Jump to content
Shiloh Discussion Group

Ozzy

Member
  • Content count

    1,442
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    216

Everything posted by Ozzy

  1. The “troublesome” Jessie Scouts As we know, two of the Jessie Scouts (Union army intelligence collectors, who did their work dressed in Confederate uniform) got caught up in General Grant’s Purge of March, just prior to Battle of Shiloh. And these two – Carpenter and Scott – were accused of horse theft, arrested and sent away to St. Louis on March 29th under escort of Grant’s aide, Captain William Hillyer. Curiously, Captain Charles Carpenter had been in similar straits only a month before. After completing a personal reconnaissance of Fort Henry about February 4th (said to have included a visit inside the Rebel stronghold) Carpenter returned to Union lines, made his report... and then was ordered “sent away, along with the other irresponsible Scouts” by direction of U.S. Grant. Captain Carpenter, IAW Field Orders No.60 was placed under arrest and sent away “never to return” on 10 February 1862. (Of interest, Captain Hillyer departed at the same time.) Obviously, “never to return” Carpenter was with Grant’s forces at Crump’s/Pittsburg, so what was really going on? It is known that communications during the Civil War could be conducted by courier or telegram (and both types could be encrypted.) With wire tappers and unscrupulous telegraph operators in existence, the most secure messages were not sent by telegraph; they were personally delivered (and best if they were verbal, so no chance of paper copy that could end up in the wrong hands.) If it is assumed that Captain Carpenter was “arrested” so that Captain Hillyer could accompany him north without raising suspicion of some other purpose, where could they go? And what message could be delivered? On February 10th, General Grant had made up his mind to launch the attack against Fort Donelson (Lew Wallace, present at the War Council next day, said “it seemed to him as if General Grant had already made up his mind.”) Hillyer and Carpenter went to Cairo, where General Cullum had signature authority to approve “all actions” on Major General Halleck’s behalf. (Hillyer is afterwards reported as present at Fort Donelson; and Captain Carpenter is said to have conducted a reconnaissance of Fort Donelson.) As regards the March 1862 arrest of Carpenter, that arrest was ordered on the 25th, but Captain Carpenter (under escort of Captain Hillyer) was not sent away til March 29th. What information or request could Hillyer have passed to General Halleck at St. Louis on Grant’s behalf ? (Captain Hillyer returned to Savannah aboard steamer Minnehaha evening of April 5th near midnight… so if any “instructions” came from St. Louis, they were overtaken by events.) And what of the “horse thief” Captain Carpenter? On April 11th, Lew Wallace wrote that, “Captain Carpenter has returned from scout of Purdy, Bethel and the country around, and brings information that Purdy was evacuated last Saturday and has not been occupied [since the late Battle.]” Papers of US Grant vol.5 page 351. Ozzy References: Papers of US Grant vol. 4 pages 153, 167, 174 – 5 and 421 – 2. http://www.pddoc.com/skedaddle/058/exploits_of_capt_carpenter_of.htm Exploits of Captain Charles C. Carpenter Jessie.docx
  2. Fort Henry is Ours!

    [from chroniclingamerica at Library of Congress] [Click on above and expand to find comprehensive details of the Capture of Fort Henry.] The following link presents clearer text for easier reading: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030313/1862-02-08/ed-1/seq-1/#date1=1862&sort=date&date2=1862&words=McClernand&searchType=basic&sequence=0&index=9&state=New+York&rows=20&proxtext=McClernand&y=14&x=14&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1 New York Herald of 8 FEB 1862 Page One.
  3. Confederate Firearms by Regiment for Shiloh

    Thomas Astute description of a 12-gauge shotgun loaded with 00 slugs: "a one-inch pipe firing marbles." One aspect of the Confederate operation at Shiloh remains puzzling: "How effective was the ammunition re-supply?" If John K. Jackson's experience in the final attempt against Grant's Last Line is any indication.... Regards Ozzy Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_shotgun OR 10 page 555 (Jackson's report: indicates his men were out of ammunition) OR 10 page 550 (Chalmers' report: indicates he "distributed ammunition to his men before advancing for the final assault of Day One")
  4. Confederate Firearms by Regiment for Shiloh

    Thomas Excellent accumulation of data... and it cannot be helped noticing that, "There were a lot of Rebel .69 calibre weapons." Implication: as long as a man in Confederate service, armed with .69 calibre weapon continued to move forward (and had a substantial quantity of caps on hand) he could make use of any ammunition found and fire it from his smoothbore. In the close-quarters fighting that took place at Shiloh, undersized slugs fired from fifty feet will do the job just as effectively as "proper sized" ammunition. (And this could also help explain the "delays in Union camps to eat breakfast" ...perhaps ammunition and caps were also being snatched up?) Thoughts? Ozzy
  5. The real story about Nashville

    One more curiosity about Grant's trip to Nashville... As we all know, U. S. Grant was promoted to Major General on account of his Victory at Fort Donelson: President Lincoln recommended Grant for promotion, with the higher rank to be effective Date of the Surrender (16 February 1862). Of course, Grant had no way of knowing the President's actions, and so continued to sign his correspondence as "Brigadier General Grant" for over a week after Fort Donelson fell. Of interest: the very first use by Grant of his new rank was on a memo left for "General Buell" at Nashville on 27 February 1862. Grant had attempted to meet Buell in Nashville, and left the memo at Buell's HQ and then returned to his flagship, the W.H.B. That memo was signed "U. S. Grant, Major General Commanding." [See Papers of US Grant volume 4 pages 293 - 4.] Ozzy
  6. Despite the mammoth Federal success at Fort Donelson, the war did not come to an end (though some acted as if it had.) General U.S. Grant looked to push the next objective, which appeared to be Nashville. And he requested guidance from St. Louis. In meantime, Clarksville (about fifty miles up the Cumberland River, in the direction of Nashville) was deemed a suitable target: a reconnaissance conducted by U.S. Navy gunboats Conestoga and Cairo on February 18th discovered that Confederate Clarksville was practically a ghost town; the Rebels and most of the citizens had fled. So, General C.F. Smith was dispatched with a suitable force pulled from his Second Division and occupied Clarksville on about February 23rd. Early the next day, U.S. Grant, in company with Surgeon Brinton, , BGen McClernand, Captain Taylor (of Taylor's Battery), Colonel Lauman and Colonel WHL Wallace, departed Fort Donelson aboard steamer W.H.B. for an inspection of Union-occupied Clarksville. But, it does not appear that an inspection took place at Clarksville that day: General Grant caught wind that General William Nelson's Division (which was known to have been promised to assist Grant at Fort Donelson) had arrived at Paducah; reported to General Sherman; and departed Paducah aboard a small fleet on February 23rd, bound for the Cumberland River. The seven steamers, under gunboat escort, continued to the ordered destination of Clarksville (arrival recorded as 8 a.m. February 24th) and General Nelson met with General Smith. At about noon (in accordance with orders relayed from General Grant to General Nelson) General Nelson returned to his steamer, Diana, and in company with six other steamers (led by USS Carondelet) the force proceeded up the Cumberland (with U.S. Grant aboard steamer W.H.B, in company with USS Cairo, well in advance of the fleet.) Bull Nelson arrived at the "open city" of Nashville on February 25th, stepped ashore... and became the first Federal General Officer to enter Nashville following Rebel occupation; (General Buell was just across the river at Edgefield: today's East Nashville); and U.S. Grant appears to have waited aboard the W.H.B., at least, for a little while. Nelson made contact with Buell; and Grant escorted his party from Fort Donelson into Union-occupied Nashville for two days of what can best be described as relaxation and diversion. On February 27th, U.S. Grant met with Don Carlos Buell aboard the W.H.B. and exchanged pleasantries; and then Grant and his party departed Nashville, and arrived back at Fort Donelson late on 28 FEB 1862. Cheers Ozzy References: OR 7 pages 661, 662- 3, 668, 670- 1, 674. OR (Navy) vol.22, pages 315, 587, 616, 617, 625. Memoirs of U.S. Grant page 318. Adam Badeau's Military Career of U.S. Grant, pages 58 - 9. Diary of Jacob Ammen for dates February 23, 24 and 25 (found in OR 7 page 659 - 660. Hoppin's Life of Andrew Hull Foote, pages 230 - 236. Memoirs of Surgeon John Brinton, page 139. Life of General WHL Wallace, pages 166 (Letter of 20 FEB 1862) and page 171 (Letter of 28 FEB 1862).
  7. Grant and McClernand

    The question, "When did the bonds of friendship begin to fray?" http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84031490/1862-02-08/ed-1/seq-1/ Chicago Daily Tribune of 8 FEB 1862 page 1 col.5 "Capture of Ft. Henry" "Only 54 prisoners taken" "The land force [Grant and McClernand] did not reach the fort in time to take part in the action." "Tilghman surrendered to the Navy." The above report would have been curious to the general reader ("How come so few prisoners?" and "Surrendered to the Navy... where was the Army?") But the serious questions would come from Henry Halleck: "Why was McClernand so late getting to Fort Henry?" was likely followed by "How come no pursuit?" A victory that should have been welcomed by the North was questioned by the North... and something (or someone) must be responsible for the unsatisfying results.
  8. Grant and McClernand

    Grant & McClernand It was initially believed possible to address the relationship that existed involving military leader U.S. Grant and Congressman John A. McClernand during 1861, and include discussion of that “friendship” in the Pop Quiz item, “We Meet Again,” but there is too much material. And to understand why the relationship became strained before Battle of Shiloh, and how that strain affected the state of readiness at Pittsburg Landing, it must first be understood how the initial friendly relationship between the two men eventuated. On the face of it, the successful politician, McClernand, ten years more senior, with origins in a Southern state, and with limited experience as a Private during the Black Hawk War, has little in common with the West Point trained, but struggling since his resignation from the Army, Grant. And there does not appear to have been any pre-Civil War contact between the two men (Grant lived in Missouri until 1860) so it is safe to assume that their first encounter occurred June 1861, when finally-a-Colonel Grant permitted Illinois Congressmen Logan and McClernand to address his 21st Infantry Regiment outside of Springfield [Memoirs pages 244 – 5]. The next meeting between Grant and McClernand appears to have taken place after the Disaster at First Manassas, after McClernand had been granted permission to raise his brigade of infantry regiments (and was accorded rank of Brigadier General, junior to Brigadier General Grant.) The relationship appears to have evolved as a “friendship of convenience.” Grant needed assistance in his seniority dispute (September 1861) with Benjamin Prentiss; and McClernand – recently arrived at Cairo – was available to take command of in-arrest Prentiss’s troops in Missouri (this arrangement was suggested by Grant, but not actioned by Fremont – see Papers of USG vol.2 pages 173 – 4). With Prentiss out of the way, Grant relocated to Cairo and established his Head Quarters, District of S.E. Missouri (and benefited from Brigadier General McClernand’s presence when the opportunity to occupy Paducah presented on September 5th). While Grant took the 9th Illinois and 12th Illinois to Kentucky, McClernand remained behind with his brigade and provided defense of Cairo. Upon return from Paducah, about September 7th, District commander Grant and Post of Cairo commander McClernand had ample time to get to know each other (Grant would remain at Cairo until 21October) and during that time the communications between the two generals is cordial, supportive and frequent… in keeping with a letter sent from McClernand to U.S. Grant dated September 4th: “I will be happy to co-operate with you in all things for the good of the service” (Papers of USG vol.2 page 184). No doubt during this period of close interaction, fellow Democrats Grant and McClernand would have shared “war stories” and may have realized their similar experience as “dispatch riders” (Grant at Monterey during the Mexican War and McClernand during the recent Bull Run Campaign.) McClernand would also have details of that campaign (and Irwin McDowell) not available anywhere else. From the tone and content of the communications, it appears that Grant was “grooming McClernand to become the best Brigadier he could be” (see Papers of USG vol.2 pp. 184 – 353 and vol.3 pages 67, 88 and 123 – 125). Reports were requested by Grant, the preparation for movement of troops ordered, recommendations provided for establishment of Provost Marshal and other measures (at all times with Grant addressing McClernand as “General” or “Gen.”) The hands-on training with Grant in close proximity culminated with Grant’s brief departure on October 21st for a visit to St. Louis, leaving McClernand in acting-command of the District HQ at Cairo (Papers of USG vol.3 page 67). McClernand obviously passed that test, for on Grant’s return to Cairo he began planning for the Observation of Belmont (and put McClernand to work in helping organize transport and equipage for that expedition – Papers USG vol.3 pp. 98, 103 and 108 – 109). Papers of US Grant vol.3 pages 123 – 126 details the final preparations and orders for the Expedition against Belmont (with Brigadier General McClernand’s given pride of place as lead brigade.) Following successful completion of the raid, General Grant provides a glowing report of McClernand’s participation (page 142) and McClernand’s own report of Belmont can be read: Papers of US Grant vol.3 pages 196 – 201. After Belmont, General Grant next left McClernand in acting-command District HQ on November 18th when Grant departed on an inspection tour of Bird’s Point and Cape Girardeau and the frequent communications between the two generals remain cordial and supportive through early February 1862. Ozzy References: Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant, volume one Papers of US Grant volumes 3 & 4 (pages as sited) Papers of US Grant vol.4 pages 4 (notes: Letter of 12 JAN 1862 from Hillyer) and 6, 38 49 through to page 132 typical of cordial correspondence, Grant and McClernand Personal Memoirs of John H. Brinton, Major and Surgeon
  9. We Meet Again

    Here's an easy quiz question, involving William T. Sherman, Rodney Mason, James B. Fry, Alexander M. McCook, and John A. McClernand: "What experience do the above Union officers, all present at the Battle of Shiloh, have in common?"
  10. The View at 100

    Just for something a bit different, here is a drone video presenting Shiloh NMP from 100 - 200 feet AGL (posted on YouTube 10 NOV 2017 by Perry Barker): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYerabEIdx4 Drone -- Shiloh NMP on 1 July 2017.
  11. We Meet Again

    Transylvania "Close enough for Government work." You are the winner. In OR 2 the Bull Run Campaign (Manassas Campaign) is given as including the period 16 - 22 July 1861. Wikipedia expands this period to mid-June to end of July. This is important because on 18 July 1861 the Northern newspapers were reporting that "the Battle at Bull Run" had been fought -- and won -- by McDowell's forces. A major result of Irwin McDowell's push to the west on about 18 July was that he occupied previously Rebel-held Centreville, and established Headquarters there. As is commonly known, many civilians from Washington, D.C. followed McDowell's Army west and engaged in a rolling picnic during the Manassas Campaign. Members of Congress were part of this picnic; even Vice President Hamlin was in attendance. But most noteworthy was Congressman John A. Logan, who during the fighting on July 21st attached himself to the 2nd Michigan Infantry, grabbed a musket, and blasted away. So, what about Congressman John A. McClernand? There is no mention in official records that McClernand was present during the Bull Run Campaign (OR 2 pages 323 - 4 lists all of General McDowell's staff officers). But numerous Northern newspapers mention Colonel McClernand as "riding back to Washington City, morning of July 19th with McDowell's Report of the Battle of Bull Run, arriving at Washington in the afternoon." It is apparent that Congressman McClernand had "attached" himself to McDowell at Centreville (likely as VADC) and acted as courier on July 19th. (And I believe this "involvement at Bull Run" had implications, to be discussed later.) Of course, the Battle of Bull Run (First Manassas) was fought 21 July 1861. And the action on July 18th became known as "Probe at Blackburn's Ford" or "Skirmish at Blackburn's Ford." The report delivered by "Colonel" McClernand from Centreville to Washington can be found OR 2 page 307. Cheers Ozzy References: OR 2 pages 307, 310, 323 - 324, 331, 721, 738, 744 and 746. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030313/1861-07-19/ed-1/seq-1/#date1=1861&index=1&rows=20&words=Mcdowell+McDOWELL+McDowell&searchType=basic&sequence=0&state=New+York&date2=1861&proxtext=McDowell&y=16&x=12&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1 New York Herald of 19 July 1861 http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030313/1861-07-20/ed-1/seq-1/ New York Herald of 20 July 1861 (see Page 1 top of column 6 for McClernand.) http://www.loganmuseum.org/index.php/logan-s-life/civil-war-record John Logan at Bull Run Order of Battle for Bull Run provides all the other names listed in this Quiz Question.
  12. We Meet Again

    Rbn3 Not a trick question, just one that many folks do not give adequate attention... July 1861. It really is that simple. (John A. Logan was also present, except he missed Shiloh.) Regards Ozzy
  13. The real story about Nashville

    What about Colonel Webster? Acting in senior capacity on General Grant's staff, it was assumed that Joseph D. Webster, who had assisted in occupation of Clarksville, had accompanied Grant and the senior commanders to Nashville aboard WHB... but such was not the case (as evidenced by following article dated 25 FEB 1862 from Cairo): Plymouth (Indiana) Weekly Democrat for 27 FEB 1862, page 2 (at chroniclingamerica.loc.gov)
  14. Army Pay

    The most comprehensive listing of Civil War Pay Rates (U.S. Government) found in Indianapolis Daily State Sentinel of 24 FEB 1862 http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82015683/1862-02-24/ed-1/seq-1/ Page one, columns 5 & 6.
  15. We Meet Again

    A hint: representing the Confederacy at the same event were Shiloh participants PGT Beauregard and Thomas Jordan.
  16. Belgian musket

    Stan I was simply giving you credit for revealing the "other" image of the same soldier, taken from the same glass-plate negative, but flipped over, and printed in reverse (resulting in mirror-image of man with pipe hanging from other side of his mouth; and bugle on cap facing the wrong way.) The letters "U.S." on the belt buckle, in both images reading correctly, is simply curious; and leads one to believe that fifty years ago or more, someone deliberately created a "mirror-image" ...but for what purpose? Thanks again for revealing the existence of the pair of images. Ozzy
  17. Lorenz

    [Soldier holding Lorenz Model 1854, from Civil War Guns, page 259.] Because several infantry units (North and South) are believed to have been equipt with this weapon at Battle of Shiloh: Lorenz Model 1854. George F. L. Schuyler replaced John Fremont in Summer 1861 as purchasing agent in Europe, acting on behalf of the U.S. Government to acquire whatever arms were to be had. One of the places visited was Vienna: the Arsenal at that place held a large stockpile of Lorenz Rifles, and Schuyler was able to purchase over seventy thousand complete units at $15.10/each [Civil War Guns, pp.69 - 70]. The barrels of these guns were deemed thick enough and adequately robust to permit rebore from original .54 calibre to Springfield-standard .58 calibre, if desired. (The Lorenz became the third most available rifle-musket used during the Civil War, after Springfield and Enfield.) The Lorenz Model 1854 is a muzzle-loading rifle-musket, fired by percussion cap; it weighs about 9 pounds, is 53 inches long, with a barrel 37 1/2 inches long. Walnut or beech are the primary materials used for stocks; the bayonet is clasp-type, 19 1/2 inches long. Manufactured in Vienna and other State arsenals in Austria, the weapon first saw service during the Second Italian War of Independence (also known as Austro - Sardinian War of 1859.) Depending on sights attached, the effective range of the Lorenz was 200 yards (block sites) to in excess of 600 yards (leaf sights). For probable listing of Units at Shiloh equipt with the Lorenz Rifle: http://www.n-ssa.net/vbforum/archive/index.php/t-301.html (compiled by Don Dixon.) Excellent video showcasing Lorenz Rifle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPVrXiUwzC4 (Professor Balasz at capandball, 21 FEB 2018.) Ozzy References: http://archive.org/stream/Civil_War_Guns#page/n270/mode/1up/search/Lorenz Civil War Guns (1962) by William B. Edwards wikipedia
  18. In the Bill Family Collection at University of Connecticut is an impressive diary kept by Arminius W. Bill (last name sometimes spelled "Bills") during the Civil War: http://collections.ctdigitalarchive.org/islandora/object/350002:118 Bill diary (volume 2) from January - March 1862 (34 pages) Arminius Bill, of Sheffield Illinois (50 miles southeast of Rock Island) enlisted in Birge's Western Sharpshooters, Company C, in December 1861 as a Private. Two years later, the young man (obviously well-educated) was promoted to Hospital Steward; and by the end of the war, was acting as 2nd Assistant Surgeon for what was now re-designated as 66th Illinois Infantry. The diary is an impressive collection of daily events, information gleaned from newspapers, analysis of events (and predictions of "what will occur next" ...along with several hand-drawn maps, remarkable for skill and accuracy.) Then-private Bill describes helping destroy the railroad bridge, just south of Fort Henry; participation in the Operation against Fort Donelson (with action against a Confederate battery, silencing it); enduring the bitter cold for two nights before the fort surrendered; enduring severe diarrhea following capture of Fort Donelson (and describes Surgeon prescriptions that attempted to cure that ailment -- in particular, the treatment that worked.) Page 31 illustrates Arminius Bill's awareness of "important Civil War events," as all significant events 20 SEP 61 - 28 FEB 62 are listed. Page 32 describes in detail "life in camp at Union-occupied Fort Donelson," and subsequent march to Metal Landing for Smith's Expedition. An important record of the Fort Donelson operation -- and Birge's Sharpshooters -- (that somehow ended up in Connecticut...) Ozzy
  19. Shiloh Masters Thesis

    Historical Analysis of the Battle of Shiloh is a Masters Thesis submitted to the Air Command and Staff College at Maxwell AFB in Alabama in 1984 by then-Major F. John Semley. The paper is fifty pages in length (41 pages of actual content, with several hand-drawn maps) and is held by the Defense Technical Information Center as pdf at following: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a144009.pdf Semley paper on Battle of Shiloh Although written over thirty years ago, Major Semley presents a cohesive, coherent analysis of the Battle of Shiloh that most members of SDG will find refreshing: Peabody and Powell get appropriate mention; timings for all events are reasonably accurate; the cause of Lew Wallace's late arrival is given proper attention; causes of the Confederate Force to fail to achieve its objective on Day One is handled with grace and tact. Highlighted items: Grant's "failings" in lead-up to Battle of Shiloh (many of them self-inflicted) Beauregard's failings in massaging the Confederate Battle Plan into something too complex, losing sight of the objective; "No experienced Union Division was positioned at the front" Discussion of the disputed "lost hour" of the Confederate attack, before end of Day One; Nathan Bedford Forrest and Fallen Timbers rate a mention. Presented in three segments, the First segment describes the Battle, Days One and Two; the Second segment offers analysis of Shiloh (with regard to USAF Doctrine IRT war fighting) and Section Three offers opportunity for Discussion, with such questions, "Why was Grant at Savannah?' and "Why did Grant and Beauregard fail to achieve their objectives?" and "Why were there no appropriate defenses at Pittsburg campground?" Appropriate references (author credits J. L. McDonough (1977) "Shiloh: in Hell before Night" as his main inspiration.) Well worth your time to review, and determine "how close Major Semley comes to the correct analysis" Ozzy
  20. Belgian musket

    Stan's post (above) of William Brown is timely, because it is a mirror-image of "Freedom Gates" (posted by CSuniforms, also above.) One is obviously a "knock-off" of the other -- a forgery -- but which is which? When one thinks of Civil War infantry firearms, Springfield, Enfield, Richmond (Model 1855 Springfields manufactured to 1861 specifications at Richmond using dies taken from Harpers Ferry Arsenal), Lorenz and Vincennes... all come to mind. On further reflection, the Sharps, Henry and Spencer company rifles and carbines are added to the list. But, what was a "Belgian Musket?" Upon review, it appears that a Belgian Musket was [my definition] "any European musket, manufactured in Prussia, Bavaria, Potsdam, France, or elsewhere, originally a smoothbore and with flintlock firing mechanism, that was acquired by Arms dealers (such as Herman Boker) and sent in bulk to Belgium (usually Liege) and there modified: with firing mechanism altered from flintlock to percussion, and possibly barrel re-bored (in attempt to standardize all that consignment, usually as .69 or .71 calibre, for ease of providing projectiles en masse) and sometimes rifling added to barrel (which technically produced a "Belgian Rifle," but which was often still referred to as Belgian Musket). Usually, the above weapons possessed no "maker's mark" (otherwise, they would be referred to as "Dresden Rifles" and etc.)" Although the Belgian Arms industry, centered at Liege, also manufactured weapons, only the above "modified weapons, manufactured elsewhere," were referred to as "Belgian Muskets." For example, nearly everyone knows that Belgium manufactured Enfield Pattern 1853 Rifle Muskets (under contract before American Civil War; without contract during Civil War) and those "knock-offs" are still referred to as "Pattern 1853 Enfield," or, sometimes, "Belgian Enfield." [But the P-1853 Enfield manufactured in Belgium is never referred to as a "Belgian Musket."] Just an attempt to add clarity to the muddied waters of Civil War weapons... Ozzy References: http://archive.org/details/Civil_War_Guns especially pages 66, 74 - 77 (Liege) and 28 - 35 & 262 - 271 (Boker) http://www.regtqm.com/product-p/gun-646.htm just one of many "Belgian Muskets" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_rifle not a Belgian Musket, even if modified in Belgium, because of the maker's label: Lorenz http://www.ima-usa.com/products/original-british-p-1853-enfield-rifle-musket-produced-in-belgium-dated-1857?variant=26169131077 Belgian Enfield http://www.researchpress.co.uk/index.php/firearms/british-military-longarms/enfield/p53-enfield-production-markings Enfields produced elsewhere http://civilwartalk.com/threads/a-question-about-belgian-rifle-calibers.141769/ Belgian Musket and Rifle discussion at civilwartalk.com
  21. Baseball, anyone?

    Library of Congress and Baseball Exhibit Just in time for Independence Day 2018 the Library of Congress is hosting "Baseball as the National Game" -- an expansive exhibit of artifacts focused on the development of Baseball as America's Game. Included (and available for viewing online) 1859 the first recognized College game 1862 the image Roger posted 24 FEB 2018 (above) featuring Union prisoners playing the game inside Salisbury Prison 1865 earliest recognized Baseball Card 1869 Cincinnati Reds appear as first Professional Baseball Team http://www.loc.gov/exhibitions/baseball-americana/about-this-exhibition/ scroll down and select display of interest Play Ball... Ozzy http://www.loc.gov/item/prn-18-005/library-of-congress-to-open-major-exhibition-on-baseball-in-summer-2018/2018-01-25/ LOC promo
  22. It appears baseball was played by General Grant's troops, during their abundant leisure time, after the victory at Fort Donelson. The game may have been introduced to regiments undergoing training at Benton Barracks. Alternatively, one or more of the regiments from Milwaukee, Chicago, or Ohio may have imported the game when they arrived at Pittsburg Landing in March 1862. It is confirmed that a baseball was discovered on Shiloh Battlefield, a few days after the carnage, by a civilian working for the Union army. G. F. Hellum was so impressed by his find, he etched details of the location of his discovery into the hide, turning the lemon-peel ball into a trophy. Now, consider the story of Sgt. Edward Spalding, Co. E, 52nd Illinois. In action on Sunday, the 6th of April, he was twice wounded, but refused to be removed from the field. He remained fighting, in open ground, until the close of the battle. Finally taken to Hospital at Pittsburg Landing in time to have wounds to his left arm dressed, he should have made a full recovery. But, days passed, and his condition worsened. Somehow, Ed Spalding's parents found out about their son's predicament; his father, Asa, journeyed to Pittsburg Landing and took him home, to Rockford, Illinois. The improvement in care, furnished in a loving home, probably saved his life. But, it still required time for his wounds to fully heal. While recuperating, he was visited by his 11-year-old cousin, Albert, to whom he introduced the rules of the game of Baseball. Edward returned to his regiment in November 1862, was promoted to second lieutenant, and continued to serve until mustered out in December 1864. Albert Spalding took to his cousin's game so well, that he went on to become a professional baseball player, playing as pitcher, centerfielder, and first baseman, for the Boston Red Stockings, and the Chicago White Stockings. In 1876, he co-founded A. G. Spalding Sporting Goods; he continued to promote 'the National Pastime' for the rest of his life.
  23. Drawings

    Extending the theme of Civil War patriotic envelopes and letterheads: an amazing find in Delaware... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdlpXsgSfTs Civil War Artifacts
  24. Drawings

    "Battle at Pittsburg Landing" letterhead, available in 1862. At the below link, "Milgram Civil War" has accumulated over one hundred patriotic covers and letterheads, including battle scenes (and a different sketch of Pittsburg Landing, with steamers and gunboats in the background) and noteworthy persons (including Abraham Lincoln, Ellsworth, Flag-officer Foote, U.S. Grant, Halleck, McClellan & Halleck, Jefferson Davis... The pdf takes about five minutes to load, but is worth the wait: http://www.rfrajola.com/MilgramCW/MilgramCW.pdf Civil War patriotic Letter designs And not wanting to neglect the Confederate contribution to patriotic Letter and envelope designs: http://www.trishkaufmann.com/confederate-patriotics.php
  25. Civil War Guns

    Civil War Guns, published 1962 by William B. Edwards, is a well-researched, comprehensive catalogue of almost all of the various rifles, muskets, rifle-muskets and carbines in use during the Civil War. The information contained (and page number): 1- 6 and 218 Sharps carbine and rifle 144 - 154 Spencer carbine and rifle (with 7-round tube magazine) 22 - 37 Springfield models 1841, 1855 and 1861 242 - 250 Enfield Model 1853 89 and 256 Austrian (Lorenz) 29, 67 & 122 Vincennes Not restricted to particular weapons, the following topics are also covered: 28, 65 & 132 - 143 Fremont's role in 1861 acquiring weapons in Europe (and problems with the Hall carbine) 8 The Zouave Movement 9 Minie ball development 13 - 15 The rifled barrel and its importance 16 Maynard Tape primer system 18 Huger's Tests of 1853/4 (to determine best type of rifled barrels and optimum size of projectile) 42 photo of Tool Kit (necessary for maintenance of rifle-musket) Containing hundreds of photographs and written by a man involved in manufacture of firearms, this is a valuable resource. http://archive.org/details/Civil_War_Guns
×