Longstreet's Assault on Fort Sanders

luinrina

2nd Lieutenant
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Location
Germany
Assault on Fort Sanders.JPG

From Battles and Leaders of the Civil War. (1888). United States: Century Company, Volume 3, page 731.

During her research, @lelliott19 found a newspaper article in German and asked for help with the translation. The Minnesota Staats-Zeitung printed on December 19, 1863 on page 2 the following article:

Assault on Fort Sanders_newspaper.JPG

If you can read and understand German, do give this a try. It's hard to decipher if you're not used to the Fraktur font, but the archaic wording is quite interesting. I thought it would give me troubles with the translation, but it seems the Google online translator has improved majorly over the last years as I had to hardly correct a thing.

And here is the translation for everyone not speaking German (italics are my comments/notes):

The rebel papers are now finally admitting themselves that Longstreet had to lift the siege of Knoxville. From Knoxville we hear about Longstreet's further movements, that he is near Rogersville, the seat of Hawkins County, Tennessee, about 50 miles northeast of Knoxville, pursued by our army. He lost 3,000 men and his entire siege train, which fell into our hands. His army is said to have been terribly demoralized by the severe hardships and defeats and are deserting in heaps. Later news from Nashville speak of a rumor that Gen. Sheridan who was chasing Longstreet was repulsed with heavy losses and he himself was fatally wounded.​
We now have some interesting details about the fighting at Knoxville, which preceded the Longstreet retirade (retreat) to Virginia. In his desperate attempts to take Knoxville, Longstreet made his main attack on Fort Sanders, the location of which is to be visualized:​
Knoxville lies on the hilly north bank of the Tennessee River. A small stream divides the city into East and West Knoxville. The banks of this river are steep and sloping. Opposite the city, strong fortifications were built on a prominent hill to withstand the rebel attacks expected from the south. At [2 words faded] on that side the brave General Sanders was killed and in his honor the fortifications on the hill were called "Fort Sanders." Longstreet approached the fort on two almost parallel streets from London which (meaning the fort) lies between these streets and rules them both. It is built of earth and timber and is very strong; the distance between it and the center of Knoxville is about three-quarters of a mile.​
On Monday morning our pickets were driven back and the enemy had seized a few trenches. But ours (our soldiers) drove him back. Suddenly the storm column appeared, the 16th and 17th Georgia and the 13th Mississippi regiments leading the way. They were allowed to come within 100 yards of the fort undisturbed. Then began a series of the most daring and desperate attacks; but the resistance was just as heroic. The struggle for Fort Sanders is among the bloodiest and most valiant battles of the entire war. Longstreet's storm column consisted of the Potomac rebel veterans. Scorning death, they threw themselves into the hail of lead that rushed towards them. Capt. Poe had strung wires from the stumps in front of the fort; the attacking rebels did not notice them, and so it happened that they stumbled over them and fell to the ground in confused heaps. But they rose again and moved on. Our artillerymen hurled hand grenades at them. The battle grew hotter and hotter, until the ground over which the rebels stormed was covered with dead and the trench filled with dead, wounded and dying. As the sun worked its way through the November fog this morning, it shone on a blood-soaked battlefield and the shattered ranks of the enemy storm column as they broke away. The enemy had lost thousands of dead, wounded and prisoners before giving up the attack. Our loss, in contrast, was 80 at most; among our dead is Colonel Girarde of the 13th Massachusetts; Lieutenant Colonel O'Brien, a brother-in-law of Parson Brownlow, was captured. The number of rebels captured is 250; three enemy battle flags were also captured; one of them had fluttered victoriously in the fort for a moment.​
Gen. Burnside offered Gen. Longstreet a truce from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. so he could bury his dead. The offer was accepted. The rebel officers who spoke to ours on this occasion expressed their astonishment at the strength of our works and at the resilient bravery of our soldiers. The wounded rebels were exchanged with Union soldiers who had been wounded in previous engagements.​
 
Last edited:
Thank you so much for the translation @luinrina I had never seen this article before, and I am so glad it has come to light now, just as the 157th anniversary of the assault on Fort Sanders approaches! Thanks to your translation, it is possible to determine that the Minnesota Staats-Zeitung article seems to include essentially the same content as an article that appeared in the Chicago Daily Tribune. (Chicago, IL), December 04, 1863, page 1. Despite minor error in the unit designations of the regiments that led in the assault, it's good to see them listed. It seems that not many newspapers made an attempt to identify them.
Suddenly the storm column appeared, the 16th and 17th Georgia and the 13th Mississippi regiments leading the way.
In reality, the 16th and 18th Georgia (in that order) led the left column while the 13th and 17th Mississippi (in that order) led the right column.
It is built of earth and timber and is very strong;
In another thread, we've been discussing whether the insides of the fort were walled with timbers. I assumed they were. I'm not sure if this statement indicates that the walls were backed with timber or if it refers to the stockade that enclosed the east side. Either way, its worth note.

Here is the Chicago Tribune article that seems to be the source for the Minnesota Staats-Zeitung version:
1606415855530.png


1606416231910.png


1606416259614.png

Chicago Daily Tribune. (Chicago, IL), December 04, 1863, page 1.
 
It's interesting to read how the information was interpreted differently in some instances.

Here's the translation of the Minnesota Staats-Zeitung version:
On Monday morning our pickets were driven back and the enemy had seized a few trenches. But ours (our soldiers) drove him back. Suddenly the storm column appeared, the 16th and 17th Georgia and the 13th Mississippi regiments leading the way. They were allowed to come within 100 yards of the fort undisturbed.
As opposed to the version that appeared in the Chicago Tribune:
"Our pickets were driven in, and the enemy had possessed themselves of some rife-pits but the Massachusetts boys drove them back, when suddenly the rebel storming party, led by the 16th and 17th [sic] Georgia and 13th Mississippi, under cover of our own retreating men came to the assault. They approached to within one hundred yards of the fort, unharmed..."

"under cover of our own retreating men" So the assaulting columns had the benefit of retreating Union pickets to help screen the attack. The Union artillery couldn't fire at the columns until the retreating Union soldiers reached the fort.

"They were allowed to come within 100 yards of the fort undisturbed" vs "They approached to within one hundred yards of the fort unharmed." Interesting how the choice of words changes the meaning.
 
The German report allows the reader to understand the cause of allowing the men to advance within 100 yards, and holding fire. It gives a descriptive quality to understanding the assault and defense. I can't remember any other field of action where trip-wires were used in the Civil War. Generally, such as at Savannah, the confederates planted land-mines.
Lubliner.
 
Back
Top