Adjutant and Inspector General’s Office* 
GENERAL ORDERS, > 
No. 152. $ 
Richmond, Nov. 24, 1863. 
I. A Court of Enquiry having been convened at Jackson, Mississippi, 
by Special Orders, No. 41, from this office, dated February 18, 1863, 
amended by Special Orders, No. 43, of February 20, 1863, to examine 
and report the facts and circumstances attending the capture of the city 
of New Orleans by the enemy in April 1862, and the defence of the city 
by the confederate troops under command of Major General Mansfield 
Lovell, together with their opinion thereon: and the Court having dis- 
charged the duty assigned them, their opinion is published for the benefit 
of all whom it may concern. 
11. Opinion of the Court. 
The Court having maturely considered the evidence adduced, submit 
the following 
OPINION: 
1. As against a land attack by any force the enemy could probably 
bring, the interior line of fortifications, as adopted and completed by 
Major General Lovell, was a sufficient defence of the city ot New Orleans ; 
but his ability to hold that line against such an attack was greatly im- 
paired by the withdrawal from him, by superior authority, of nearly all 
his effective troops. 
2. The exterior line, as adopted and improved by him, was well de- 
vised, and rendered as strong as the means of his command allowed. 
3. Until the iron clad gun boats Louisiana and Mississippi should be 
ready for service, it was indispensably necessary to obstruct the naviga- 
tion of the Mississippi river between Forts Jackson and St. Philip. The 
raft completed under General Lovell’s direction was adequate for the pur- 
pose while in position; but it was swept away, and left the river unim- 
peded, either by reason of some error in its construction, or neglect in 
preventing the accumulation of drift, or because of insuperable mechani- 
cal difficulties, as to which this Court feels unprepared to give an opinion. 
General Lovell communicated to the government no opinion as to the 
insecurity of the raft, nor any apprehension that it might be swept away, 
nor did he immediately make known that fact when it occurred. In this 
it is considered that he was remiss in his duty. 2 
4. When the raft was swept away, Gen. Lovell with great energy im- 
mediately endeavored to replace it, and partially succeeded; but without 
fault on his part, this last obstruction was broken by the carelessness of 
vessels of the “ river defence fleet” colliding with it, and by fire rafts 
drifting against it, and by the failure of the guard boats to protect it against 
night expeditions of the enemy. 
5. The non-completion of the iron clad gun boats Louisiana and Mis- 
sissippi made it impossible for the navy to co-operate efficiently with Gen. 
Lovell. 
6. The so-called river defence fleet was wholly useless as a means of 
resistance to the enemy, for which Gen. Lovell was in no wise responsible. 
7. Under the existing' circumstances, the passage of the forts by the 
enemy’s fleet could not have been prevented by Gen. Lovell with any 
means under his control; and the forts being passed, the fall of New Or- 
leans was inevitable, and its evacuation a military necessity. 
8. When the first raft was broken, and the danger of New Orleans thus 
became imminent, all necessary preparation should have been made for 
removing the public property and private property available for military 
uses; and when the second obstruction was swept away, the removal of 
such property should have been commenced immediately. The failure to 
take these timely steps caused the losses of property that occurred; but 
there was comparatively but little property lost for which Gen. Lovell was 
responsible. 
9. The failure of Gen. Lovell to give proper orders to Brig. Gen. M. L. 
Smith for the retirement of his command from Chalmette, is not suffi- 
ciently explained, and is therefore regarded as a serious error. 
JO. The proposition of Gen. Lovell to return to New Orleans with his 
command was not, demanded by his duty as a soldier, involving as it did 
the useless sacrifice of himself and his troops, though it explains itself 
upon the ground of sympathy for the population and a natural sensitive- 
ness to their reproaches. 
11. Gen. Lovell displayed great energy and an untiring industry in per- 
forming his duties. His conduct was marked by all the coolness and self- 
possession duo to the circumstances and his position; and he evinced a 
high capacity for command, and the clearest foresight in many of his mea- 
sures for the defence of Now Orleans. 
The Court respectfully report that its assembly was delayed by the fail- 
ure of its President to receive his orders in due time, and that its session 
was protracted by the taking of testimony under the order of the War 
Department, as to the conduct of naval officers on duty in Department 3 
1 ' oi'ei 'Vhf? rescinded, thus rendering useless and irrelevant 
nra„h of the labor of the Court. The testimony referred to, although ap- 
pearing on record, was not considered by the Court in determining its 
findings a'hd opinion. 
111 The Court of inquiry in the foregoing ease is hereby dissolved. 
order. 
Adjutant and Inspector General. 
S. COOPER,