Admiral David Dixon Porter. By Chester G. Hearn. (Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, c. 1996. ISBN 1-55750-353-2).
Chester G. Hearn’s study of Admiral David Dixon Porter illustrates how this man became a decorated naval commander during the Civil War. Porter had large shoes to fill, as his father was Commodore David Porter, a naval hero during the War of 1812. His father eventually lost much of this acclaim due to his dispute with the secretary of the navy. This event had a profound effect on both father and son, as David Dixon Porter inherited his father’s disdain for politicians, and he also wished to clear his family’s reputation. Also like his father, David Dixon Porter had a penchant for action, which served him well during the Civil War. The young Porter’s career began as a midshipman in the Mexican navy. During this time, the Spanish captured and imprisoned the young boy for six months. He then joined the U.S. Navy and eventually received combat action for the United States during the Mexican War, yet he did not receive the opportunity he sought to demonstrate his abilities. Not until the Civil War would Porter get this shot, and he made the most of it.
This aggressiveness almost ended Porter’s career before it began, as he was one of the main actors in a plan to relieve Fort Pickens. Although this plan had the approval of President Lincoln, it bypassed Gideon Welles, who was the secretary of navy. Therefore, Porter’s navy career was off to an auspicious start. Things began to change for Porter during the campaign to capture New Orleans, which was under the protection of Fort Jackson and Fort Saint Phillip. Porter’s relentless bombardment of Fort Jackson contributed greatly in the taking of New Orleans, yet he received little publicity for his actions. Instead, General Butler took the credit for capturing the city of New Orleans, which enraged Porter and fueled his disdain for politics. Following this campaign, Porter obtained the rank of rear admiral and was assigned to the Upper Mississippi. While on the Mississippi, Porter developed a strong friendship with both Ulysses S. Grant, and William Sherman. One thing that all three men shared in common was aggressiveness, as they constantly brought the fight to the enemy. Since these men shared similar methods of conducting war, they worked quite efficiently with one another, which became evident during the Vicksburg campaign. Consequently, Porter was vital in the capture of Vicksburg in the summer of 1863 as he commanded the Mississippi Squadron. The loss of Vicksburg was a critical blow to the Confederacy, and another example of a joint military effort between the army and navy. This was common for Porter, as many of his major successes during the Civil War came as a result of cooperation with the army. Hearn argues that because of this cooperation, Porter never received his due credit, as most of the press and fame went to army commanders Hearn demonstrates how Porter played a critical role in the capture of New Orleans and Vicksburg, and also in the capture of Fort Fisher.
Porter commanded the North Atlantic Blockade Squadron during the bombardment and landing of Fort Fisher. Consequently, the Confederacy lost its last operational port, hammering another nail in the coffin of the Confederacy. The taking of Fort Fisher was another joint operation between the army and navy, except this time Porter worked with General Benjamin F. Butler. Hearn notes that both men worked well together as they both were innovative and brilliant at times, yet there was a large difference between the two. Butler was slow and sluggish while Porter was aggressive and constantly pushing for action. This dispute paved the way for Major General Alfred H. Terry succeeding Butler in the Fort Fisher operation. Following the Civil War, Porter served as superintendent to the Naval Academy, an advisor to the secretary of the navy, and he eventually became the navy’s highest ranking officer in 1870. Yet despite this success, Porter was a man with as many enemies as friends, if not more. He did not get along well with political generals such as Butler, yet had a strong relationship with men like Grant and Sherman. Sherman and Grant believed in bringing the fight to the enemy, which is why Porter got along well with them and maintained a strong bond with them following the war. Hearn’s study of Porter conveys that he was an ambitious, intelligent man whose naval successes have been underestimated. Porter never received his just due mainly on his own accord, as he constantly made enemies due to his paranoia and ambition. He distrusted politics and politicians, and had no fear in speaking these concerns. Despite this, Porter was critical to the Union cause during the Civil War.
Albert Cox
Texas Christian University