This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I do not know how to handle this problem. The article quotes its source (DANFS) correctly, but the source itself is not correct or at least is seriously misleading.
The problem is the line "She went into action against Fort Anderson 18 February, shelling the works at Port Royal until the latter part of April." The link to Port Royal, SC was certainly incorrect. Mackinaw was in the North Atlantic Blockading Squadron, which operated in the waters off Virginia and North Carolina. Furthermore Port Royal in South Carolina had been captured from the Confederacy in November 1861, so there was no reason for any Union vessel to shell it. So what Port Royal did DANFS mean? I find no record of a Port Royal in the vicinity of Fort Anderson, and in any case the assault on Fort Anderson was not going on until late April. By that time, Mackinaw was a part of the James River Squadron, operating in the rivers of Tidewater Virginia. A town named Port Royal is on the Rappahannock River and could conceivably have been shelled at that time, but it seems to be too insignificant to have attracted attention. It seems not to have been mentioned in any reports of Mackinaw's operations. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply