All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Today
  2. Mona Thanks for clarifying that members of the Harrison family lived in the neighborhood; puts the supposition (of possibility of the road being named for Captain Harrison and Major Harrison) to rest. The other bit of information I uncovered: John Wharton was promoted to Colonel in January 1862; N.B. Forrest was promoted to Colonel while he was with his force at Iuka in March 1862; and John Hunt Morgan was considered "a Captain" until April 15th. Therefore, Morgan would have been junior anytime he worked in cooperation with Colonel Forrest (and may have provided an incentive to be "elsewhere..." other side of the battlefield; or other end of the road.) All the best Ozzy Reference: http://civilwar.rosenbach.org/?p=4470 April 15th Telegram Lee to Beauregard (Rosenbach Collection)
  3. Yesterday
  4. there are some Hariisons that have owned property for a long time ...the roads are around here named after long time land owners
  5. i believe as you write that morgan's squadron was in the rear guard but probably not at fallen timber as i believe duke would have surely mentioned it...the action on the 10th is more liking to the action duke describes.. duke does "embelish" the description of the battle as a victory..the only thing i can come up with is yes the confederate army did stp the federals from approach to corinth ...just a delay.
  6. yes there are many locations where a trail sign could be but they really require a "sponser" and a land owner willing to allow sign placed and provide enuf pulloff space for a vehicle and yearly insurance(which had already paid for itself at Fallen Timbers when it was stolen couple yrs back a new one was put up in a very timely fashion) .also there are locations that could have one that the land owner either doesnt know the history of the location or doesnt care 9
  7. yes ive seen several sketches of his not included in the book...kind of a shame they all werent in cluded.
  8. On April 26th 1862, after the dust had settled a bit on the momentous contest that had taken place in vicinity of Pittsburg Landing, E. G. Squier, editor of Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, made use of previously published reports by Whitelaw Reid and William C. Carroll -- and eyewitness statements provided by his own reporter on the scene -- and constructed the following article: The Great Battle in the South-West "The long-anticipated great battle in the South-West was fought on the 6th and 7th of April, at a point called Pittsburg Landing, on the Tennessee River, in the south-western portion of the State of Tennessee, near the northern boundary of Mississippi. As regards the numbers engaged, and equally as regards the number of killed and wounded on both sides, this battle ranks as the most serious struggle of the war. It commenced on the morning of Sunday, the 6th, and was protracted over two days, ending on the night of Monday the 7th with the flight of the rebel army, which left its Commander-in-Chief, Maj.-Gen. A.S. Johnston, dead on the field. Considered as a whole, the Battle of Pittsburg Landing may be described as a repetition of Bull Run on a larger scale, but with its results reversed. The enemy here made the attack in superior force, gained an undoubted success on the first day, but were overpowered by reinforcements of the National army on the second day, and driven from the field. Either because the National army was very much cut up, from lack of efficiency in its commanders, or from causes yet to be explained, the retreat of the enemy was little molested -- thus completing the parallel with Bull Run, where the rebels permitted the National forces to fall back undisturbed to their entrenchments. There is much that is unintelligible and unsatisfactory about the affair at Pittsburg Landing, and much which reflects unfavorably upon the generalship displayed by the National commanders. The Union forces on the left bank of the Tennessee River, under Gen. Grant, numbered about 35,000 men. Advancing to his support, from the direction of Nashville, by easy stages, and with that slow deliberation which characterizes all his movements, was that remarkably intelligent and enterprising officer, Gen. Buell, at the head of 40,000 men. In front of Gen. Grant, on the same side of the river, and less than twenty miles distant, were Generals Johnston, Beauregard, Bragg, Polk, and Evans, with the combined rebel forces from Bowling Green, Columbus, Memphis, Pensacola and Mobile, with large augmentations from Virginia, in all at least 100,000 men, massed together with the obvious and avowed purpose of crushing the Northern army by the weight of numbers. All this was known for weeks, and yet Grant's comparatively little army was left at Pittsburg with a river behind it, and Buell loitering by the way, while Maj.-Gen. Halleck, whose duty it was to be with his army, lingered in St. Louis. It was under these circumstances that Johnston, having rapidly concentrated his forces, resolved upon the very natural expedient of massing his army on Grant, overwhelm him, and then cut off Buell the Tardy. It is astounding that Gen. Grant did not anticipate and in some way provide against a movement which the smallest modicum of common sense, to say nothing of military knowledge, pointed out so clearly as the true one to be made. Yet it is a fact, that the attack on Sunday morning was in every sense a surprise. It does not seem that the ordinary precaution of posting pickets in the direction of the enemy had been adopted. The Pittsburg Landing correspondent of the Chicago Times states positively that our officers were informed by rebel prisoners that an attack would be made on Sunday, "but that no extra measures were taken to guard against surprise." The prevailing impression seems to have been, that the rebels would strengthen their entrenchments at Corinth, and there await the attack of the combined National army. Halleck appears to have been of this belief, Grant certainly acted as if he thought any other policy impossible, and Buell seems to have cared very little about the matter. This blindness, supineness and lack of energy proved nearly fatal to the National cause in the South-West. Had not Johnston been prevented by storms from making his attack earlier, Gen. Grant's division must have inevitably been cut up and captured. As it was, the rebel force, estimated at 90,000 strong, swooped down on Gen. Grant, on Sunday morning, with such rapidity and impetuosity, that the outlying camps were captured almost at the instant; "so quickly," says one correspondent, "that many of the soldiers were taken or slaughtered in their tents." Gen. Prentiss' brigade, on the advance, seems to have been captured bodily. Desperate efforts were made by the National commanders to retrieve themselves, and they and their men fought all day with desperate energy, against the overpowering force of the rebels, flushed with the successes of the morning. But in spite of all their exertions they were gradually driven from their positions back to the river, losing battery after battery, and were only saved from annihilation at nightfall by getting under the protection of the gunboats on the river. The rebels occupied the Union camps, leaving to the morning the consummation of their victory. Their Commander-in-Chief had fallen during the day, but his place was more than filled -- in the rebel estimation -- by Beauregard, who, during the night, telegraphed to the insurgent Government that, under Almighty God, he had "gained a complete victory." His dispatch was as follows: "Battlefield of Shiloh, April 6, via Corinth and Chattanooga -- General S. Cooper, Adjutant-General -- 'We have this morning attacked the enemy in a strong position in front of Pittsburg, and after a severe battle of ten hours, thanks to Almighty God, gained a complete victory, driving the enemy from every position. The loss on both sides is heavy, including our Commander-in-Chief, Gen. Albert Sidney Johnston, who fell gallantly leading his troops into the thickest of the fight.' -- G.T. Bearegard, General-Commanding." During the night, however, Gen. Buell's division appeared on the banks of the Tennessee River, behind the shattered Union army, and the work of crossing was commenced. When morning broke, the astounded Beauregard found, to his alarm, that a new army had sprung up as from the ground before him. No time was left him for reflection or preparation, for now it was his turn to be attacked. His reserves were ordered up, and before 10 o'clock the battle became general. At half-past eleven it was at its height, and raged furiously. The commanders on both sides flew to the front and headed the charges of their respective commands. Wallace, Grant, Nelson and McClernand were everywhere, inspiring their men by word and example. At noon the rebels began to fall back, slowly at first, but gradually hastening their movements, abandoning battery on battery more rapidly than they had gained them the day before, until at three o'clock they were in full retreat for Corinth, abandoning their dead and wounded on the field, failing, as we have already said, to carry off the body of their Commander-in-Chief. That the victory rested with the National army is indubitable. How far it may prove to be decisive remains to be seen. That Gen. Grant's division was in imminent danger of being cut to pieces is certain, and that this danger was due partly to blind confidence and want of ordinary provision on his part, but mainly to the inexcusable delay of Gen. Buell in reinforcing him, is clear -- clear, unless additional facts, unknown to the public, shall entirely change the aspect of the whole affair. The losses on both sides were very heavy -- much heavier than in any previous battle of the war. The first reports were vague and exaggerated: "25,000 killed and wounded on the side of the National forces; 30,000 on the part of the enemy." Later reports put the Union loss in killed, wounded and prisoners at 7000; those of the rebels, in killed and wounded alone, at about the same figure. Absurd censorship, or some other cause, has prevented us, at the end of a week, from knowing the exact state of facts. We, however, do know that the rebel Commander-in-Chief was killed; that Gen. Gladden lost an arm; that Gen. Prentiss of the National army was captured; and the gallant Wallace severely wounded. Late reports, vouched for by Gen. Banks, represent Beauregard as severely wounded, and since dead. It will take time to resolve all the conflicting statements and rumors into a consistent and truthful whole. Meantime, it is enough, perhaps, to know that the eagle of victory still perches on our standard! And it only remains for us to add the Proclamation of the President, and the Order of the Secretary of War, called out by the bloody achievement at Pittsburg Landing, and the really great victory won by Com. Foote and Gen. Pope on the Mississippi..." [President Lincoln's Proclamation of Thanks and Secretary Stanton's Summation attached.] Ozzy [Just a few observations, to go with the above article: although written by E.G. Squier, significant input was provided by the sketch artist, Henri Lovie, who sent along his observations (while remaining at Pittsburg Landing, continuing to sketch.) The above article appears on Page One... of the Supplement [a two-volume edition published as No.337 and No.338 on April 26th 1862]. The entirety of Frank Leslie's Illustrated, Edition No.337 is devoted to the Victory at Island No.10 ...with all aspects of that Campaign discussed and sketched. The War Supplement (Edition No.338) has "The Great Battle of the South-West" on its cover, above a sketch of the Victory at Island No.10 -- and on the 4th page of the Supplement, another sketch of a significant operation at Island No.10 (Colonel Robert's Night Raid against the Guns at Fort No.1) attributed to Henri Lovie. In all of the two volumes of the April 26th Edition, the only illustration with a connection to Battle of Shiloh is inadvertent: "F. Munson of Chicago, the Volunteer Nurse (aboard City of Memphis steamer)." The City of Memphis was used as Hospital Boat at Shiloh, after April 6th.] Reference: http://archive.org/stream/franklesliesilluv1314lesl#page/n393/mode/2up "The Great Battle of the South-West" in the War Supplement [Edition No.338] of April 26th 1862 Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, page 396 [401 on page].
  9. Last week
  10. Hello Ozzy, I would never question General Robert E Lee on anything except the weather, perhaps. The position of Chief of Artillery in the western confederate army remained vacant until about August when Major James H Hallonquist was promoted to Lt. Col. and appointed as Chief of Artillery. This appointment was at the start of the Kentucky campaign in summer 1862 resulting in the Battle of Perrysville. Actually, his selection for this job proved to be a bad choice. He seemed to concentrate on minor matters and let others try to handle the important affairs of the artillery service. Ron
  11. Protecting the Rear of the Confederate Withdrawal There is much speculation IRT which cavalry units made up the force that defended the confederate withdrawal to Corinth, beginning afternoon of April 7th and continuing over the next several days. On pages 168 and 169 of William Stevenson's autobiography he lists the Confederate cavalry units known to have participated in defence of that withdrawal: Forrest's, Adam's, and the Texas Rangers. Ozzy
  12. While researching Adolph Metzner, sketch artist for the 32nd Indiana Infantry, discovered that the 32nd Indiana was a German regiment (initially called "1st Indiana German Regiment") with many members who had prior association with the Turner Society (Turnverein) and their Commanding Officer, Colonel August Willich, made use of the German language, exclusively, when directing the activities of his regiment. The 32nd Indiana was assigned to the Army of the Ohio, 2nd Division (McCook), 6th Brigade (Gibson) and was employed at Shiloh on Day 2 between Lew Wallace's 3rd Division and Sherman's 5th Division. (Lew Wallace made special mention of the impressive performance of Willich's Regiment in his Autobiography.) Prior to his leadership of the 32nd Indiana, August Willich had been Adjutant of the 9th Ohio Infantry (previously mentioned in a post, above.) Initially called the "1st Ohio German Regiment" the 9th OVI was assigned to the Army of the Ohio,1st Division, 3rd Brigade (Robert McCook) and missed participation in Battle of Shiloh because George Thomas was at the back of the line of march from Nashville to Savannah. (The 9th Ohio had "Mill Springs" on their Battle Flag.) The sketches of Adolph Metzner illustrate the uniform worn by the 32nd Indiana: (from Library of Congress) [Although not evident in above image, the wide-brimmed, high crowned hat, as worn by the officer, appears to have gained favor of the enlisted men: later images show almost exclusive wearing of that hat by members of the 32nd Indiana.] Ozzy References: http://www.loc.gov/resource/ppmsca.51219/ Metzner Collection at LOC http://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/imh/article/view/12296/18299 Review of Willich's Gallant Dutchmen http://mki.wisc.edu/sites/mki.wisc.edu/files/Newsletter/MKI_Spring_2011.pdf Newsletter (see pages 12- 13) http://9thohioinfantry.yolasite.com History of 9th OVI (die Neuner) http://32ndindianainfantry.yolasite.com/ History of 32nd Indiana Infantry
  13. Rbn3 Thanks for pointing out the existence of Civil War Letters from the 32nd Indiana Infantry by Joseph Reinhardt (2006). Will have to track that down and have a look... as well as the German-language newspaper you site (Täglicher Telegraph? ) While reviewing Metzner's sketches, noticed that many included descriptions and comments scribbled in German. Perhaps the difficulty presented (necessity of translation) is what kept Metzner's work (and the German-language letters of members of the 32nd Indiana) out of public view... until 2006. Regards Ozzy
  14. Ozzie In 2006, Joseph Reinhardt's August Willich's Gallant Dutchmen, Civil War Letters from the 32nd Indiana Infantry was published by the Kent State University Press. Meticulously researched, the book contains several CDV's credited to the Metzner Collection at the LOC, including that of Robert A. Wolff. The book has two index entries for Metzner, the entries being simply lists of officers and promotions. An amazing amount of detail is in the book concerning Robert A. Wolff, including this from a letter (p77) to the Louisville Anzeiger from Pittsburg Landing dated April 9, 1862, by Lt. William G. Mank: "Robert Wolff from Louisville distinguished himself through courage and cold-bloodedness." The letter describes the 32nd's part in the hostilities of April 7th. But it begins with a description of the "slaughtered in their tents" myth, and a scathing denunciation of Grant. Luckily for Lt. Mank (whose name was printed as the author), apparently no one on Grant's staff took the Anzeiger. Amazingly, the book does not include a single Metzner illustration nor a mention of Wolff's amorous tendencies. The epilog informs the reader that Robert married Marie Strehly in Germany on June 1, 1846 and died at age 50 of TB in Louisville on July 1874 at the age of fifty. He is buried in Cave Hill Cemetery, Louisville. BTW, August Willich was a Communist 48'er and a comrade in arms of one Karl Marx. August and Karl had a falling out, so Willich challenged him to a duel. Karl politely declined the offer. Rbn3
  15. Ron Along with details of Hawes, Brown and R.B. Lee, the Telegram of March 31st states "an artillery officer will be sent." In other words, "the check is in the mail." No one is offered by name for assignment as chief artillery officer... which is the correct answer to your quiz question. Or are you doubting the word of Robert E. Lee? All the best Ozzy Reference: http://civilwar.rosenbach.org/?m=201203 Telegram of March 31st 1862: Lee to Beauregard
  16. Sorry Ozzy, These are not the correct answer. One of these officers was a engineering officer and General Hawes was a cavalry officer who was appointed to the position of chief of cavalry. General Hawes did not assume this duty. The other officers mentioned were never considered for the position Chief of Artillery.. Ron
  17. Ron I believe General Robert E. Lee provided the answer to this question: http://civilwar.rosenbach.org/?m=201203 (Telegram of March 31st 1862 from Lee to Beauregard.) Cheers Ozzy Reference from the Rosenbach Collection.
  18. So what was the source of the information in Major Brent's telegram? On March 30th Colonel Napoleon Bonaparte Buford (attached to Foote's Western Gunboats, as Commander of "soldiers afloat" making up the "Flotilla Brigade") took transports attached to the Campaign against Island No.10 and landed his force at Union-occupied Hickman Kentucky. Buford's force (comprised of Hutchen's Cavalry (LtCol Hogg), 27th Illinois Infantry (LtCol Harrington), 15th Wisconsin Infantry (Colonel Heg) and artillery belonging to Captain Sparrestrom of the First Missouri Light Artillery, Battery G) commenced a march after noon, directly towards Union City Tennessee, fifteen miles away... and bivouacked at 7pm (when it became too dark to safely move.) At dawn on the 31st, Buford advanced the final four miles, positioned his artillery on a hill overlooking the town, and attacked: Sparrestrom's Battery fired a number of rounds and Hogg's cavalry force, supported by the infantry, advanced on the Confederate defenders of Union City (about six hundred men under command of Colonel Edward Pickett.) The defenders were quickly routed; a train engine was observed racing away south, leaving its line of cars behind; fourteen prisoners were taken by Buford's force. After burning the Confederate camps in vicinity, Colonel Buford withdrew his force back to the northwest -- two hours after arriving in Union City -- with twelve wagons full of serviceable munitions and equipment captured from the abandoned camps. The Federals arrived back in Hickman before night and boarded the transports. And Colonel Buford wrote his report detailing success of the raid, that evening. So ended the first engagement at Union City Tennessee... conducted by forces attached to the Campaign for Island No.10 ...which may have helped precipitate the Confederate move from Corinth against Pittsburg Landing. Fact is stranger than fiction... Ozzy References: OR 8 pages 116- 118 Report of Colonel Buford http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_Number_Ten_Union_order_of_battle Island No.10 Order of Battle (Union) http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/America/United_States/Army/USMA/Cullums_Register/475*.html http://www.artcirclelibrary.info/Reference/civilwar/1862-03.pdf See pages 123- 126 "Descent upon Union City" N.B. Next day (April 1st) Colonel George Roberts, attached to Buford's Flotilla command, conducted his successful raid against Confederate Fort No.1 at Island No.10, spiking guns that could have threatened the passage of USS Carondelet. Buford's force joined the Crawl to Corinth in April/May 1862.
  19. Roger You are correct: Thomas Harrison was denigrated by the men of his own regiment as "unnecessarily strict." They termed him "Mark Time Major" for a punishment he inflicted on two Texas Rangers, accused of straggling. In addition, Major Harrison was accused by troopers of the regiment for "withdrawing too quickly" in front of a superior Federal force in January 1862 (while the 8th Texas was stationed in vicinity of Bowling Green.) They derisively referred to him as "Jimtown Major." However, those same troops of the 8th Texas record that on April 8th 1862, their charge was initiated (in conjunction with Colonel Forrest) by Harrison shouting, "Now follow your Jimtown - Mark Time Major!" As regards "relative seniority," the original commander of the 8th Texas was Benjamin Franklin Terry, killed in action December 1861. Replacing Terry was Thomas Lubbock (who was unwell with typhoid fever... and died in Nashville in January 1862.) John A. Wharton became Colonel of the 8th Texas, with effect from January 23rd. [And John G. Walker became LtCol about the same time; but Walker was on sick leave at the time of Battle of Shiloh and Fallen Timbers.] At the Battle of Fort Donelson, Nathan Bedford Forrest is recorded as Lieutenant Colonel (having been voted into that rank in October 1861.) Sometime before the Battle of Shiloh, Forrest was elevated to Colonel (so there could be disagreement who was senior: Wharton or Forrest.) But with Wharton away from the field on April 8th, there could be no disagreement that Colonel Forrest was senior to Major Thomas Harrison (8th Texas) and Captain Isaac Harrison (Wirt Adams Cavalry). The subject under investigation is whether or not John Hunt Morgan, or elements of his cavalry, were present during the action of April 8th. [I believe there is support for participation by Morgan's Cavalry in the defence of the Road north of Corinth after April 8th... but nothing can be presented as proof for involvement on April 8th.] Regards Ozzy Reference: http://www.keathleywebs.com/terrysrangers/terry2.htm Campaigns of Terry's Texas Rangers N.B. "Claims" are not proof. But an official report, subject to scrutiny by those who were present at the time, is about as close as you can get... besides actual wounds.
  20. Harrison report sounds like the report of someone relaying what he heard from others but did not actually see himself. I'm not in front of my main computer so don't have access to my eyewitness accounts from the 8th Texas. This man supplies precious few details for someone who supposedly just led a grand cavalry charge that should have been the highlight of his military career. I'm skeptical.
  21. Roger Sometimes the SDG "reply system" keeps a copy of your work while you construct a post; when you begin your next post, the "old copy" usually appears immediately (so you can continue with it, or delete it.) As concerns Major Harrison, I believe his report of April 11th is ignored because of where it appears (way out of sequence with the other Confederate reports from Shiloh, in the Appendix of OR 10.) What also encourages me to believe this report: it was sent to Colonel Wharton before he submitted his report (dated April 12th, and Wharton makes mention of Harrison's report details). Colonel Wharton submitted his report direct to General Beauregard (via Thomas Jordan.) If Wharton (or Harrison) submitted "porky pies," General Beauregard or Colonel Jordan would have realized pretty quickly that fact. Also, it would take a brave man to submit a fabrication (not knowing if Colonel Forrest would have a decidedly different view of the operations of April 7 and 8.) The most important detail in Major Harrison's report: no mention of John Hunt Morgan on April 8th. Regards Ozzy
  22. Don't ask me how this reposted my previous comments. This report from Harrison is very strange almost to the point of asking if he was actually at the battle. It runs counter to all of the eyewitness accounts I have, including members of the 8th Texas Cavalry.
  23. Thank you Ozzy, Forrest was placed in command of all of the confederate rearguard cavalry but had only a company sized command of his own. Is that correct? It was the 8th Texas Cavalry that brought around 225 men into the fight at and their description of the battle downplayed Forrest role. Timothy Smith has a letter written by a Mississippi cavalry man from yet another command in his book on Shiloh. On the Union side all of the casualties were from the 77th Ohio, and one man from the 53rd Ohio was hit by a pistol ball undoubtedly fired by Forrest himself as he rode through the 77th Ohio ' line, but not before being shot point blank by a member of the 77th who shoved his rifle into Forrests side, just above the hip, and pulled the trigger. How a man shot point blank by a .69 caliber ball could stay in the saddle and not pass out or fall off his horse, defys belief. The 53rd were in line of battle and were closing up on the 77th from behind when Forrest broke through their line but could not fire because of the 77th in front.
  24. Rbn3 Just had a look at the J.D. Edwards sites: civilwartalk link is still working; but the two library sites (New York and Huntingdon) no longer support a "Search" feature for their sites... effectively turning themselves into "screen savers." That's the problem of electronic resources: broken (re-named) links and removal of Search Box. However, in the case of Southern photographer Edwards, most of his images are now available on "Google Image" search. Regards Ozzy
  25. Rbn3 A few sites have "returned as hits" lately that never had in my previous searches. Don't know if this is because they are new, or if some conscientious librarian has properly catalogued them. In the case of Adolph Metzner, I had never seen mention -- anywhere -- of his impressive sketches. How can that be possible? (Even when I searched "Metzner" on our own SDG site, no hits came back.) Would be interesting to view Metzner's collection of seventy CDV images... but they are currently only available for viewing at a Library of Congress site (of which there are many across the USA, so it is not required to front up in Washington, D.C.) Speaking of CDV's and early photographic images, have you seen the work of J.D. Edwards? A few of his Confederate Gulf Coast (Bragg's Army of Pensacola) are contained/linked on this SDG site. Of especial interest to me, because I spent a few summers in Pensacola, and the site of Edward's images still exist: one can stand in the very spot the photograph was captured. In addition, the images of 9th Mississippi and 10th Mississippi are the only ones taken before Battle of Shiloh (so offer an opportunity for ancestors to "discover" their great-grandfathers.) Recently encountered "contributions" by Henri Lovie that I never knew existed. Coming soon... Ozzy Reference: Put "Edwards" in Search Box at top of Home Page this SDG site and hit [Enter].
  26. Ozzy, you are a "disruptor" in modern economic parlance. Because of you I ran across Orderly Sgt/Lt. Robert A. Wolff, the German "tragedien" actor of 32nd Indiana. Robert was drummed out "for the good of the service" by "Old Rosey" in 1863 for "kissing a nurse." How many lives on both sides could have been saved if only it had been generally known that such an honorable path to a dishonorable discharge existed? Robert re-enlisted in July 1863 but was booted out again a week later when the paperwork caught up with him. But he got his pension. Robert married Marie and they were engaged in theatrical productions in post-war Louisville. He was the producer/director and actor in "The Last Days of Maximillan" in 1868. But his "day job" (and probably most nights) was as a saloon keeper. He also produced a week long "Sängerfest" for the Louisville Turners. I have to kick the habit of reading your posts...if I can.
  27. Roger According to the OR 10 (page 627) Colonel Jonathan Wharton of Terry's Texas Rangers was put in charge, by General Beauregard, "to move to the right of our Army and protect it's retreat. I maintained a position next to Lick Creek until night-fall, and then encamped in rear of the entire Army, throwing out pickets in connection with Colonels Adams, Forrest and Lindsay." [Things had potential to become confused on Tuesday: Colonel Wharton had been wounded during Shiloh, and his wound was made more painful "by being in the saddle." He turned over command of the Texas Rangers on Tuesday morning to Major Thomas Harrison; and Colonel Wharton departed for medical treatment at Corinth.] Major Harrison's report (which many people miss seeing) is on page 923, in the Appendix of OR 10. Here are the highlights of that April 11th 1862 report: "Having taken command of the 220-strong Texas Rangers [in Colonel Wharton's absence] I was informed late Tuesday [April 8th] by a member of Colonel Forrest's command of the appearance of enemy cavalry in our vicinity. I proceeded with my 220 men (and another forty belonging to Forrest) to the point occupied by the enemy, and there found 300 cavalry, a line of infantry in support; and I believed there to be a masked battery [of undetermined number] concealed in the brush. While attempting to take up a better position (to attack the enemy) I met Captain Isaac Harrison of Wirt Adam's cavalry, in charge of forty men. He informed me that his force was so positioned to prevent flank attack on us by the enemy. I therefore returned to my initial position (near the Hospital) and encountered Colonel Forrest, now commanding his forty men, in person. I consulted with Colonel Forrest and it was determined to charge the enemy cavalry to our front... The charge was immediately executed; the enemy was engaged, and his cavalry and infantry were both put to flight. "Shortly after this engagement, I was ordered by General Breckinridge to take position in the rear of Breckinridge's infantry and artillery. I suppose forty or fifty of the enemy were killed; doubtless countless more wounded. And we took 43 prisoners. My loss totalled two killed; seven wounded (none too seriously) and one man missing. And Colonel Forrest is reported to be slightly wounded." Report of April 8th engagement, from Major Harrison to Colonel Wharton. Cheers Ozzy References as indicated in text. N.B. I wonder if "Harrison Road" in vicinity of Fallen Timbers is named for one, or both, cavalrymen?
  28. Tennessee Interactive Map (for all battles, skirmishes and significant events 1861 - 1865) In support of Mona's information on Fallen Timbers, provided below is the link to The Tennessee Civil War GIS Project (Tennessee State Library & Archives) Interactive Map. Of importance because this map provides location and date for every known significant battle, skirmish and event that occurred in the State of Tennessee from 1861 - 1865. To find a skirmish, go to "Layers -- Search" at right of screen, and click on "down arrow" within Zoom to Engagement. Over two hundred individual skirmish sites are listed: scroll down and click on desired site. [Map at left centers on your selection, and provides date and zoom ability and location of other battles and skirmishes nearby.] Same for Zoom to Battlefield... Also, noteworthy sites (such as General AS Johnston's Last Bivouac) are indicated. An additional feature: once map is "centered" on your selected skirmish, the drop-down box at right becomes "Layers -- Search -- Results -- Details." Click on Civil War Sourcebook feature for chronological listing of that skirmish (among other near-time events.) Quite an impressive map. The only negative comment: not all skirmishes are listed. And often, only one name is given to the site. (As we know, Monterey and Michie and Mickey and Pea Ridge and Mickey's Ridge were sometimes used to identify the same location in 1862.) But knowing the above, it is easy to work around this minor deficiency. Regards Ozzy http://tnmap.tn.gov/civilwar/ Tennessee Map TSLA interactive Civil War map [Battle map] skirmish map
  1. Load more activity