Reference Entry
BATTLES OF FORT FISHER
The failed December 1864 expedition and successful January 1865 assault were separate attempts to close Wilmington’s protected sea approach. This overview distinguishes bombardment, amphibious landings, naval and army assaults, and the later advance on Wilmington.
Scope of this history
The North Carolina fort and both expeditions, with Wilmington aftermath identified separately; excludes the same-named Virginia field work.
Why the Cape Fear entrance mattered
Fort Fisher protected the approach to Wilmington, a port that remained important to Confederate blockade running late in the Civil War. Vessels reaching the Cape Fear could bring supplies through a guarded entrance rather than an undefended beach. For the Union, closing that passage offered a result larger than possession of a fort: it would sever a maritime connection feeding the Confederate war effort. [1]
The story has two main attacks, not one uninterrupted assault. A December 1864 expedition withdrew without taking the work. A new expedition returned in January 1865 and captured it after heavy fighting. Wilmington itself fell later. Keeping those stages separate prevents an award for shipboard service over several months from being reduced to a single charge on January 15. [1]
A fortress built from earth and sand
Under William Lamb, Fort Fisher grew into an extensive defensive system on Federal Point. Its land face blocked an approach down the peninsula, while the sea face covered the ocean and entrance. Large earthen traverses separated parts of the landward defenses. Sand and earth absorbed punishment differently from exposed masonry, and damage visible from offshore did not necessarily mean that the garrison could no longer resist an infantry assault. [2]
Construction depended in part on the coerced labor of enslaved people. The fort’s scale should therefore be understood as both an engineering achievement and a product of the Confederate labor system. Its surviving remains are evidence of that work, but the modern coastline and preserved site are not an unchanged reconstruction of the wartime peninsula. [2] [3]
The December expedition fails
The first expedition paired David D. Porter’s fleet with a land force under Benjamin Butler. Its unusual preliminary operation used the powder-laden vessel Louisiana, brought close to the coast and detonated before dawn on December 24. The explosion failed to destroy the fort. Naval bombardment followed, and troops landed on December 25, but the assessment ashore did not support the easy assault that the bombardment’s advocates expected. [4]
Butler withdrew rather than press the attack. The failure did not mean that a landing was impossible or that naval power was irrelevant; it showed that the expedition had not converted its firepower and landing into a successful capture. The preserved powder-boat citations often use December 23, while the state historic site places the explosion early on December 24. This overview preserves that distinction rather than silently correcting the award transcriptions. [4] [5]
Terry and Porter return
Grant selected Alfred Terry for the renewed land expedition. January preparations sought to turn the landing into a sustained position from which the fort could be isolated and attacked. Terry and Porter had complementary tasks: the army needed room to deploy on the peninsula, while the fleet had to support the movement and keep pressure on the fort. [6]
Union troops landed on January 13. Confederate troops under Robert F. Hoke remained north of the landing area rather than driving the force back into the sea. By January 14, Terry had a defensive line across the peninsula and was preparing an assault on the fort itself. This northern protection mattered because an army attacking southward could otherwise be threatened from its rear. [7]
Naval fire was more than a preliminary display
The fleet’s work continued through the operation. New Ironsides and other ships suppressed batteries and supported movement against the land face. Naval fire could force defenders into shelter, damage guns and interrupt attempts to concentrate against the troops ashore. The problem was coordination: support had to shift as the infantry advanced, rather than simply stop after producing visible destruction. [8]
Daniel Milliken’s preserved New Ironsides citation describes participation in both the December and January attacks. George Prance’s account aboard Ticonderoga also spans the two expeditions and records the danger of a gun bursting amid enemy fire. Such records show that the award story includes sustained shipboard service, not only the men who climbed the fort’s parapets. [9] [10]
The army gains the western end
The army’s attack developed at the western end of the land face. Once troops gained access, the fighting continued across the traverses and within the work rather than ending with the first flag on the parapet. The contrast with the naval column is important: different assault forces confronted different approaches, and their outcomes cannot be combined into a single uniform experience. [15]
The citation of Bruce Anderson recognizes advancing with the head of the column to cut down the palisading. Newton M. Curtis’s account records repeated leadership at the traverses and multiple wounds. Galusha Pennypacker’s citation describes carrying a charge over a traverse and planting a regiment’s colors before being severely wounded. Together these records illuminate successive tasks—opening an obstacle, maintaining momentum and establishing a foothold—rather than three interchangeable acts. [16] [17] [18]
Capture and its immediate cost
The fight continued into the evening. Union reinforcements and the advance toward Battery Buchanan helped bring the surviving Confederate resistance to an end. The 27th United States Colored Troops participated in the final movement down the peninsula. Surrender that night ended the battle for the fort, but danger remained: the main magazine exploded the next morning, adding further deaths after the fighting. [7]
The fort was not the city
Taking Fort Fisher closed the protected sea approach, but the campaign against Wilmington continued inland and upriver. The city was occupied in February, not on January 15. The distinction explains why the Pontoosuc citations extend across a longer sequence of operations. Anthony Williams’s record, for example, names Fort Fisher and Wilmington together; it should not be presented as proof of a particular position in the January infantry assault. [1] [19]
The victory is best understood as a successful combination of naval firepower, an adequately secured landing and sustained ground action. None of those elements worked in isolation. The contrast between the two expeditions makes Fort Fisher a useful case in the limits of bombardment and the importance of maintaining cooperation after the first troops reach shore. [6]
Reading the battlefield and the archive
Coastal erosion, later military activity and construction have altered Fort Fisher. The surviving earthworks and archaeological record must be interpreted alongside wartime accounts; missing features should not be imagined from a modern photograph alone. Preservation allows visitors to understand part of the physical problem without mistaking today’s site for the whole fort. [3]
Fort names alone are unreliable guides to the fighting. A separate Fort Fisher stood on the Petersburg front in Virginia. Connections to the Cape Fear battles must therefore distinguish the place, the December and January expeditions, and the subsequent Wilmington operations. The linked recipient records preserve those distinctions instead of treating every appearance of the name as the same battlefield. [20] [1]
Source notes
Sources and further reading
Institutional histories establish the battle, incident, or unit context. Linked Trackpads recipient records preserve the award citations used for individual actions. The connections below are a reviewed selection, not a complete historical roll of awards.
- NC Historic Sites — Fort Fisher History ↗
- NC Historic Sites — The Fort ↗
- NC Office of State Archaeology — Fort Fisher ↗
- NC Historic Sites — First Attack ↗
- Charles Hawkins — preserved recipient citation
- NHHC — Fort Fisher ↗
- NC Historic Sites — Second Attack ↗
- NHHC / DANFS — New Ironsides ↗
- Daniel Milliken — preserved recipient citation
- George Prance — preserved recipient citation
- NHHC / DANFS — Minnesota I ↗
- Charles Mills — preserved recipient citation
- Henry S Webster — preserved recipient citation
- Andrew J Tomlin — preserved recipient citation
- NHHC / DANFS — Shenandoah I ↗
- Bruce Anderson — preserved recipient citation
- Newton Martin Curtis — preserved recipient citation
- Galusha Pennypacker — preserved recipient citation
- Anthony Williams — preserved recipient citation
- NPS — Battle of Fort Stedman ↗