wicked until she is destroyed. farragut persuaded a reluctant captain davis to send one of his clads under the vicksburg guns to ram "the arkansas" while the

fleet would bombard the vicksburg batteries to keep down their fire. this union attacked occurred on july 22nd. the two northern vessels hit "the arkansas" glancing blows which appeared 0 to not do significant damage. they cracked the engine's connecting rods deranging the arkansas's weak and unreliable engines. two weeks later when "the arkansas" steamed down river, the connecting rods broke and "the arkansas'" crew blew her up to prevent her capture by union gun boats. "the arkansas" had been able to get that far down river because the navy department sent the welcome orders to take his fleet down to new orleans and then with part of it out into the is gulf of mexico to avoid being stranded in the river as the water continued to drop.

we don't know where we will be next, farragut informed his wife, but just so that we are on salt water i shall be satisfied and hope not to grumble at the fates that will take me out of the freshwater river. the failure to take vicksburg in july 1862 was part of a succession of union failures in the second half of that year which arrested the union momentum that had crested with farragut's capture of new orleans and the river navy's capture of memphis. for the time being, the confederates owned the mississippi river between vicksburg and port hudson which they also fortified. but farragut's achievements dm 1862 had set the stage for the campaigns that captured these two bastions the following year and cleveland the confederacy. farragut was well on his way to becoming one of the pre-eminent

union heroes of the war and the first full admiral in american history. thank you. i'll try to answer your questions. [ applause ] >> let me ask the audience a question while general mcclellan goes to the mike. how many of you suspected that jim mcpherson was going to nominate david farragut. one vote. >> how much do you think the

efforts assisted farragut's activities in new orleans? the confederate forces. >> that was an important factor. originally the confederates had created what they called a river defense fleet down in new orleans, the 14 vessels, which could have given farragut a lot of trouble. but they were called up river, six of them were sent up river. i think ultimately this was a decision by confederate secretary of the navy steven malary and then endorsed by jefferson davis so those six vessels had been sent up to contest the union fleet's effort to capture island number ten. near new madrid, missouri. this was in late march. that lessened the opposition to farragut.

another example of what lincoln was trying to get his commanders to do was to move simultaneously against confederate defenses to thin out those defenses rather than just one at a time. and so clearly i think simultaneous advance by the upper river fleet union fleet and especially island number ten was of material aid to farragut effort. no question with about it. >> a similarity, at least in my mind, of the tactics used at the island ten and running at night, et cetera, and use of the mortar rounds. >> that's right. the union fleet was learning these tactics of running the fort. the commander of the union fleet at island number ten charles davis who had replaced andrew hall foot, was reluctant to

allow them to go and henry walk, the commander, volunteered and said he we can do it and he did. general john pope, who was the army commander there investing island number ten said he needed a second gun boat. davis was again reluctant but agreed to allow "uss pittsburgh." these are both city class ironclads built by george eads at the end of 1861 and early 1862 that captured ft. henry and held with capture of ft. donaldson and those gun boats made it possible for pope's army to trap the entire garrison at island number ten and capture them. so these tactics of running enemy fortifications which -- attacking and running them -- which went back to 1861, they were bearing a lot of fruit here on the river in 1862.

>> dr. mcpherson, thinking about some of the examples that you provide in your great study, of the individual decisions made by people like david farragut, tennessee born, virginia -- well, not bred but with wed, why do you think that as many officers especially of the naval forces, marines and sailors, made the decision in 1861 to stay with the old flag? >> there are some other good examples of that. i mentioned lee. although he had married into the blair family but he was a virginian. drayton is one of my favorite examples. a naval officer whose brother, thomas, was a confederate

general defending ft. walker and port royal bay when drayton was commander of one of the union ships that attacked that came from wealthy south carolina family but remained loyal to the union. i think that one of the reasons why you find a fairly substantial number of naval officers doing that is that they had spent much of their life at sea as representing the united states rather than living onshore in the south where their allegiance might be more to the local or state body politic. and as a consequence they had spent, in farragut's case, 50 years under the american flag. most of it away from the united states. they had a more national outlook.

a more national perspective, i think, than some other counterparts. that's especially true in the case of drayton compared with his brother, thomas. >> you took us through july of 1862. what was farragut doing for the remainder of the year? >> for the remainder of the year he was in command of the blockade fleet. the confederates evacuated pensacola so farragut spent much of his time in the latter part of 1862 establishing a new naval base at pensacola, building back up the naval base that confederates seized in early 1861 in order to provide a closer base for the operation of his blockade fleet.

in the fall of 1862, he oversaw the occupation of galveston. another naval operation entirely. confederates recaptured it on january 1st, 1863. for the last three months of 1862, it was another naval base for the union fleet blockading the coast of texas. they also occupied some other enclaves along the coast of texas. the main job in remainder of 1862 was to strengthen the blockade. he wanted to move against mobile but for reasons beyond his control the government put off that and kept putting it off until of course the summer of 1864. >> we're right on time which is always wonderful. thank you.

[ applause ] >> one of the great joys of being associated with this symposium is that we give historians their choice of who to nominate. i'll never forget when john walked into my office with a big smile on my face and says you'll never guess who mcpherson is going to do. david farragut. i went, really? that's interesting. what a terrific talk, jim. thank you so much. it's 1:30. we'll break for 15 minutes. be back in your chair at 1:45. for the tv audience, dr. mcpherson is going to take your questions and earlier speakers had a great time handling a national audience. thank you.

>> live on american history tv all day at the library of virginia, which in conjunction with museum of confederacy is asking the question who would be the person of the year, 1862, following after what "time" magazine does with person of the year. we've heard from three historians so far including james mcpherson and we'll give you a chance to speak to the professor in just a moment. the nomination so far from robert krick was stonewall jackson. david blight choosing frederick

douglass and james mcpherson with david farragut. the phone lines will be open in just a moment. make sure you mute your television when you call in. you can send us a tweet. twitter.com/cspan. our hash tag today if you want to jot this down is poty1862. post your choice for person of the year on facebook. facebook.com/cspan is where you go. just a quick tweet and facebook reading. ben says that his choice would be greely and second choice would be robert e. lee. on facebook a look at our facebook page, james saying that it's george mcclellan. as much as i despite him, it is not what it will become in 1863.

some of the thoughts of viewers on twitter and facebook. let's go back to the library and james mcpherson who just nominated admiral david farragut as his choice for person much of the year 1862. james mcpherson, if you look at the selection, admiral farragut would be the only admiral on the list. you talked in your speech about the political implications of his victories in 1862. were they the main reason that france and britain hesitate d i looking at the confederacy that year? >> certainly the main reason why they delayed what looked like would be recognition in the spring of 1862. the capture of new orleans was the most important in a series of union victories that caused them to back off. then of course during the summer the confederate victories in the

seven days and second manassas and invasion of kentucky especially of maryland by robert e. lee's army in september of 1862 revived that prospect of european recognition. in fact, the british and frieen were prepared to go ahead, but they were just awaiting the outcome of lee's invasion of maryland and lee's defeat or at least being turned back after the battle caused them to back off again. i think there were two points in 1862. the first one was in the spring and farragut's victory at new orleans was a major factor in causing them to back off then and then six months or so later and that turned out to be the closest confederacy ever got to european recognition. >> do you think it was a mistake for farragut to press to

vicksburg as soon as he did after the victories at new orleans? >> i think he thought it was a mistake but he was under orders to do so. in fact those orders came thick and fast. after capturing new orleans he had sent a message to washington implying that he was going to go after mobile next and immediately got a reply from washington to follow his initial orders that gaining control of the mississippi valley was far more important at that stage than mobile so he did it again against his own wishes. >> we have plenty of phone callers waiting to ask you questions. let's go to california. hi there. >> caller: hello. >> you're on the air. >> caller: all right. unfortunately i did not get to

seep the distinguished scholar who nominate ed robert e. lee so i would like to briefly comment on that myself to at least get your response to that. >> robert e. lee in this forum has not been nominated today. >> caller: i would like to play devil's advocate. >> go ahead. >> caller: he simply was the most important figure in the war. let's not forget that he had -- i'll be brief. he had four very important battles. he turned the strategy around by going on the attack in the seven days which had previously been a defensive campaign by the confederacy. and then he won by not losing the battle at antitem which very nearly did happen, he saved the confederacy that could hardly live with destruction over northern virginia and had crushing victories. >> i'm going to let you go and

let jim mcfer some mcpherson reply on what do you think of his case on robert e. lee? >> well, tell him to stay tuned. there are two more nominations to come this afternoon. we may hear about robert e. lee yet. i would say that he certainly has a good case. in the end the war was won by the union and they played a crucial role in that victory and admiral farragut was the naval officer so i would rest my case on the leader who ultimately helped win the war. >> another california caller. west lake village. this is john. >> caller: i look at your audience of old, white, primarily southern faces and i see this spike in the interest in the civil war. and i would like to ask the professor what

this says about the country and in our current politics many of the old issues and phrases that motivated the civil war have become part of the current lexicon. and my question to the professor is what does the legacy of the civil war say to us today in terms of where this country is. >> well, there are many legacies of the civil war. the most important one is that the united states is still one nation and not divided into two or more nations, which would have been the case if the confederacy had succeeded. i think probably success by the confederacy establishing an independent nation would have created a precedent whereby disaffected minority regions might in the future invoked that precedent.