Fort Jackson Mutiny-- Part 9

**  The men in the seven units  who did not want a parole (which meant if they took it and were exchanged they'd have to return to Confederate service) were offered  an opportunity  to sign an oath of future allegiance to the United States as an alternative to being sent to prison and many signed the oath.

**  Many of them eventually joined  the Union Army.

Again, there is not much information available as far as this mutiny is concerned.

--Old B-Runner

Fort Jackson Mutiny Facts-- Part 8: Parole or Not to Parole?

**  The Confederates troops drew up on Fort Jackson's grounds the night of the mutiny and demanded to surrender to nearby Union troops.

**  Those troops involved in the mutiny were largely foreign or northern-born and did not have a strong attachment to o love of the Know-Nothing Party or government of New Orleans.

**  They did not have a strong attachment to  to Confederate goals as did they native-born Southerners.

**  The experience of having been working class men in New Orleans and accustomed to organizing to go on strike when not being paid was also a factor.

**  Choosing to mutiny on the first night there were nearby Union troops suggests that they preferred the Union.

**  After the officers surrendered the forts on April 28, 1862,  all were offered a parole.

**  All the officers and enlisted men of the one non-New Orleans unit swore to not fight until am exchange could be arranged, and then  they would fight for the Confederacy again.

**  The other seven units had many men who did not want a parole, for that would eventually mean they would have to return to Confederate service.

--Old B-Runner

Fort Jackson Mutiny Facts-- Part 7: Conditions at the Fort

Some other things presented by Michael Pierson for the mutiny:

**  Unpleasant conditions at the fort

**  A week of mortar fire

**  A night of heavy direct fire when the Union fleet ran past the forts

**  A alleged lack of food in the fort

**  A conviction that it was useless to continue fighting once the Union fleet reached New Orleans

**  Pierson has also found that the mutineers may have had Unionist goals

**  The mutiny was well organized

**  The mutineers were able to deceive officers until ready to act

--Old B-Runner

Fort Jackson Mutiny Facts-- Part 6: How Long Could Farragut Wait for the Troops Necessary to Occupy and Control New Orleans?

**  In order to actually occupy New Orleans, Farragut needed the Unions soldiers on the troop ships which had not run past the forts.  They could not run past the forts on their own.

**  Without the troops, the mayor of New Orleans and the "Mob" controlled the streets and left the mayor the ability to refuse the surrender of the city.

**  This left Farragut with the option of bombarding the city, awaiting the capture of the forts or withdrawing to south of the forts.

**  The forts still had six weeks worth of food.

**   Neither the mortar attacks or broadsides form Farragut's ships had significantly damaged Fort Jackson's defensive works.

**  If the forts held out for six weeks, Farragut may have had to retreat back down the river.

** It was the mutiny at Fort Jackson on the night of April 27 and the refusal to fight any longer of the rest of the fort's garrison the following morning (except one  unit raised in a plantation parish), along with lack of Fort St. Philip would fight that enabled Farragut to bring the troops upriver to New Orleans and land sufficient troops to control the city streets.

--Old B-Runner

Fort Jackson Mutiny-- Part 5: The Facts According to Pierson

H-Net Review of Michael Pierson's book Mutiny at Fort Jackson: The Untold Story of the Fall of New Orleans" by Judith Gentry.

Again, I have not found any articles on the Confederate mutiny other than Pierson's book.

These are some points his book made:

**  Joblessness and poverty coerced poorer immigrants to volunteer their service in the Confederate military. This had nothing to do with their love of the Confederacy.

**  By September, the "Mob" of New Orleans had coerced military-age men to join local units of the state militia.

**  In the emergency of February and March 1862, when Farragut's ships entered the lower Mississippi River, several of the militia units were organized  into units of the Confederate army and placed on ships that carried them down the river to Forts Jackson and St. Philip.

**  Pierson argues that the importance of the mutiny at Fort Jackson has been underestimated.

**  Farragut's run past the forts and appearance at New Orleans on April 25 did not result in the occupation of New Orleans right away.

--Old B-Runner

Fort Jackson Mutiny-- Part 4: An Immigrant Thing

The mutineers were soldiers primarily recruited from New Orleans'  large German and Irish immigrant populations.  Pierson shows that  the new nation (the Confederacy)  had done nothing to encourage poor white men to feel they had aa place of honor in the new  Southern Republic.

He  argues that the mutineers actively  sought to help the Union cause.  In a major reassessment of the Union administration of New Orleans that followed, Pierson  demonstrates that Union general Benjamin Butler enjoyed the support of  many white Unionists in the city.

Pierson adds  an urban working-class element to debates over the effects of  white Unionists in Confederate states.  With the personal stories o soldiers appearing throughout the book, "Mutiny at Fort Jackson" presents the Civil War from a different perspective, revealing the complexities of New Orleans society and the Confederate experience.

--Old B-Runner

Fort Jackson Mutiny-- Part 3: So, Why Was There a Mutiny?

I was unable to find an article in Wikipedia about the Confederate mutiny.

This is from a review of the book "Mutiny at Fort Jackson:  The Untold Story of the Fall of New Orleans" by Michael  D. Pierson from Good Reads.

New Orleans was the largest city -- and one of the richest -- in the Confederacy. protected in part by Fort Jackson. which was 65 miles down the Mississippi River from it.

On April 27, 1862, Confederate soldiers at Fort Jackson rose up against their commanding officers.  Farragut's fleet had already run past Fort Jackson and its sister fort, Fort St. Philip, so New Orleans was essentially now defenseless.  New Orleans fell soon afterwards.

Although the Fort Jackson mutiny marked a critical turning point in the Union's campaign to regain control of  this vital Confederate financial and industrial center, it has received surprisingly little attention from historians.  Michael Pierson examines newly uncovered archival sources to determine why the soldiers rebelled at  such a decisive moment.

(Well, my own idea is that defending Fort Jackson after the Union fleet had passed it was kind of like closing the barn door after the horses got out.  Pretty much a waste of time.)

--Old B-Runner

The Mutiny at Fort Jackson in 1862-- Part 2

What causes troops or sailors to mutiny?  There is always a big story behind that event, but in the case of Fort Jackson, guarding the Mississippi River approach to New Orleans, there is very little written about it, which is surprising.  Until I read that a mutiny had occurred in the Wikipedia articles on Fort Jackson, i  was completely unaware of it.

Then, I learned that the following year, there was another mutiny staged, this time by Union troops.

Is it something about the location of the fort that caused not one, but two mutinies?

However, now there is a book on it "Mutiny at Fort Jackson" by Michael  Pierson.  It is UNC Press, 2009, hardcover, 246 pages and $30 cost.

--Old B-Runner

There Was a Mutiny by Confederate Troops at Fort Jackson and a Later One by Union Troops-- Part 1

In an earlier post I wrote that Fort Jackson surrendered after Farragut's fleet had bombarded it and then run past  it.  But the eventual surrender of the fort (and sister Fort St. Philip across the river) did not happen because of Union siege or bombardment, but because a mutiny occurred among the Confederate defenders.

And, this was not the only mutiny that occurred at Fort Jackson during the Civil War

On December 9, 1863, a mutiny occurred with black troops from the  Fourth Regiment of  Corp d'Afrique.

So, what was it about Fort Jackson that caused mutinies?

--Old B-Runner

Fort Jackson-- Part 2: A Mutiny, Prison and 'Infested With Snakes'

Not to be confused with the Old Fort Jackson at Savannah, Georgia.

After Farragut sailed past the forts and New Orleans fell, the forts continued to battle Union forces.  Then, there was a mutiny by the garrison of Fort Jackson against their officers and conditions which caused the surrender of the forts.

Later, Fort Jackson was used a s a Union prison.  It was here that the French champagne magnate  Charles Heidsieck was held  for seven months on charges of spying.  (After reading about this gentleman, I am going to have to write about him.)

On November 9, 1927, the State of Louisiana sold Fort Jackson as surplus government property to Mr. and Mrs. H.J. Harvey, who later donated the property to the Parish of Plaquemines in 1960 in hopes that the fort and 82 acres of land it sits on, would be restored.

That same year, the fort was declared a National Landmark and it was also listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1967.

The Plaquemines Parish began  renovations of the fort in 1961.

However, the National Park Service declared that "the Fort area had become a jungle with mud-filled tunnels infested with snakes and flooded with water."

--Old B-Runner