Charleston Harbor SC009
1863-09-07 to 1863-09-08 · SC · Operations Against the Defenses of Charleston [April-September 1863] · frozen result: Confederate · NPS summary (as listed)
During the night of September 6-7, Confederate forces evacuated Fort Wagner and Battery Gregg pressured by advancing Federal siegeworks. Federal troops then occupied all of Morris Island. On September 8, a storming party of about 400 marines and sailors attempted to surprise Fort Sumter. The attack was repulsed.
Command responsibility (ledger v2)
US: Dahlgren
Grade C under rule 2; echelon flotilla. responsibility_unresolved
Other candidates: Quincy Gilmore
The side's first combat in the frozen interval (September 7-8) was the ironclads' engagement with Fort Moultrie on the evening of the 7th, after Dahlgren's surrender demand; the September 8 boat assault on Sumter was the navy's, under Stephens, chosen by the Admiral. Gillmore's army party turned back without engaging (Jones), and Jones and Gillmore say the two commanders acted without concert. The passages thus name Dahlgren's fleet, not Gillmore, as the side's engaged force, contradicting the single army listing of 'Quincy Gilmore' (rule 2, third bullet): Dahlgren, grade C, with the listed officer as candidate. Stephens led a subordinate party. The live page lists Du Pont, whom the inspected passages do not place here; not adopted.
Major Generalarnold-cwsac-commanders, battle SC009, belligerent US, fullname Quincy Gilmore; column rank · snapshot
6c587c298717…Admiral Dahlgren, however, did not think the time had yet arrived for making the attempt to enter the harbor with his ironclads.jones-charleston-1863-selections-v1 · snapshot
d6ccff9096ab…Preparatory to enforcing his demand, the New Ironsides and five monitors steamed up, and at about 6 p. m. took position between Cumming's Point and Fort Moultrie and opened fire on that fort,jones-charleston-1863-selections-v1 · snapshot
d6ccff9096ab…Captain Thomas H. Stephens was selected to command it.jones-charleston-1863-selections-v1 · snapshot
d6ccff9096ab…both commanders were without concert pre- paring to assault the same work on the same night.jones-charleston-1863-selections-v1 · snapshot
d6ccff9096ab…Confederate: P.G.T. Beauregard
Grade B under rule 2; echelon army.
Single CWSAC listing. Jones has Elliott forward Dahlgren's demand to Beauregard, 'who replied that the Admiral could have Fort Sumter only when he could take and hold it': Beauregard's authority over Sumter's surrender, which implies but does not state his command of the works engaged first, the Moultrie and Sullivan's Island batteries on the evening of the 7th. The engaged Confederate works were several: Moultrie (Colonel Butler on the 8th), the Sullivan's Island batteries, Fort Johnson, the ironclad Chicora and Sumter (Elliott). Each named officer commanded a part, which is subordinate context; no inspected passage names another officer over all the engaged works (rule 2, grade B, as for GA002 CS). Ripley is not named in the inspected SC009 passages. In sections the SC005 and SC007 dossiers cite, Jones puts James, Morris and Sullivan's islands in the First Military Division, 'Brigadier General Ripley commanding', in July, and has Ripley relay the instructions for the evacuation of Morris Island; no inspected passage names him commanding the works engaged on September 7-8, so this is not recorded as a contradiction.
Generalarnold-cwsac-commanders, battle SC009, belligerent Confederate, fullname P.G.T. Beauregard; column rank · snapshot
6c587c298717…Side strength (ledger v3)
US: grade A, 410 (390–430)
compiled_dependencederivation_unknownsingle_inputwhole_engagement_leakage
| Input | Class | Printed | Basis | Bound | Codes | Passage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| us-cw | A | 413 | reported_engaged | derivation_unknown | ||
| us-nps | A | 413 | reported_engaged | derivation_unknown | dossier claim reported-force-scope | |
| us-nps-party | bound | 400 | unknown | lower | derivation_unknownpartial_scope | dossier claim reported-force-scope |
| us-jones-party | bound | 450 | unknown | lower | partial_scope | dossier claim reported-force-scope |
| us-landed | bound | 116 | unknown | lower | partial_scope | dossier claim reported-force-scope |
| us-army-party | bound | 600–700 | unknown | partial_scope | dossier claim reported-force-scope |
Confederate: grade D: no usable figure (modelled in the rating runs)
whole_engagement_leakage
| Input | Class | Printed | Basis | Bound | Codes | Passage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cs-sumter | bound | 205 | unknown | lower | partial_scope | dossier claim reported-force-scope |
Dossier claims
Draft dossier, revision . Claims are extraction records with their quoted passages, not historical adjudication. JSON
information
supportedunresolved Jones says the demand for surrender had warned the garrison, that a boat attack had been expected for several nights and a third of the garrison kept under arms; Gillmore says he learned of the admiral's plan only after arranging his own.
Attributed knowledge from a history and an interested report. No original reconnaissance, order or message chain was inspected to establish contemporary knowledge. Surprise in a summary does not independently establish what each commander knew.
The demand for the surrender of Sumter had given significant warning that an assault was im- pending.jones-charleston-1863-selections-v1, p.282 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
d6ccff9096ab…A boat attack had been expected for sev- eral nights past, and one-third of the garrison was kept constantly under arms on the parapet,jones-charleston-1863-selections-v1, p.282 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
d6ccff9096ab…Before I was informed by the admiral of his intentions to storm the work, I had made arrangements to do the same thing,or28-1-gillmore-charleston-selections-v1, p.28 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
af31121d677b…logistics
supportedunresolved Jones says the admiral had to seek additional boats from Gillmore, who refused them because he meant to storm Sumter himself; the army party was held by low tide at its rendezvous, as Gillmore also reports; a scant supply of ammunition slowed the Sullivan's Island batteries.
Statements from a history and an interested report; no returns inspected.
The latter replied that he could not spare them because he proposed to storm Sumter himself that night.jones-charleston-1863-selections-v1, p.281 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
d6ccff9096ab…but the force assembled for that purpose was detained by low tide at its rendezvous in the creek west of Morris Island,or28-1-gillmore-charleston-selections-v1, p.28 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
af31121d677b…a scant supply of ammunition in the land batteries made their fire slower than that of the ironclads.jones-charleston-1863-selections-v1, p.280 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
d6ccff9096ab…objectives
supportedunresolved Gillmore says Dahlgren demanded Sumter's surrender on September 7 and warned he would move up with the ironclads if refused; Jones says the admiral wanted the Union flag over Sumter before entering the harbor and that each commander meant to seize the fort.
Stated aims from an interested report and a history.
Rear-Admiral Dahlgren sent a flag of truce to Fort Sumter, demanding its surrender,or28-1-gillmore-charleston-selections-v1, p.28 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
af31121d677b…The Union flag THE SIEGE OF CHARLESTON 279 should float over Sumter before, in his opinion, he could, with due consideration for the safety of his monitors, venture to carry them into the inner har- bor.jones-charleston-1863-selections-v1, pp.278–279 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
d6ccff9096ab…Each was con- fident of his ability to seize the work without the aid of the other,jones-charleston-1863-selections-v1, p.280 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
d6ccff9096ab…outcome
supportedpost_outcome The frozen and live results read Confederate victory. Gillmore says the naval assault was repulsed with considerable loss and his own was abandoned; Jones says the attack failed completely in about twenty minutes. Gillmore also records the Union occupation of the north end of Morris Island on the 7th.
Retain the original result and engagement interval; later movements and campaign contribution are different measures. No new probabilities or individual causal credit.
a naval force at- tempted to carry Sumter by assault, and was repulsed with consid- erable loss.or28-1-gillmore-charleston-selections-v1, p.28 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
af31121d677b…The project was then abandoned.or28-1-gillmore-charleston-selections-v1, p.28 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
af31121d677b…The affair ended in complete failure in about twenty minutes.jones-charleston-1863-selections-v1, p.284 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
d6ccff9096ab…Our forces at once occupied the north end of the island.or28-1-gillmore-charleston-selections-v1, p.27 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
af31121d677b…disputedpost_outcome The frozen casualty text reads (US 117; CS unknown); the live field reads 217 (US 117; CS 100). Jones says of the landed party 6 were killed, 15 wounded and 106 captured, with five barges and five colors; at Moultrie on the 8th an explosion killed sixteen and wounded twelve, and three more were killed and two officers and fourteen men wounded.
Original casualty returns were not inspected; preserve totals, categories, cutoffs and differences. No canonical reconciliation or casualty-based opening count; related actions must not be added without resolving population overlap. Jones's landed-party figures (6 killed, 15 wounded and 106 captured) and the frozen 117 differ; the Moultrie losses belong to the ironclad engagement, not the boat attack.
(US 117; CS unknown)arnold-cwsac-battles, battle SC009; column casualties_text · snapshot
952b5d08402a…of whom 6 were killed, 15 wounded, and 106 made prisoners.jones-charleston-1863-selections-v1, p.284 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
d6ccff9096ab…Five barges and as many colors were also captured.jones-charleston-1863-selections-v1, p.284 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
d6ccff9096ab…which instantly killed sixteen and wounded twelve menjones-charleston-1863-selections-v1, p.280 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
d6ccff9096ab…three men were killed and two officersjones-charleston-1863-selections-v1, p.280 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
d6ccff9096ab…responsibility
disputedunresolved Jones says the admiral and the general prepared separate assaults without concert, agreeing only on a signal to avoid collision; Captain Stephens commanded the naval party and Major Elliott the fort; Dahlgren wrote that it did not look like a vigorous assault. Gillmore says the only arrangements made were meant to prevent accident between the parties. The frozen commanders are Major General 'Quincy Gilmore' (US) and General P. G. T. Beauregard (CS); the live page lists Rear Admiral S. Du Pont, whereas the inspected passages name Dahlgren.
Command roles from a history and an interested report; no listed commander receives automatic sole credit. The live commander is not adopted.
both commanders were without concert pre- paring to assault the same work on the same night.jones-charleston-1863-selections-v1, p.280 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
d6ccff9096ab…The only arrangements for concert of action between the two par- ties that were finally made, were intended simply to prevent accident or collision between them.or28-1-gillmore-charleston-selections-v1, p.28 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
af31121d677b…Captain Thomas H. Stephens was selected to command it.jones-charleston-1863-selections-v1, p.281 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
d6ccff9096ab…Major Stephen Elliott, Jr., commanded the fort,jones-charleston-1863-selections-v1, p.282 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
d6ccff9096ab…It did not look like a vigorous assault.jones-charleston-1863-selections-v1, p.284 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
d6ccff9096ab…Major Generalarnold-cwsac-commanders, battle SC009, belligerent US, fullname Quincy Gilmore; column rank · snapshot
6c587c298717…Generalarnold-cwsac-commanders, battle SC009, belligerent Confederate, fullname P.G.T. Beauregard; column rank · snapshot
6c587c298717…strength
unknownunresolved
No inspected return establishes matched personnel at a common opening boundary. Imported numerical estimates remain unchanged; this pass does not validate them as simultaneous opening forces.
disputedunresolved The frozen force text reads Regiments: total unknown (US 413; CS unknown), with a frozen US bound of 413; the live page gives 413 (US 413; CS 0) and describes a storming party of about 400 marines and sailors. Jones says the naval storming party was 450 picked sailors and marines, of whom eleven officers and 116 men landed, that Gillmore's own party was six or seven hundred infantry, and that the Sumter garrison was the First South Carolina Battalion, 205 men, one third kept under arms. For the Moultrie action he names the New Ironsides and five monitors.
Party and garrison figures from a history; the basis of the frozen 413 is not stated in any inspected passage. None is adopted as a matched opening strength.
Regiments: total unknown (US 413; CS unknown)arnold-cwsac-battles, battle SC009; column forces_text · snapshot
952b5d08402a…a storming party of about 400 marines and sailors attempted to surprise Fort Sumter.nps-sc009-v1, Description · snapshot
e9aab0d2045a…The naval storming party consisted of 450 picked men, sailors and marines.jones-charleston-1863-selections-v1, p.281 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
d6ccff9096ab…Only eleven officers and ii6 men had landed,jones-charleston-1863-selections-v1, p.284 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
d6ccff9096ab…General Gillmore's storming party consisted of six or seven hundred infantry.jones-charleston-1863-selections-v1, p.284 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
d6ccff9096ab…which was garrisoned by the First South Carolina Battalion of Infantry, 205 men, under Major Julius A. Blake.jones-charleston-1863-selections-v1, p.282 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
d6ccff9096ab…the New Ironsides and five monitors steamed up,jones-charleston-1863-selections-v1, p.279 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
d6ccff9096ab…terrain
supportedunresolved Jones says the landed sailors found a ramp of debris topped by a wall fifteen to twenty feet high and had no scaling ladders, and that the gorge front, where a practicable breach existed, was not the one attacked; the Weehawken grounded on the Morris Island beach within range of Moultrie.
Ground described by a history; no map verification.
They found indeed a ramp, but at the top of it a wall from fifteen to twenty feet high, and the storming party was not provided with scaling ladders.jones-charleston-1863-selections-v1, p.283 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
d6ccff9096ab…whereas on the gorge front which troops would have assaulted there was and had been for some weeks a practicable breach.jones-charleston-1863-selections-v1, p.285 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
d6ccff9096ab…ran aground on Morris Island beach within range of Fort Moultrie.jones-charleston-1863-selections-v1, p.279 (OCR page markers; not checked against print) · snapshot
d6ccff9096ab…Open questions
- Dahlgren's and Stephens's naval reports (Official Records of the Navies I, 14), Elliott's report, the Moultrie reports and the Union boat-party casualty returns remain deferred.
- NPS/CWSAC (NPS battle page and frozen Arnold rows) is one family. Quincy A. Gillmore's report dated February 28, 1864 (Official Records I, XXVIII part 1, No. 2) is one family of interested Union accounts. Samuel Jones's The Siege of Charleston (1911) is a posthumous Confederate general's history that quotes Gillmore's, Seymour's, Strong's, Ripley's, Taliaferro's and Beauregard's reports and is not independent of them. Official Records volumes are shared containers, not additional witnesses. Report dates are not event times or proof of contemporary knowledge.
- No automatic commander attribution, causal campaign score, morale/readiness number or battle/campaign double counting.