Jump to content
Shiloh Discussion Group

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. mona

    Lew Wallace's march

    it does read as if the writer knows the future days ahead better than the officers located there...by commenting that a battle is imminent..they were thinking to use pittsburg landing as a staging area for approach of their goal at Corinth.And mentioning the Federal troops are Sanguine a victory..he writes of the battle all ready won....maybe this was very hopeful thinking to be used to put all who read that there will be a victory and sorta "overlook" the immense casulities that are coming??????This report is very puzzling.
  3. Ozzy

    Lew Wallace's march

    [from chroniclingamerica.loc.gov] https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84031490/1862-04-07/ed-1/seq-2/ Chicago Daily Tribune of Monday 7 APR 1862, page 2. The above article is... confusing. Here are the issues: The advance guard from General Nelson's Division reached Savannah on Wednesday 2 APR 1862. "A gentleman who arrived at New Albany on Tuesday..." [ Tuesday, April 1st... but how does he know of arrival of BGen Nelson's advance?] "A gentleman who arrived... by the steamer John Raine." [This must have been the trip to Louisville, delivering cotton... that departed 30 MAR ?] "General Buell's Army commenced crossing the river..." [Duck River, instead of Tennessee River ?] "A battle is imminent." [On April 1st ? ] The restrictions on reporting military operations (without authorization) were strictly enforced in April 1862. And there is so much information contained in the article that someone reporting on 1 APR 1862 should not have known... Which makes me wonder: is this a "coded report," announcing "something big was happening up the Tennessee River," without resorting to "You Won't Believe It!!!" -- "A Battle is Underway!!!" -- "On the Tennessee River!!" (No other details...) If so, then everything that was known at 7:30 a.m. on Sunday 6 April [to someone at Pittsburg Landing, overhearing the sound of musketry and booming artillery, who then sped away downriver aboard the John Raine] is contained in this report. ["Buell crossing the Tennessee River Sunday morning" was anticipated by General Grant... perhaps a Staff Officer relayed that information as the Tigress passed the John Raine? And mention of "New Albany" ...merely an attempt at obfuscation, perhaps an effort to conceal the destination, and identity, of the reporter? ] The article is genuine, but it's meaning is a mystery... Ozzy
  4. Stan Hutson

    Cpt. Hugh William Henry, Company K, 22nd Alabama Infantry

    I previously posted this picture and etc. in a stand alone post. Wanted to include it in this album however, thus the duplication.
  5. Yesterday
  6. Ozzy

    Failure to Report

    Good question, Mona... because there were two instances (one of which was likely made known to him by William Tecumseh Sherman.) The first was stated above: due to Grant's questionable performance (visiting Nashville without Halleck's permission) MGen Grant was removed from "command in the field," replaced by Brigadier General C.F. Smith (who was junior in seniority to Generals Sherman, McClernand and Hurlbut on 5 MAR 1862.) Smith was put in charge of the Tennessee River Expedition. The second instance was likely brought to his attention by Brigadier General Sherman -- who in January 1862 was 7th most senior Brigadier in the entire Volunteer Army, even ranking U.S. Grant and Don Carlos Buell. That "Shell Game" took place at Benton Barracks, shortly after MGen Halleck took command of the Department of the Missouri in November 1861, and involved William T. Sherman (recuperating from nervous breakdown), Stephen Hurlbut (needing to dry out from alcohol over-use) and William K. Strong (who was a businessman requiring more experience in leading military men.) During the three months these three generals served together at Benton Barracks, any one of the three was claimed to be "Commander" at Benton Barracks, to hide the real reason three brigadier generals were there, at a Camp of Instruction. References: OR 52 page 198 -- "General Sherman's mental and physical state is so broken that, for the present, he is unfit for duty" [General Halleck communication to General McClellan on 2 DEC 1861.] OR 8 page 514 -- "General Sherman was placed in command of Benton Barracks." OR 52 page 227 -- Special Orders No.28 of 21 MAR 1862: "Brigadier General Strong is hereby placed in command of the District of Cairo." [Until this assignment, General Strong had been "present" at Benton Barracks, since December 1861. Assigned to command of Benton Barracks by General Halleck, Strong reported that "when he entered the Commanding Officer's Quarters, where he assumed he was to lodge himself, he found General Sherman already there."] https://www.loc.gov/resource/mal.1264500/?sp=3 Letter of 24 OCT 1861 from William K. Strong to President Lincoln, detailing his work with General Fremont. SDG topic "They also serve, who stand and wait..." post of 20 FEB 2018 -- details of W.K. Strong service. https://www.amazon.com/General-William-K-Strong-Autograph/dp/B00JBNNK04 Letter of 12 NOV 1861 in which General Strong claims he is in command of Benton Barracks. OR 3 pages 156 - 157, 475 -- In August/ September 1861, Brigadier General Hurlbut got caught up in a shambles of on operation along the line of the Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad in Northern Missouri, which resulted in him being placed under arrest and removed from command. Sent home to Illinois by General Fremont to await Court Martial, Hurlbut was still languishing in Illinois when General Halleck took command in Missouri in November. Halleck dropped the charges against Hurlbut, and at the suggestion of William T. Sherman (a close pre-war friend of Henry Halleck and Stephen Hurlbut) General Hurlbut was "assigned to Benton Barracks." Stephen A. Hurlbut: a Politician Turned General by Jeffrey Norman Lash, page 90. [Hurlbut arrived Benton Barracks on 1 JAN 1862.] OR 8 page 591 -- Henry Halleck in communication of 5 MAR 1862 to BGen Sherman refers to C.F. Smith as "Major General Smith."
  7. mona

    Failure to Report

    wonder where Grant witnessed Halleck assign an officer with less seniority to command more senior officers?
  8. Ozzy

    Lew Wallace's march

    Joe There is record of John Raine involved in movement of captured pork from Nichols Landing a few days before Battle of Shiloh. And there is evidence of John Raine involved with the Vicksburg Campaign of 1863. Aside from Logbook records, there is almost nothing about the steamer after morning of April 6th 1862 (although she appears frequently at Cairo, Evansville and Louisville during 1862... so likely reported to one of those Ohio River ports after leaving the Tennessee River.) Ozzy N.B. In Papers of US Grant vol.4 page 448, General Grant reports on 30 MAR 1862, "40 bales of cotton sent from Savannah to Louisville aboard the steamer John Raine." After dropping off the cotton, the John Raine likely returned to Savannah/ Pittsburg Landing (unknown cargo) and was at Pittsburg Landing when firing erupted morning of Sunday 6 APR 1862. [I have found no record of troops arriving at Pittsburg Landing aboard John Raine in late March/ early April, so the cargo was likely foodstuffs or animal feed.] https://archive.org/details/fiftyyearsonmiss01goul/page/368 Fifty Years on the Mississippi by Elmerson Gould (1889) page 368 lists John Raine in 1858 as belonging to a venture known as The Lightning Line, which included other fast steamers such as Fanny Bullitt, Diana, Baltic and A. McGill, which ran between Louisville and New Orleans. At that time, the Captain of John Raine was W. Underwood.
  9. Ozzy

    Failure to Report

    Joe The relative seniority of officers before, during and after Shiloh is presented in “Colonel C.F. Smith and Seniority,” in order to provide support to the following answers to your above questions: 1) There was always an issue with relative seniority, prior to 21 MAR 1862 because BGen Smith (who had been put in command of the Tennessee River Expedition by MGen Halleck) was junior to every other Brigadier General taking part in the expedition, except Lew Wallace. This technicality could be “rectified” by referring concerns to William Tecumseh Sherman – the senior officer present – who appeared happy to operate under Charles Ferguson Smith. 2) After 21 MAR there was a problem that arose, after McClernand – Smith – Lew Wallace were promoted to Major General (in the order listed.) John McClernand, with his political connections, likely was aware of the relative seniority attached to his own promotion. And, whether you like him or hate him, MGen McClernand was within his right to seek redress to “being senior officer, forced to serve beneath a junior.” There was no way US Grant was going to allow John McClernand temporary command in Grant’s absence; and the official Army List had not reached Grant (so he was able to claim ignorance of McClernand’s claim, until that official pecking order, which he requested from Halleck, was delivered to him.) 3) Meanwhile, MGen Grant created an elaborate façade (which I refer to as “Shell Game”) with the following components: - MGen Smith assigned to Pittsburg Landing - Captain William McMichael, Smith’s AAG, assigned to Pittsburg Landing - MGen Grant accords MGen Smith status as Campground commander - Due to injury, MGen Smith is temporarily away. During his absence, Smith has designated BGen Sherman to act in his stead as Campground commander. - In Smith’s absence, Captain McMichael acts as “place holder,” indicating intention for MGen Smith to “return” to Pittsburg Landing (and meanwhile, conducts affairs as if Smith is actually present) - My belief is that General Grant witnessed Henry Halleck do a similar thing (assigning a Brigadier General with less seniority) to command an expedition composed of officers more senior than the commander… and likely assumed, “if Halleck can do it, why not anyone else?” But, Grant took his subterfuge to an additional level, by installing Jacob Lauman as acting commander of the 2nd Division (in Smith’s absence.) And this version of the Shell Game came unstuck, because a more senior Colonel was part of the 2nd Division (John McArthur) who, likely, was as possessive and aware of his own seniority as Grant and McClernand were of theirs. Even after the promotions to Brigadier General were made (effective 21 March) McArthur was listed as senior to Lauman. BGen McArthur then got caught up in Grant’s Purge (see “Officers Under Arrest”) and this arrest of McArthur was followed up by orders sending McArthur to Lew Wallace’s 3rd Division “when for duty,” and WHL Wallace replaced Lauman as acting commander of the 2nd Division. The only consistent component present with the 2nd Division while this subterfuge was taking place: the AAG, William McMichael… acting for Smith, acting for Lauman and acting for WHL Wallace. References: SDG “Colonel C.F. Smith and Seniority” “The Real Story about Nashville” (post of 2 July 2018) “William McMichael” (post of 6 OCT 2018) SDG “Grant and McClernand” SDG “McArthur (part 2)” Papers of US Grant vol.4 pages 428 and 429. Life and Letters of General WHL Wallace page 180 [Letter of 3 APR 1862 in which General Wallace indicates he will remove himself to the 2nd Division tomorrow (April 4th). Provided to illustrate that not only was Jacob Lauman “on the job” commanding a brigade in Hurlbut’s 4th Division for an unbelievably short time prior to Battle of Shiloh, but General WHL Wallace faced a similar experience of, “being thrown into the deep end.” Cheers Ozzy
  10. Last week
  11. Stan Hutson

    Cpt. William O. Baldwin, Company G, 22nd Alabama Infantry

    The flag of Company I, Pike Greys, 22nd Alabama Infantry. This flag was presented to this company/regiment and it seems it was used as the regimental flag. Baldwin picked up this flag and carried it when the color bearer was killed. Obverse and reverse of the flag. 07. Obv after encapsulation.tif 08. Rev after encapsulation.tif
  12. Joseph Rose

    The real story about Nashville

    Grant penned his stiffly worded letter to Buell and signed it, “Major-General, commanding” from the “Headquarters District of West Tennessee, Nashville,” as if that city were in his jurisdiction and not in his respondent’s departmental command. Oddly, Grant reverted to “Brigadier-General” when signing subsequent orders.
  13. Joseph Rose

    Lew Wallace's march

    The boat carrying the 57th Ohio soldier in Stuber's account may well have been John Raine. The U.S. Civil War diary of Charles Kroff, 1861-1865 reads: "But it being Sunday and so early in the morning, we were confident that it was a battle. But we soon learned positively, from a boat that came down the river, that a battle was raging furiously." Kroff was at Crump's. It doesn't sound like Tigress going downriver with Baxter as that was not "soon" after "early in the morning." And Grant was going "upriver" mid-morning on Tigress beside he didn't know battle raging. According to William Rowley, Warner turned back upstream before reaching Crump's. Furthermore, the U.S.S Lexington's log stated: "At 9 the 'John Raine' passed down and reported fighting at Pittsburgh." Lastly, Grant Marsh went upriver on Tigress and it "had preceded but a mile or two when she met the steamer John Warner racing downstream. The Warner hailed, and on both boats slowing down, a lieutenant hurried on board the Tigress, bearing a dispatch from General Stephen A. Hurlbut to General Grant.” The officer verbally reported that the enemy was massed in great numbers and driving the army back on the river. Grant heard this and read dispatch with perfect composure. “He did not move from his chair, and his only comment was to the effect that when he arrived he would surround the enemy.” Tigress resumed until Grant ordered her to pull up next to Jesse K. Bell and he talked with Wallace. This shouldn't be Warner if Rowley's account is correct, but the timing makes it difficult for it to be John Raine, unless the boats passed just downriver from Crump's, which is far more than "a mile or two." Lew Wallace, however, didn't state that he received any news in such fashion. One obvious question: what happened to John Raine after she passed Crump's?
  14. Stan Hutson

    Scott's Louisiana Regiment

    This is rather intriguing. The first question that comes to my mind is wondering how many men were in the 1st Louisiana Cavalry at the time of Shiloh. This is all speculation as I do not have access right now to the OR's for guidance. Lots of what if's. I know many Alabama cavalry soldiers were "farmed out" as scouts, couriers, etc., and did not act together as a unit for all intents and purposes. I wonder if the same could be said of the 1st Louisiana Cavalry. If they operated as a solid whole unit, under Forrest, however, I do not see how they could be neglected in records; nor do I see how they could not be mentioned in Forrest's operations at Shiloh, particularly if they numbered over 100 men. The verbiage or rather how the story is articulated in the original article leads me to think they were on the Confederate right flank, near the river, the entire time. They may have not joined Forrest in his movements near the Sarah Bell cotton field. The story seems to mix "general Shiloh history" with the actions of the regiment. Although not as good as Fold3, civilwardata.com only lists one member of the regiment as being wounded. IF, again, IF, they only lost one man wounded, that does not seem to indicate they were in any thick fighting. One way or another, it seems to indicate that there were a lot of Confederate horsemen "operating" on the Confederate right and/or Forrest had more men under him than I thought.
  15. Ozzy

    Scott's Louisiana Regiment

    Stan Thanks for having a look, and researching facts behind the First Louisiana Cavalry. A week ago, I had never heard of this unit, commanded by John Sims Scott... and doubted whether the 1st Louisiana Cavalry was present at Shiloh (even Major David W. Reed indicated uncertainty, on page 88 of The Battle of Shiloh and Organizations Engaged.) However, the more research is done, the more evidence is found. To summarize what I have found, to date: 1st Louisiana Cavalry Spending the early months of the war in Virginia with General Magruder, John Sims Scott of East Feliciana Parish, Louisiana returned home with authority to recruit a cavalry regiment. In short order, the First Louisiana Cavalry (also known as Scott’s Regiment, or Scott’s Cavalry, or “The Louisiana Cavalry”) was organized, effective 11 SEP 1861, and was based at Baton Rouge. Called to Bowling Green, Kentucky in the Winter of 1861/2, the cavalry unit was initially prevented from engaging in demanding duties, due to an outbreak of measles. Then, having survived that epidemic, Scott’s Louisiana Cavalry rode west to take part in the Fort Donelson defense… only to have General Buckner assign the unit to the opposite bank of the Cumberland River (some said “to prevent Union artillery from occupying that position,” while others believed, “it was to make sure the measles did not get spread.”) Whatever the reason, Colonel Scott’s Cavalry was outside, across the river from Fort Donelson when that stronghold was surrendered on 16 FEB; and the unit returned east, made its way to Nashville, and became a part of General A.S. Johnston’s redeploy south towards Huntsville. On March 9th a battalion of Scott’s Cavalry took part in a skirmish against elements of the 4th Ohio Cavalry (belonging to Ormsby Mitchel’s Division, Buell’s Army of the Ohio) at Granny White’s Pike. After holding that Federal force at bay, the 1st Louisiana Cavalry moved south to Columbia Tennessee (and was likely responsible for burning bridges in vicinity, which slowed the advance of General Buell, delaying his join with General Grant at Savannah.) Racing away from Columbia, the Louisiana Cavalry appears to have ridden south (and probably took up the line of the Memphis & Charleston Railroad, heading west) and next shows up for the Battle of Shiloh (as indicated in the Letter of 13 April published in the New Orleans Daily Crescent of 30 APR 1862.) Major David W. Reed in Battle of Shiloh and the Organizations Engaged, page 88, also indicates the “Louisiana Cavalry” was somehow involved with the Battle (listed as “unattached,” but likely part of Breckinridge’s Reserve Corps, acting in cooperation with Forrest’s Cavalry against the Union left.) After Shiloh, Scott’s Louisiana Cavalry took station at Burnsville; but by the end of April, the unit was heading east… and on May 1st harassed General Ormsby Mitchel (the man responsible for cutting the M & C R.R.) in vicinity of Huntsville. For the remainder of the war, the 1st Louisiana Cavalry went from strength to strength: sometimes operating closely with Nathan Bedford Forrest; and at other times, operating as a Brigade of Cavalry, under Colonel John Scott. Significant campaigns include Bragg’s Kentucky Invasion (operating with Kirby Smith); Pegram’s Kentucky Raid; Tullahoma Campaign; Chickamagua; Chattanooga. Recalled to Louisiana early in 1864, Scott’s Cavalry spent the entire year harassing Union troops across the State; then rode into Mississippi to disrupt Union operation of the Mobile & Ohio Railroad. Active mostly in Louisiana for the remaining months of the war, the 1st Louisiana Cavalry was surrendered as part of General Richard Taylor’s Army (to Union General Canby) on May 5th 1865. John Simms Scott survived the war… but passed away in 1872. Perhaps his untimely death contributed to the omission of the 1st Louisiana Cavalry from Confederate Order of Battle for the Battle of Shiloh? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- References: OR 10 Pages 7 – 8; and 878 D.W. Reed’s Battle of Shiloh and the Organizations Engaged, page 88. First Louisiana Cavalry at <tcc230.tripod.com> New Orleans Daily Crescent of 30 APR 1862 [In addition, an image of Colonel John S. Scott, 1st Louisiana Cavalry, is to be found on Pinterest.] Scott's Louisiana Cavalry.docx
  16. Stan Hutson

    Scott's Louisiana Regiment

    http://tcc230.tripod.com/ The following short history was taken from the website above: In February, 1862, Brigadier General Buckner ordered the 1st Louisiana Cavalry to operate on the north side of the Cumberland River, opposite Fort Donelson, to prevent any Union artillery from establishing across from the Fort. From this assignment until April, 1864, the 1st Louisiana Cavalry Regiment fought exclusively outside of their home state. After the fall of Ft. Donelson, the regiment was ordered back to Nashville and remained there until Union forces started showing up on both sides of the river. The regiment was then ordered Franklin, Tennessee and to serve as the rear guard. While in route, Capt. G. Scott and a detachment of 40 men were sent to halt the harassment of a Union cavalry unit that was following. At Granny White's Pike, Capt. Scott and his detachment attacked the 100 man detachment of the 4th Ohio Cavalry, killing 12, routing the troopers and burned their tents. The 1st La. Cavalry detachment lost 1 killed and 1 mortally wounded. The remainder of the trip to Franklin was uneventful and marked the first engagement of a long record of engagements for the regiment. At Shiloh, the 1st La. Cavalry was a part of Col. Nathan B. Forrest's Cavalry on the extreme right of the Confederate line. Repulsed the opening attacks on the 7th of April but had to finally give way to reinforcements of fresh troops of the Union forces.
  17. Stan Hutson

    Scott's Louisiana Regiment

    Scott's Cavalry regiment was the 1st Louisiana Cavalry and from what I found on the net, it shows they were operating under Forrest at Shiloh. Very odd that they are not independently listed in the OR's, that I can see. Did a little research and found the obituary, plus another online source, showing one Martin Costley, 1st Louisiana Cavalry, Company L, wounded at Shiloh. So, they were there it seems. The original article you posted is very odd and hard to follow. Very generic "history" of the battle, almost written as if the writer was not there, just rehashing the Shiloh battle story. If they were with Forrest, it leads one to wonder if they followed Forrest away from guarding bridges and joined in the attack near the Sarah Bell cotton field?
  18. Stan Hutson

    Another Flag of Truce

    I wonder what the back story is on this. I am sure there were other commanders who probably wanted to recover other fallen soldiers at Shiloh, and probably would have given the chance. I can see why the body of the Governor would want to be recovered, but the Major? Just makes me think that if Beauregard gave the nod to Breckenridge to send a flag of truce, other officers would have gotten wind and would have wanted to send their own envoy(s) for similar purposes.
  19. Ozzy

    Failure to Report

    Joe Thanks for having a look at this topic. In response, I have created a new topic, "Colonel C.F. Smith and Seniority," which lays the groundwork for actual pecking order of General officers during build-up at Pittsburg Landing (and quickly demonstrates the farce of claiming "Smith is senior.") Regards Ozzy
  20. I begin this post with a fact unknown to most Shiloh aficianados: Charles Ferguson Smith, although referred to as "General" Smith, was technically still Colonel Smith through the Fort Henry Campaign. When General Grant learned shortly afterwards that Smith's appointment had been held up in the U.S. Senate, Grant complained to Elihu Washburne (on about 10 FEB 1862) that "Smith must be confirmed, immediately." During the investment of Fort Donelson, C.F. Smith was informed by Major General Halleck (on 14 FEB) that the Senate had finally confirmed him as Brigadier General, with effective date of rank 31 AUG 1861. Why this matters? The frequent, and difficult to predict, promotion of Colonels to BGen, and BGen to Major General during the Civil War -- on both sides -- had potential to upset military planning and execution of those plans in the field (as evidenced during March and April 1862 during the lead-up to events that took place at Pittsburg Landing.) Seniors refused to be commanded by juniors (upheld by Laws of USA and CSA.) And, because Seniority between and among general officers was of some importance, listed below are Union general officers -- with association with Pittsburg Landing -- relative seniority effective on particular dates: April/ May March on Corinth: MGen Halleck -- Grant -- Buell -- Pope -- McClernand -- CF Smith (died 25 APR) -- Lew Wallace -- Ormsby Mitchel -- George Thomas -- WT Sherman -- EOC Ord -- Brigadier General T. W. Sherman (not WT Sherman) -- Hurlbut -- Sturgis -- Wm."Bull" Nelson -- Garfield -- Thos. Davies -- Isaac Quinby -- Oglesby -- John P. Cook -- WHL Wallace (died of wounds 10 APR) -- McArthur -- McCook -- Lauman -- John Logan -- Speed Fry -- Dodge -- Buford -- Ross -- Crittenden -- Hovey -- Veatch Pittsburg Landing on 18 MAR 1862: MGen Grant -- BGen Sherman -- Hurlbut -- Prentiss -- McClernand -- CF Smith -- Lew Wallace (Seniority among selected Colonels on 18 MAR: WHL Wallace -- McArthur -- Lauman) Pittsburg Landing after 21 MAR 1862: MGen Grant -- MGen Buell -- McClernand -- CF Smith -- Lew Wallace -- Brigadier General WT Sherman -- Hurlbut -- Prentiss -- Bull Nelson -- Oglesby -- John P. Cook -- WHL Wallace -- McArthur -- Lauman -- John Logan -- Ross Reference: https://archive.org/details/generalorderswa00deptgoog/page/n8 General Orders of the War Department [Charles F. Smiths late confirmation by the Senate was likely due to unfounded rumours, spread by his personal enemy, Eleazer Paine, detailing "improprieties in Paducah" which Henry Halleck had to personally investigate -- OR 7 page 929 and Teacher of Civil War Generals by Allen H. Mesch, pages 208 - 9. General Grant response to learning that Senate had not yet confirmed Smith as General on 10 FEB 1862 found in General E. A. Paine in Western Kentucky by Dieter Ullrich, et al... page 162, and Papers of US Grant, vol.4, page 188 (and 189).]
  21. Joseph Rose

    BGen Jacob Lauman

    I think that Lauman got a raw deal regarding Second Jackson. He had been ordered the day before IIRC to keep abreast of the division on his left. He, and many of his supporters, claim that he was following orders when the unfortunate incident occurred. Ord, Sherman, and Grant had him immediately releieved and given no chance to obtain justice through a court of inquiry. Their hurry to get Lauman out and keep this quiet indicates that Lauman was more of a scapegoat than a guilty party.
  22. Joseph Rose

    Failure to Report

    I don't have time to do this justice right now, but I think that you are quite correct in indicating that Grant's effort to keep McClernand "down" hurt the establishment of a proper chain of command both before and during the early part of the battle. Grant had been calling Smith "Major-General" for a long time before April, but he didn't recognize McClernand as even ranking Brigadier-General Sherman, whom Grant had selected to be the de facto commander of the camps around Pittsburg Landing. And many histories make McClernand the bad guy for disputing the ranking that Grant gave Smith when 1.) McClernand was correct about the true ranking and 2.) McClernand didn't press the matter, but said that he would go along with Grant's error for the good of the army. Grant's insertion of W.H.L. Wallace into Smith's Second Division and the removal of its de facto commander, Jacob Lauman, who was consequently sent to an unfamiliar brigade in an unfamiliar division, would also certainly have consequences in the battle (although it's impossible to know how things would have turned out differently). Lauman was more experienced in battle and would have known the division's character far better than an outsider who was installed, due to Grant's favoritism, just days before the fight.
  23. Ozzy

    Scott's Louisiana Regiment

    Regarding the above excerpt from the New Orleans Daily Crescent, the "additional comment" continuing beyond the bottom of the Louisiana Cavalry article was left attached, to provide tangible evidence of European visitors to the Confederate Capital at Richmond, all intent on celebrating a promised Rebel Victory in the field... somewhere (which would then justify according President Davis's Government with Official Recognition.) The presence of these European observers helped inspire Confederate leaders to "gild the lily," and claim Shiloh as a Victory... and persist with that claim, despite evidence to the contrary, until the argument was made moot... by the Federal Occupation of New Orleans.
  24. Ozzy

    Another Flag of Truce

    Why is the above report of a Flag of Truce on Sunday, April 13th important? Although there is mention of several communications between Halleck and Beauregard taking place during Halleck's March on Corinth (which commenced end of April 1862) I was unaware of any contact made with Grant's Army after General Beauregard (via messenger under Flag of Truce) attempted to arrange for burial of Rebel remains, a day or two after Battle of Shiloh. Also included in the brief article of 15 April: Who the Confederate Flag of Truce sought out (Brigadier General Nelson) Confirmation that Major General Halleck was present. "Captain Richards was blindfolded" to prevent him seeing anything of military value. In addition, the article mentions a skirmish on 13 April 1862 involving Forrest's Cavalry (which would have been conducted by a junior officer, because Colonel Forrest was away having a wound tended.)
  25. Ozzy

    Scott's Louisiana Regiment

    The above article attributed to "S.R." of Scott's Louisiana Regiment holds surprising claims... one of which, "we made a forced march of 90 miles in two days," seems implausible... until it is realized that Colonel John S. Scott's unit was a Regiment of Cavalry. In addition to riding 90 miles, it appears that twelve of those miles were covered during the morning of April 6th. Given the above distances, Scott's Louisiana Regiment of Cavalry was likely on the line of the Memphis & Charleston Railroad, in vicinity of Decatur, Alabama, when orders were received on April 4th 1862 to, "Come west to take part in the fight." Of especial interest: Scott's Louisiana Regiment is not mentioned in the official Shiloh Confederate Order of Battle. Yet, the author of the above article indicates that his cavalry unit was present at the battle, both days. How can that be?
  26. Really hated to have missed this one. I had an ancestor in the 18th Alabama who was captured and died at Camp Douglas on May 26, 1862. Maybe next year...
  1. Load more activity
×