Jump to content
Shiloh Discussion Group

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/16/2019 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    Hi. I live in Tempe, Arizona I have been a student of the CW for 30 years. I have eight ancestors who fought for the Federals and a whole lot more for the Confederacy. Shiloh is one of many battles in which I have an interest. I am a member of the Scottsdale, Arizona CWRT, Battlefield Trust, Civil War Talk. I look forward to learning more about Shiloh
  2. 3 points
    Most people reference Gott's book when giving Confederate strength at Fort Donelson. Gott mostly uses the "tabular statement" compiled at the time: He then proceeds to make a few imputations for units not included above. Investigation has shown that every unit he imputed is already in this list. They are: Culbertson's Battery of 300; these were the men manning the water battery, but were detachments from units in the list. The battery was manned by Maury's (Ross') battery, Coy A of 30th TN and Coy A of 50th TN. These units are on the list, and Gott double counts them. Melton's scouts are listed in the table as having 15 men. Gott gives them 58. Major Fielding Gowan's Tennessee cavalry squadron is listed on the table as having 60. Gott estimates 170. The Kentucky cavalry coys were attached to Forrest's regiment, and are included in it (see the returns below). Gott doesn't list sources, but gives Huey's coy an incredible 112. Also, for no reason Gott added 150 surrendered to the 48th TN. Finally, there is an addition error in his artillery table. We also have the returns for the formations a mere two weeks prior to Fort Donelson: Of these formations, the majority of the 4th Division, the whole of Floyd's "division" and Clark's brigades, and the artillery and 7 regiments of Buckner's division were at Donelson. Fortunately Buckner broke down the regiments strengths in his report and it is close to 7/12ths of his January return, and can be accepted. The PFD at Donelson can be (over)estimated thus: Thus the estimate of 13,000 given by the likes of Pillow seems accurate. Note that the highest figure given by any confederate is by Preston Johnston, but he double counted Clark's and Floyd's brigades. Removing the double counts give 15,000, which is consistent with the returns.
  3. 2 points
    My name is Kristen Pawlak and I am very glad to now be a part of the Shiloh Discussion Group, especially it being the anniversary of the first day. A native Missourian, I am very interested in the Missouri troops of both sides that fought at Shiloh. I also have several ancestors with the 12th Tennessee and 47th Tennessee Infantry regiments. I am looking forward to meeting many other members of this group! Thanks for having me!
  4. 2 points
    Battlefield America prints a series of these maps. You can get them from www.trailheadgraphics.com. You can usually find them at the bookshop at the Shiloh VC (that's the Visitors' Center for those of us in the know). Don't leave home without one!
  5. 2 points
    Quite amusing. I learned a lot from that animation he was running. Despite my many visits and extensive (and extended) battlefield hikes there, I guess I just didn't understand the geography.
  6. 2 points
    Edward Jonas Tracking this man is difficult because there were two Edward Jonas, both accorded credit as belonging to the 50th Illinois, an Uncle (1817 - 1867) and his nephew, and it is obvious that researchers have combined the experiences of the two; and in some cases credit has been given to the wrong man for accomplishments of the other. The subject of interest is Edward Jonas, the nephew. Edward was born into one of the first Jewish families in Quincy: his father, Abraham is recognized as bringing Freemasonry from his native England to Illinois; and Abraham had many and varied business interests; and Abraham Jonas belonged to a circle of friends that included Senator Orville Browning and the politician Abraham Lincoln. Following the Inauguration of Lincoln as President, Abraham Jonas, with support from Orville Browning was installed as Postmaster of Quincy. And Edward Jonas was appointed as Principal Assistant to the Postmaster (and he was only 17 years old in 1861.) Later that year the 50th Illinois Volunteers began recruiting; and on September 12th the underage Edward got his father's approval and became a Private in Company C. About that same time in September 1861 Brigadier General Benjamin Prentiss was back in Quincy, cooling his heels, under arrest for failing to obey the lawful orders of his superior officer, Brigadier General U.S. Grant. The Court Martial expected by Prentiss failed to eventuate; and General Prentiss was returned to duty in Northern Missouri. And the 50th Illinois was sent to St. Joseph Missouri (in Prentiss' District) and operated between that Missouri River port and Hannibal, on the Mississippi River, from October through December 1861. And it was most likely during this period that Benjamin Prentiss, still short of staff, found a position for Private Edward Jonas as Orderly (some references record “Secretary.”) The 50th Illinois Infantry left Missouri in January and joined General Grant's operation in Kentucky at Smithland. And General Prentiss left Missouri mid-March and joined General Grant's operation on the Tennessee River no later than the First day of April 1862. The next time Private Jonas appears in the historical record is in the Madison Georgia Prison manifest on page 10, his name and Robert Porter's name just below the line entry for Brigadier General Prentiss; so Jonas, Porter and Prentiss were all captured on 6 April 1862. And they all remained confined together until the 7 OCT 1862 release of all the Shiloh Federal officers from Madison Prison, after which Private Jonas likely remained in company with General Prentiss to Illinois, enjoyed a welcome respite with his family at Quincy; and early in 1863 returned to duty (as Second Lieutenant) as Prentiss (promoted to Major General) gained assignment as commander of the District of Eastern Arkansas. The Battle of Helena was fought in July 1863; and soon afterwards General Prentiss resigned from the Army. Suddenly in need of employment, Lieutenant Jonas was initially incorporated on the staff of Major General Stephen Hurlbut. But in 1864 Lieutenant Jonas was taken onto the staff of Major General Grenville Dodge: Edward Jonas is 4th standing man from right. [Above image of Major General Grenville Dodge and his Staff in the Public Domain.] Performing the duties of ADC, Edward Jonas was promoted to Captain, and gained two brevet promotions before the end of the war. After the war, Edward Jonas briefly returned to Quincy. But, his father, Abraham, had passed away in 1864; and most of the Jonas family relocated to Louisiana. Edward soon joined them and settled in New Orleans, where he appears to have become a property developer. Edward Jonas died in New Orleans in 1918. But, for those of us at SDG the revelation with most potential interest was brought to my attention by Author and SDG contributor, Joseph Rose: Edward Jonas wrote a paper titled, “Reminiscence of Battle of Shiloh.” In 1889/ 1890 Mr. Jonas was contacted in New Orleans by Henry M. Cist, a former soldier in the Volunteer Army from Ohio (several different regiments; who rose from Private to Brigadier General) who at the time was corresponding secretary for the Society of the Army of the Cumberland. In response, Edward Jonas provided a 14-page paper (and it appears that document is on file with the Missouri Historical Society.) I will be in contact with them soon – COVID 19 permitting – in order to arrange to get a copy of Edward Jonas' recollection. [There is also indication of an early April 1862 (April1st?) Letter from Private Edward Jonas to his parents in Quincy. ] References: Madison Prison manifest Rosen, Robert N. “Jewish Confederates” ( 2000) Uni. South Carolina Press, page 152. https://civilwar.illinoisgenweb.org/r050/050-k-in.html 2/Lt Jonas to Co.K 50th Illinois. Dodge, MGen Grenville, “The Battle of Atlanta and Other Campaigns” (1911) page 137 for above Staff photograph. New York Times of Monday 21 APR 1862 page 8: “Edward Jonas, son of the Postmaster of Quincy was wounded and taken prisoner with Gen. Prentiss.” https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/89149678/edward-jonas Find-a-grave Edward's uncle (1817 - 1867). https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/82425289/edward-l-jonas Find-a-grave Edward Jonas b.1844 mohistory.org Civil War manuscripts. St. Tammany Farmer of 7 JAN 1905 pg.5 col.2 “Judge Bossier is now connected with Mr. E. Jonas of New Orleans, a brother of Mr. Jonas of the firm Farrar, Jonas & Kruttschnitt.”
  7. 2 points
    Andy Welcome to SDG. I grew up in Rock Island County, Illinois and the Civil War statues and street names are everywhere (especially across the river at Davenport.) Rock Island Arsenal was established during the Civil War: one of its first functions was as Prisoner of War Camp for thousands of men captured in the South, beginning 1863. And Abraham Lincoln's footprint is to be found at nearby Galesburg (site of one of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates) and on Rock Island (as a lawyer, Lincoln represented the railroad and bridge company against the steamboat owners that ran into the first bridge across the Mississippi River and destroyed it. It is still believed by many that then-Secretary of War, Jefferson Davis, had a hand in destruction of the bridge because he favored a more southern route for the Transcontinental Railroad, crossing the Mississippi River at Memphis.) And of course, Lincoln left his mark on Springfield, only three hours away, and a required pilgrimage for school students, year after year after... Hope you find participation in SDG a worthwhile experience. All the best Ozzy
  8. 2 points
    Wisconsin in the War Stumbled across this video while researching Pensacola in the Civil War... serendipity. Titled “ORNA Wisconsin in the Civil War” it runs for about 10 minutes; and the presenter, Lawrence Winkler, is both knowledgeable and engaging. Beginning at the 6-minute mark and running for a little over two minutes Winkler details the aftermath of the Battle of Shiloh from a Wisconsin perspective (and includes the contribution and tragedy of Governor Harvey.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP5VyNFj3hs ORNA Wisconsin in the Civil War, Episode Four As indicated, this is Episode 4 of a five episode set. The remaining episodes run about 10 minutes each, but they do not mention Battle of Shiloh. Instead, they provide an excellent background to Midwestern attitudes and outlooks on the American Civil War; the actual fact that the Civil War was TWO conflicts (one that mostly took place in Virginia, and the other one that took place everywhere else); and a solid introduction to military terms, military life, wounds versus disease, treatment of POWs, and addresses “What caused Midwestern soldiers to enlist, and then re-enlist?” [Overall, a great set of videos to direct friends and family to watch, after they pose the question: “Why are you so caught up in the Civil War?” ] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCy7VpEkuHeIzDEIWSOd-iSQ Lawrence Winkler Home Page on YouTube (for all Five episodes.)
  9. 2 points
    In my dotage I realize that my former log-held belief that I understood the U.S. system was seriously flawed. For example, my local town council recently voted to allow retail sales of marijuana. At the start of the session they all rose and spoke, with hands over hearts, the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States...one nation, under God, indivisible... Two flags were in the room, one the Stars and Stripes, the other the State Flag of Illinois. They faced the former. The latter was not mentioned. Then they proceeded to pass an Ordinance that makes them all parties to a Federal felony (actually, it was a 6-5 vote). Eleven states have joined mine in this succession. We tried this States' Rights thing once before. That time it ended badly. We live in dangerous times, as also had been the case for our predecessors.
  10. 2 points
    as to #3..the stream in question at stoney lonesome..is a wet weather water-run from the springs north of stage rd and s\does continue south..older people that live along the stage road in this area retell of the large,deep cold swimming holes that they as kids played in..so there is a water feature in this area..also Purdy is more northwest of adamsb\ville than the map shows.
  11. 2 points
    From the Washington Post: http://www.washingto...36b8_story.html By Tony Horwitz, It’s often said that journalists write the first rough draft of history. But rarely do reporters draft history in quite so rough a fashion as Junius Browne and Albert Richardson did in the Civil War. (PublicAffairs) - ‘Junius and Albert's Adventures in the Confederacy: A Civil War Odyssey’ by Peter Carlson The two Northern correspondents narrowly escaped death in an artillery bombardment, only to be captured by Confederates. For 593 excruciating days, they skirmished with lice in Southern prisons as the real war raged on without them. Then, after a jailbreak and a harrowing trek through enemy territory, the reporters filed the story of a lifetime: their own. Peter Carlson narrates this tale of journalistic derring-do in “Junius and Albert’s Adventures in the Confederacy.” This title, which echoes the 1989 slacker film “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure,” undersells the gravity of the reporters’ experience. But it’s also appropriate, because Carlson’s book unspools like a buddy flick: Two larkish fellows embark on a trip that goes desperately wrong and often veers into farce. At the start of the Civil War, Browne and Richardson belonged to the self-styled “Bohemian Brigade,” a journalistic troupe of insouciant thrill-seekers who gallivanted along the front. Like other reporters of that era, they made no pretense to objectivity and freely expressed the staunch abolitionism of their employer, the New York Tribune. Nor did they let the facts get in the way of a good story. At one point, to avoid being scooped by a competitor, Browne and a colleague composed “long, vivid, eyewitness accounts of a battle that occurred 200 miles beyond their eyesight,” Carlson writes. Their fabrications ran at length in the Tribune, a stunt that made the writers legendary among the Bohemian Brigade. But these cavalier “knights of the quill,” as Browne called them, also risked their lives to cover combat. In May 1863, Browne and Richardson tried to sneak past rebel cannon at Vicksburg aboard a Union barge filled with hay. An incoming shell burned and killed half the soldiers on board. The survivors were fished out of the Mississippi and jailed. It was customary at the time to quickly release or swap captured journalists. But Browne and Richardson wrote for the paper most hated in the South; the Confederate in charge of prisoner exchanges called them “the worst and most obnoxious of all non-combatants.” Also, soon after their capture, the warring parties suspended prisoner exchanges. So the men were shuttled among jails, including Richmond’s notorious Castle Thunder, before ending up at North Carolina’s Salisbury Prison, a mini-Andersonville where men perished in droves from exposure, disease and shootings by guards. Carlson’s story has so many twists, right up to the last page, that I won’t spoil it by telling more. But the exquisite plot is only one of the joys of reading this book. As a veteran journalist (including 22 years at The Washington Post), Carlson captures the competitive yet collegial world of reporters in the field and their tortured relationship with distant editors. He also has an ear for quotes and an eye for detail, and shares with the Bohemian Brigade a keen sense of the ridiculous. Though the Northern reporters were hated Yanks, they were also curiosities. So Southerners flocked to visit the inmates — and to declare their willingness to “die in the last ditch” for the Cause. This line was repeated so often, Carlson writes, that it became a running gag for the reporters: “Where is this ditch? How deep is it? They’re going to need a very big ditch to hold all these Rebels who keep promising to die in it.” He also quotes the absurd reports in Southern papers, including this one on Gettysburg: “The Confederates were repulsed but cannot, at present, with justice or candor, be said to have suffered defeat.” Carlson excels as well at drawing characters, particularly the odd couple at the heart of his book. Browne, the well-schooled son of a banker, was a bookish scribe who filled his florid dispatches with Classical allusions. Richardson, a rugged farm boy, was plainspoken and ingratiated himself with all he met. Yet the two became inseparable and sustained each other through hardships and despair that neither could endure alone. “The North for us is like the grave,” Richardson wrote, after letters stopped reaching inmates, “no voice ever comes back to us from it.” If there’s a flaw in this fine book, it’s that Carlson tells his story almost too well. He’s shorn away anything that might interrupt the flow of his taut, lively narrative. This makes for a rollicking read, but at times I wanted more context and reflection — on the telegraph, for instance, a technology that transformed the news business in the mid-19th century as dramatically as the Internet has changed the media in our own time. Also, while Carlson details his deep research in the book’s endnotes, his text doesn’t address whether Browne and Richardson were reliable sources in the telling of their own story. Given the flagrant bias and outright fictions that Carlson documents in the dispatches of the Bohemian Brigade, I doubted some of the witty repartee and incredible adventures that Browne and Richardson recalled, much of it in books they wrote after returning home. But even if the two men embellished, their ordeal has resonance far beyond its drama and drollery. The reporters were forced into close, extended contact with captured Northerners and Southerners of every stripe — deserters, slaves, brutish guards, mountain guerrillas — and they experienced the behind-the-lines horror of the conflict. As a result, they witnessed, and later exposed, a theater of the war that was barely known to their colleagues at the front or to the Northern public. This remains an aspect of the Civil War that is little known to most Americans. The journalists’ experiences of both battle and captivity also speak to the enduring challenge of war reporting. Upon seeing combat for the first time, Browne wrote, “No one here seems to have any knowledge of anything, the leading officers having little more information than the privates.” As Carlson acutely notes, Browne’s one-line observation “sums up the ‘fog of war’ so well that it could be included in nearly every battle dispatch in every war ever fought.” Tony Horwitz is the author of “Confederates in the Attic” and “Midnight Rising: John Brown and the Raid That Sparked the Civil War.” Jim
  12. 2 points
    On January 10, 1861 the state of Florida became the third state to secede from the Union. One of the first items on the agenda was to send Florida state militia to seize the navy yard at Pensacola along with Fort McRee, Fort Barrancas and Fort Pickens. On January 9 the navy transported the command of Lt. Slemmer from Fort Barrancas to Fort Pickens due to the trouble brewing. On the big day, January 12, 1861, Commodore Walke was in command of a stores ship appropriately named Supply. He was anchored near Fort Pickens assisting Lt. Slemmer in delivering supplies and preparing to defend Fort Pickens. Walke was to proceed to the port of Vera Cruz, Mexicio after dropping supplies at Fort Pickens. The Wyandotte, armed with at least some guns was also nearby. The navy yard was under the command of Captain James Armstrong. The yard had a small force of marines, soldiers and civilian workers along with some of their families. There had been no pay received for several months. A Florida militia force of 600 to 800 men arrived at the fort and Armstrong capitulated without a fight. Armstrong was court martialed for “neglect of duty” and suspended from service for five years. The plight of the men and families in the navy yard was dire. They had no money and no way to subsist in what was now enemy territory. Of course, some of the individuals were Southern supporters and did not need a ride home. Walke steamed into the harbor the next day under a flag of truce to take aboard all persons wanting to return to the north. A total of 106 men, women and children boarded the Supply. Nineteen days later the Supply arrived at New York and Walke’s human cargo disembarked the ship. The passengers included the wife and child of Lt. Slemmer. Walke was promptly court-martialed for disobeying orders and leaving his station because he was supposed to go to Vera Cruz. Walke was found not guilty of leaving station since New York was a navy port but he was found guilty of disobeying orders. His punishment was a letter of admonishment from the Secretary of the Navy. On January 16 the Florida authorities demanded the surrender of Fort Pickens by Lt. Slemmer. He told them to pound sand and Fort Pickens remained in Union hands throughout the war. Everything I wrote here I just learned in the last couple days so I hope it is accurate. For those interested the story is related in the beginning of Walke’s Naval Scenes and Reminiscences of the Civil War of the United States on the Southern and Western Waters. https://books.google.com/books?id=-SoOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=Walker+naval+scenes+and+reminiscence&source=bl&ots=O2fr7_oYdp&sig=ACfU3U1RK16Y3Jhoxpq61jdGJtm5k3t_sw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjGioShrr3kAhVLOK0KHVd9AI8Q6AEwFnoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false Volume 4 of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies has a transcript of the court martial of James Armstrong which I found interesting but did not read the whole thing. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924051350837&view=1up&seq=111 Hank
  13. 2 points
    At Fort Henry the gunboat Essex took a shell through their middle boiler. The scalding steam trapped the two civilian pilots in the pilot house and killed them instantly. One pilot was found with his hand still on the wheel. The names were Marshall Ford and James McBride. At Fort Donelson, Foote’s flagship was the St. Louis. A shell penetrated the 1.5 inches of iron plate and 15 inches of oak timber sending deadly splinters along with shell fragments ricocheting throughout the pilot house. F. A. Riley, the pilot, died at the wheel. Foote was injured in his foot but was able to pry Riley’s dead fingers from the wheel and took over steering the boat. Foote thought his wound was not serious and he would be over it in a week. But it never healed and three months later he had to relinquish command of the gunboat fleet on the Mississippi. He died about a year later. The Carondelet stayed in the fight the longest at Fort Donelson. A 128-pound shell smashed into the pilot house and sent iron splinters and wood splinters into the two civilian pilots, mortally wounding one. His name was William Hinton. Later another shell hit the pilot house wounding another pilot. On board the Louisville, a pilot was wounded. The pilot house on the boats was a prime target for the enemy’s cannon. At Forts Henry and Donelson four civilian pilots were killed and at least three others wounded. Pilots were usually well-known on the rivers and served under dangerous conditions. At Forts Henry and Donelson the pilot houses on the gunboats were, indeed, a slaughter pen. This was a great question as I had never heard the term slaughter pen applied at Forts Henry and Fort Donelson. I tried a simple google search with forts Henry and Donelson and slaughter pen and the following book appeared: A History of the United States Navy, from 1775 to 1893, Volume 2 By Edgar Stanton Maclay. Page 330. Here is the link I found. It is long but when I tried to find a shorter one it was not the same book although it had the same title. https://books.google.com/books?id=UHWpn7IEuMoC&pg=PA330&lpg=PA330&dq=Slaughter+Pen+fort+donelson&source=bl&ots=gdumFKu_en&sig=ACfU3U2dvG_a0-xwGC8NzX_N401kgx69Jg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwid5Y3Y27jkAhUKM6wKHT5cDco4ChDoATAEegQIBxAB#v=onepage&q&f=false To verify what boat William Hinton was on I referred to Walke’s “The Western Flotilla at Fort Donelson, Island Number Ten, Fort Pillow and Memphis” in Battles and Leaders, Vol. 1 Hank
  14. 2 points
    Knowing that Wickliffe and Hardcastle were part of the party that crossed the desert from California with Albert Sidney Johnston it appeared that was the connection. A simple search of the other two revealed they also were part of Johnston's entourage. Brewer showed up on the SNMP facebook page. Ridley survived the war and lived till 1909 but Brewer was killed in Virginia in 1864. Hank
  15. 2 points
    Grant put in his memoirs that on January 6 he wrote Halleck and asked permission to see Halleck in St. Louis. He did not actually visit Halleck at that time. Halleck gave him another assignment. In the ORs, vol. 7 page 534 is Grant’s letter to Halleck ending with “If it meets with the approval of the Gen. Comd.g the Department I would be pleased to visit Head Quarters on business connected with this command.” However, on the same day, January 6, Halleck sent Grant an order, (ORs, vol. 7, page 533). “I wish you to make a demonstration in force on Mayfield and in the direction of Murray. Forces from Paducah and Fort Holt should meet at Mayfield and threaten Camp Beauregard and Murray, letting it be understood that Dover (i. e. Fort Donelson) is the object of your attack.” Halleck told Grant to avoid a battle as they were not ready. Nowhere in this order is Fort Henry mentioned. Grant made preparations in response to the January 6 order from Halleck. Grant ordered a column from Cairo under BG John McClernand and a column from Paducah under BG C. F. Smith to make the demonstrations. In his instructions to C. F. Smith dated January 8, 1862 (Grant Papers, vol. 4, page 11) Grant wrote that he would send Smith a gunboat and Smith should send the gunboat and a transport carrying a section of Artillery and infantry up the Tennessee River. Grant made no mention of Fort Henry but thought it would aid in the deception and help prevent rebel reinforcements moving from Columbus to Bowling Green. On January 9, 1862, three days after Halleck ordered Grant to make the demonstration, Halleck wrote McClellan informing him that he had just received McClellan’s message from the third of January the previous evening. (ORs, vol. 7, page 539) Halleck did not receive McClellan’s so-called order from January 3 until the evening of January 8. By that time Halleck had already set Grant in motion to make the demonstrations. Halleck enclosed a copy of his orders to Grant for McClellan’s information. On January 10 Halleck again wrote McClellan about McClellan’s letter of January 3. (OR. Vol. 7, page 543) This time Halleck alluded that if he followed the “order” of January 3 it would cause the loss of Missouri and did McClellan really want to do that? McClellan replied to Halleck on January 13 that Halleck had not read the letter of January 3 “with much care.” McClellan declared “There is nothing in my letter that can reasonably be construed into an order…” McClellan claimed what he wanted from Halleck was his views on how to accomplish the stated goals. (ORs, vol. 7, page 547) On January 1, 1862 the commander-in-chief, President Abraham Lincoln, telegraphed Halleck that McClellan was sick and should not be disturbed with business. Halleck was ordered by the President to work directly with Buell at once. (ORs, vol. 7, page 526) Buell received the same admonitions from the President. He wrote a message to Halleck on January 3, 1862. (ORs, vol. 7, page 526). Buell declared that the power of the Confederacy is on the line from Columbus to Bowling Green and in the center the forts on the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers. Buell wrote an attack on the flanks and center was of importance and should be done simultaneously so the Confederates could not move troops around. Buell stated that two gunboat expeditions should go the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers. (hint, hint to Halleck). But Halleck did not have the troops for such expeditions and the ironclad gunboats were not ready for service. Buell pressured Halleck with; “whatever is to be done must be done in a few days.” Halleck apparently got the impression Buell was, finally, going to move against Bowling Green. He could not mount the river expeditions but he could send Grant out on the demonstrations in order to prevent rebel reinforcements being sent from Columbus to Bowling Green. In his January 6, 1862 order to Grant, Halleck told Grant that was the object of the demonstrations. (ORs, vol. 7, page 534) On January 6, 1862 Halleck sent a long synopsis to Lincoln and offered his opinion about an advance on Columbus while Buell moved on Bowling Green. It would be a repetition of the “strategic error which produced the disaster of Bull Run.” Halleck claimed such a plan would fail ninety-nine times out of hundred and was “condemned by every military authority I have [he had] ever read.” (ORs, vol. 7, page 533) On the same day that Halleck wrote Lincoln about how dumb an attack on Columbus would be Feis (William Feis, Grant's Secret Service) wants us to believe Grant wrote Halleck for a meeting to propose just such an undertaking. Feis wrote “Instead of going to St. Louis that January to propose a campaign against Forts Henry and Donelson, it is more probable that Grant hoped to convince Halleck that the time had come to eliminate Columbus.” (page 60 of Feis book) But Halleck had already pointedly stated that the true line of operations was to split the rebel defensive line in the center at the twin Forts Henry and Donelson. In late December Halleck had dinner with Sherman and Halleck’s aide, BG Cullom at the Planter’s House in St. Louis. Halleck laid a map on the table showing the rebel defensive line and asked his two guests where would be the best place to break it. They replied “in the center.” Halleck whole heartedly agreed and declared the true line of operations was to attack the rebel line on the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers. If Grant went to St. Louis to champion a movement against Columbus it is no wonder Halleck would toss him out. It seems to me that requesting permission from your superior officer to do something the superior officer had already condemned and told the President of the United States it would be a strategic error would not end well. Then Feis misleads us by claiming McClellan called for a demonstration against Columbus on January 3, 1862. In addition, McClellan wanted Halleck to send expeditions up the Cumberland and Tennessee rivers to freeze troops at Fort Donelson, Fort Henry and Clarksville. If that was not enough McClellan wanted Halleck to seize Columbus if the place seemed vulnerable. Feis wrote; “Then to accomplish this mission, Halleck ordered Grant to march east of Columbus toward Mayfield and Murray…” What is not stated is that Halleck had neither the men nor the gunboats to “accomplish this mission.” Halleck ordered Grant out with the demonstrations to keep any reinforcements moving from Columbus to Bowling Green. Feis then noted Halleck ordered Grant (Feis did not give the date but it was Jan. 6) to “make a demonstration in force on Mayfield and in the direction of Murray” using forces from Cairo and Paducah. Grant is to act like he is an advance guard of a larger force and after the demonstration is deemed finished the forces should slowly retreat back to a Paducah. Nowhere in Halleck’s instructions is there a mention of Fort Henry. Then Feis wrote “Halleck cautioned against engaging the enemy and conveniently neglected to mention McClellan’s instructions to take Columbus if the opportunity arose.” Since Halleck did not receive McClellan’s letter mentioning Columbus until the night of January 8 how could he have passed along McClellan’s instructions in an order he prepared for Grant on January 6? Feis did not explain how that would be possible. Feis also does not mention McClellan writing Halleck that only a pea-brained nincompoop would have considered McClellan’s letter of January 3 as instructions. (ORs, vol. 7, page 547) As of January 6, Halleck was not considering making any movements towards rebel strongholds until he had the situation in Missouri under control. Halleck estimated that would be around mid-February. Halleck wrote McClellan on January 20, just as Grant was returning to Cairo from the demonstration, and outlined his plan for future operations. (ORs, vol. 8, page 509)It did not include a direct assault on Columbus. He thought that was impracticable and “not a proper line of operations.” Halleck declared that a more feasible plan would be expeditions up the Cumberland and Tennessee rivers towards Nashville. That would turn Columbus and cause the rebels to evacuate Bowling Green. Halleck noted he had thoroughly studied the defenses of Columbus and found them strong. Halleck wrote it would take a large siege train and a “terrible loss of life” to take Columbus. To send expeditions up the two rivers Halleck estimated it should not be attempted with no less than 60,000 men. There were only 15,000 troops available at Cairo and Paducah at that time and the gunboats were looking for crews. It has been noted that nowhere in Halleck’s order to Grant and Grant’s order to C. F. Smith is Fort Henry mentioned as a place to be threatened. The instructions from Halleck were to act as if Dover (Fort Donelson) was the target of the movement. Feis showed on page 61 of his book why one should always be skeptical of authors who are quoting short segments of reports with parts not included. Feis wants to present the idea that there was a lost opportunity to take Columbus according to McClernand’s report to Halleck of January 24. Feis wrote: “As Union troops neared Columbus during the operation, McClernand interpreted the “non-appearance” of any significant Confederate resistance to mean the enemy was “closely collected around camp fires within their entrenchments, and indisposed to take the field.” That moment, he later wrote, was perhaps the most “favorable time…for [a] successful attack and the capture of Columbus.” After observing the disappointment evinced by his men when the demonstration ended without an attempt to storm the stronghold, McClernand urged Halleck to launch an immediate attack while the enemy remained vulnerable.” (Feis book page 61) In the ORs, vol. 7, page 69 we find what McClernand wrote from which Feis cherry-picked quotations to make the claim of the “lost opportunity” to take Columbus by storm. “It was discovered that an abatis of fallen timber a half mile in width surrounded the enemy’s intrenchments. The rigor of the weather and the non-appearance of any considerable rebel force led to the belief that they were closely collected around camp fires within their intrenchments, and indisposed to take the field. It is believed that with suitable preparation on our part a favorable time was thus afforded for successful attack and the capture of Columbus.” Note Feis left out “It is believed that with suitable preparation on our part…” What McClernand noted was if the Union army had made suitable preparations they might have been able to make a successful attack on Columbus. But the army was conducting a demonstration against Columbus with no intention to attack it. Feis claimed that after McClernand stated the rebels were “indisposed to take the field” he later wrote that at that moment it was maybe the most “favorable time” to had made a successful attack. I guess technically that is true but the two referenced sentences are in the same report adjacent to each other so it was probably no more than 30 seconds. Next Feis told us that McClernand’s men were disappointed they were denied the opportunity to attack Columbus and that McClernand wanted Halleck to make an immediate attack while the rebels were vulnerable. But McClernand’s report does not say the men were disappointed they did not attack Columbus. They were disappointed that they were recalled to Cairo. I doubt the men were disappointed they were not allowed to attack through a half mile of abatis during terrible weather against intrenchments manned by an unknown number of Confederates. McClernand wrote that the advance by the Union forces was welcomed by Unionists in the area. With the withdrawal from the area McClernand was concerned of the reprisals that might be visited on the Unionists. McClernand wrote: “This consideration, with others having great weight with me, prompts me in conclusion to presume upon your indulgence so far as to urgently recommend a renewed advance of our forces, if not immediately upon Columbus, at least so far as to regain the ground we recently occupied.” McClernand went on to describe a scenario where the army could lay siege to Columbus avoiding the need to actually attempt to carry the works. The Union army did not lose an opportunity to take Columbus during the demonstrations because that was never the intent and they were not prepared to do so. Feis next lets us know that “Grant also lamented the lost opportunity. “My orders were such and the force with me also so small,” he complained, “that no attack [upon Columbus] was allowable.” This was a letter to his sister. (Grant Papers, vol. 4, page 96) Feis put [upon Columbus] into the quotation. Grant did not mention a specific location where he was not allowed to attack. The “no attack” order was placed on both McClernand and C. F. Smith. Grant’s orders to not attack applied to the whole area of the demonstrations. Halleck cobbled together as many troops as he could for the demonstration but the force was too small to attack Columbus. In Grant’s memoirs he wrote that Smith reported he thought it practicable to capture Fort Heiman. Smith sent two letters to Grant, one dated Jan. 21 and the other Jan. 22. The letters were forwarded to Halleck in St. Louis on January 23. (Grant papers, vol. 4, page 90) Neither of these letters mentioned Fort Heiman. The Confederates did not start serious work on Fort Heiman until around January 15. A citizen alerted Sidney Johnston of that fact and he telegraphed Tilghman to immediately intrench at Fort Heiman and work all night. (Johnston biography by Johnston, page 423) Fort Heiman was not finished and no cannon were in place when Smith did his demonstration. The attack plan used by Grant put no emphasis upon seizing Fort Heiman before attacking Fort Henry. Grant is not always correct in his memoirs and this could be an example of his memory not quite getting it right. It is Smith’s letter of Jan. 22 where he described his approach to Fort Henry and how easy it would be to take it with just two gunboats. It should also be noted that Smith decided to take a look at Fort Henry because he had a day to kill as the troops unloaded a steamer full of supplies 20 miles north of Fort Henry. On page 62 of his book Feis claimed that because Grant declared the mission a success before receiving a report from Smith proves that Grant was fixated on Columbus. Fort Henry and Donelson were secondary. On January 18 Grant sent a letter to McClernand starting with “The object of the expedition having been accomplished all the forces will now be withdrawn…” Grant informed Halleck the day before that he had heard from Columbus and no forces had left there for several days. That was the object of the mission – to prevent any troops from moving from Columbus to Bowling Green. On January 20 Grant wrote Halleck upon Grant’s return to Cairo the same day. Grant wrote he would prepare a report of the expedition but if Halleck would allow him to visit headquarters he would make the report in person. Grant mentioned he had not received anything official from C. F. Smith but he had information that Camp Beauregard had been destroyed (it was, by the rebels) and that the small expedition that had gone up the Tennessee River had landed two and a half miles below Fort Henry. Feis wants us to believe that since Grant requested a face-to-face meeting with Halleck before having a report from Smith that meant Grant had Columbus foremost on his mind as opposed to Forts Henry and Donelson. What Feis does not tell us is that, while Grant did not have a report from Smith, he had a report from Lt. Phelps detailing how Phelps had feigned an attack on Fort Henry on January 17 with two gunboats and a steamer with 500 infantry aboard under the orders of Smith. (ORs of the navy, page 507) The premise that Grant asked for a meeting with Halleck without any information about Smith’s foray up the Tennessee is false because Phelps made a foray up the Tennessee and he made a report on it. Feis argued that Grant was fixated on Columbus and one of his reasons stated was “the lack of attention paid to the rivers before January.” That statement would come as a surprise to Flag-Officer Foote and Lt. Phelps. Here is a list showing the number of times the Navy sent a gunboat up the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers to “pay attention” to what was going on at Forts Henry and Donelson. This list is based on reports in the Official Records of the Navy. There could have been other trips. September 8, 1861 – (ORs, vol. 4, page 404). Right after Grant occupied Paducah a Lincoln gunboat was reported to have been seen on the Tennessee River 30 miles below Fort Henry. Grant left two gunboats at Paducah. Early on gunboat captains were warned to proceed cautiously up the rivers lest they encounter rebel masked batteries. October 19, 1861 – (ORN, vol. 22, page 374) – Lt. Phelps steamed the Conestoga up the Cumberland to Eddyville where low water prevented him from going further. October 27, 1861 – (page 379) – Lt. Phelps returned to Eddyville with a steamer transporting 300 infantry to attack a rebel camp near Eddyville. C. F. Smith (page 380) also wrote a report. October 30, 1861 – (page 396) – Commander Porter took the New Era up the Cumberland River to Ingram’s Shoals where the Confederates had blocked the river with sunken barges. Ingram Shoals was approximately 30 miles below Dover. Porter was to pick up volunteers who wanted to join the US army. Porter wrote he heard about Fort Henry and that with his boat they could take it. November 6, 1861 – (page 394) Lt. Phelps managed to get his boat over Ingram Shoals and proceeded to within three miles of Fort Donelson. Phelps returned to Paducah, made his report and noted he was leaving again, immediately, to the same location to try to stop the trading going on. On page 427 of the ORN is a report by C. F. Smith of November 8, 1861 giving details of the forts on the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers. Smith noted that Lt. Phelps is constantly moving his vessel up and down the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers. November 17, 1861 – (page 435) – Lt. Phelps wrote a long report about his trip up the Cumberland River to as close to Fort Donelson he could get. He noted that he had done this several times already. On page 451 is a report by Foote dated December 5 noting that four gunboats have arrived and he needs men to man them. As soon as he gets them he wants to go up the Tennessee River and destroy rebel boats and a battery. December 8, 1861 – (page 457) – Lt. Phelps again steamed up the Cumberland to Fort Donelson and wrote a long report about his trip. December 10, 1861 – (page 461) – Lt. Phelps returned to Paducah and then immediately turned around and went back up the Cumberland to pick up refugees. He, again, made it close to Fort Donelson. January 6, 1862 – (Page 486) – Low water hampered operations on the rivers. Lt. Phelps wrote a long report about his close visit to Fort Henry. He added more information on Fort Donelson. He did this report on the same day Halleck wrote the order to Grant to make the demonstrations. I guess what constitutes “lack of attention” is in the eyes of the beholder. It took Halleck two days to approve Grant’s visit to St. Louis. He sent a telegram to Grant on January 22. C. F. Smith wrote letters about his undertakings on January 21 and 22. The January 21 letter spoke of the lousy road conditions. The January 22 letter is the one Smith mentioned that Fort Henry could be taken with two gunboats. Both of these letters were forwarded to Halleck on January 23. Grant made plans to leave for St. Louis the night of the January 23. Grant did not have Smith’s letters when he made the request for a visit to Halleck but he had them when he left for St. Louis. The idea that Feis put forth about Grant being a Johnny-come-lately to the idea that the true line of operations should be up the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers is contradicted by Col. John W. Emerson in a series of stories in the Jan-Apr-June issues of The Midland Monthly. The title is “Grant’s Life in the West.” Starting on pages 114-119, continued on 219-221, Emerson recounts the circumstances of how Grant, in August of 1861, identified the true line of operations for Federal advance to be the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers. Grant laid out a plan and through his benefactor, Elihu Washburne, submitted it to President Lincoln. Of interest on pages 409-411 is an account of Grant’s meeting with Halleck in St. Louis. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011958785&view=1up&seq=6 Emerson referenced an account by John Thayer in McClure’s magazine, Vol. V, June to Nov. 1895, “Grant at Pilot Knob,” 433-437. Thayer wrote about Grant having plans about a campaign up the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers while he was at Pilot Knob in August 1861. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015030656162&view=1up&seq=7 Luckily, I had a copy of Bruce Catton’s. Grant Moves South. Catton discusses the Emerson and Thayer articles. (pages 28-30) Catton points out some inconsistencies but does not downright reject these accounts as these are men who were there. However, there are some aspects in the accounts which are new to me and I had not heard them before so a little more digging is required. The point is that Grant, like many others, recognized the military significance of expeditions up the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers. Grant also discussed attacks on Columbus from early on. Grant wrote in his memoirs that on January 6 he wanted to meet with Halleck and present a plan for expeditions up the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers. The idea that he was going to convince Halleck to let him move against Columbus makes no sense. There were about 13,000 men at Columbus behind fortifications and abatis. On January 6 Halleck wrote the President and informed him that he had 15,000 men at Cairo, Fort Holt and Paducah. Leaving guards at those places meant his available force was around 10,000 which is about the number he ordered out on the demonstrations. As Halleck wrote it would be madness to try to do anything significant (like attack Columbus) with such a small number. Grant asked for a meeting with Halleck in a letter dated Jan. 20. That does not mean he was going to take off for St. Louis without having heard from C. F. Smith. He wanted to give Halleck a report of the demonstrations in person. Grant made his departure after he received Smith’s letters. Grant has the sequence wrong in his memoirs because he did ask for the meeting before reading Smith’s letter which confirmed his view. Feis’s claim that Grant was fixated on Columbus and only changed his direction later is an analysis too contrived for me. When you factor in all the mistakes Feis made in his book and other evidence not included his conclusion fails. For instance, Feis wrote on page 63 that Smith found the roads horrible and that Grant, therefore, “knew that any reinforcements sent from Columbus to aid Fort Henry would be unable to get there very fast.” But any infantry going from Columbus to Fort Henry could have taken the railroad from Columbus to Danville on the Tennessee River where Tilghman, commander at Fort Henry, could have sent a couple steamboats to pick up the troops and take them to Fort Henry. Grant and Foote formed a tag team to hound Halleck to let them move against Fort Henry. But Foote claimed that Grant originally wanted to go up the Cumberland against Fort Donelson. Early reports had Fort Donelson as weaker than Fort Henry. Foote wrote in a report (ORN, page 314) to Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy, November 13, 1862, that when four of the ironclads were ready Foote proposed to Grant to take the boats and 6,000 troops and attack Fort Henry. Foote wrote that Grant preferred to attack Fort Donelson on the Cumberland. Foote claimed he convinced Grant to attack Fort Henry if Halleck’s agreement could be obtained. No dates are given but I assume this occurred before Grant went to see Halleck in St. Louis. Grant returned to Cairo after his rebuff from Halleck the morning of Jan. 28. Perhaps it is on his return that Foote convinced Grant to get Halleck to agree to let them attack Fort Henry for it is on Jan. 28 that both Grant and Foote sent telegrams to Halleck to let them take Fort Henry. (Grant Papers, vol. 4, page 99) Grant followed through with another telegram on Jan. 29 and Halleck, finally, gave his consent on Jan. 30. Halleck’s time frame had him ordering an advance in mid-February. What convinced him to go now was not the telegrams from Foote and Grant. But those telegrams showed Halleck that those two were ready and itching to attack the rebels now. On Jan. 29 Halleck received a short telegram from McClellan (ORs, vol. 7, page 571) passing along information from a deserter that Beauregard was ordered to Kentucky to assist Johnston and that he was coming with 15 regiments. Of course, it wasn’t true but Halleck acted as if it was. He sent McClellan a telegram on January 30 (ORs, vol. 7, page 571) telling him that his telegram had been received and that Grant and Foote would be immediately ordered to attack Fort Henry so as to take possession before Beauregard showed up. As further confirmation that it was the Beauregard news that prompted Halleck to act on February 6 Halleck telegraphed McClellan and ended with the sentence “I was not ready to move, but deemed best to anticipate the arrival of Beauregard’s forces.” I have searched in vain for any reaction from Halleck to the fact he sent out the demonstrations in early January based on his belief Buell was about to move against Bowling Green and that never happened. Then Halleck ordered the advance on Fort Henry because McClellan told him Beauregard was coming west with 15 regiments and that never happened either. When Grant wrote his memoirs it was 20 years after the events. He has some details wrong but his remembrance that when he requested to meet with Halleck in January of 1862 to propose a movement up the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers because that was the true line of operations is not fiction. Sure, Grant was interested in taking Columbus but in early January there were more Confederates at Columbus behind fortifications and abatis than Grant could muster against them. Anyway, Halleck was calling the shots, not Grant, and Halleck had no intention of sending a force against Columbus. The movement against the center of Johnston’s defensive line was an obvious military objective. The idea was put forth by many people so no one is given the credit for thinking of it. Grant noted this when he wrote to his benefactor, Elihu Washburne, on March 22, 1862. From Bruce Catton’s, Grant Moves South, page 29; “Grant wrote to Washburne saying that it was idle to give credit for the move up the Tennessee to any specific general; the strategic soundness of the plan was obvious, he said—‘General Halleck no doubt thought of this route long ago, and I am shure I did.’” Hank
  16. 2 points
    Randolph. He was not a slave because Johnston had manumitted him when Johnston went to the west coast. Randolph, or Ran, went with Johnston to California as a free man and received wages for his services as cook. Johnston also wrote that Ran was a good with the mules. (Source: Life of General Albert Sidney Johnston by Colonel William Preston Johnston)
  17. 2 points
    67th Tigers Thanks for providing clarity and documentation supporting Confederate troop numbers and identity of units assigned to Fort Donelson before the surrender of 16 FEB 1862. Another source of information: Prisoner of War records. The approximately 12000 Rebel prisoners were progressively shipped north after February 16th to Camp Douglas, Illinois (about 8000 men), Camp Morton, Indiana (3000) and Camp Chase, Ohio (800). These records are accessible at Family Search via the link https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1916234. [Click on "Browse through 51108 images" for record access. Free account with Family Search required for access to their records -- takes two minutes.] In addition, it appears one unit was assigned to Fort Donelson, but for some reason was posted opposite the fort, on the east bank of the Cumberland River. Scott's Louisiana Regiment (of cavalry) may have been kept on the other side of the river, on the orders of General Buckner, due to a recent outbreak of measles in the regiment. The location proved fortuitous, because the regiment was not surrendered; after February 16th Scott's Louisiana made its way east, passed through Nashville, and is next reported ahead of Buell's Army of the Ohio in March, likely responsible for destroying the bridge over Duck River near Columbia. Cheers Ozzy
  18. 1 point
    Hello, My name is Thomas Arliskas. I am the author of the book, Cadet Gray and Butternut Brown, Notes on Confederate uniforms. I have been selected to be one of the Speakers at the Kenosha Civil War Museums annual Fall symposium. This years topic will cover the Battle of Shiloh. I will be sharing the stage with the likes of Professor Tim Smith and Larry J. Daniels. Good Company! My topic will be the material culture and the common soldier who fought there. Will cover the uniforms and the types of weapons used by both sides. I have been doing research type projects for over 40 years on the Civil War and Shiloh was a part of that. I originally started out with studying Illinois in the Civil War and from there Confederate clothing and uniforms. I have started my research for the Fall presentation, and found this site. Lots of information here! So, how important is the study of uniforms and clothing at Shiloh? Some will say none at all, some will say a lot. It has to do with what your interests are. If you just like reading casually about the Civil War; Generals, Campaigns, Battles, Politics, Lincoln, Davis, your focus will not be how the 1st Louisiana or 32nd Indiana were uniformed at Shiloh. Blue and Gray is enough for you. But now--- If your ancestor was in those Regiments, if you are commissioned to do a painting, if you collect memorabilia, or if you own an original Civil War firearm from these Regiments, you are going to want to know how they looked, maybe their Regimental Flag, and what firearms were issued to see if yours matches ordnance records. Shiloh carries a mystique all its own. Even the men who fought at Shiloh remember it as a horrible Battle, not a game changer, just another slug fest to contend with and then move on. Island No. 10, got more Press in the papers! Few Books are available covering the Battle itself, as opposed to Gettysburg or Antietam. Yet there are hundreds, thousands of diaries, letters, memoirs, pamphlets, stories about the Battle of Shiloh everywhere ready to be found. I have promised the NPS and the folks at Shiloh Park that when done I will send them what I have found on the Armies at Shiloh, North and South. Their uniforms, clothing, firearms, flags, and comments on all of it. Of course I will cover other aspects of the Battle. Like both Grant and Johnston-- though not in the common soldier category, they certainly had a role to play in the history and outcome. If you do have any information you feel I could use- please let me know-- This is a project in search of knowledge to be compiled for all those interested on just another piece of Civil War History. Sincerely, Tom Arliskas Happy to be a Forum Member.
  19. 1 point
    I am pleased to join the group and am hoping to learn a bit about this battle. My own interest in the Civil War dates back to when I was a young kid growing up at the James A. Garfield home in Mentor, Ohio. We lived on the property and I spent many hours in the Garfield home and museum. Among the things in the collection that fascinated me was Garfield's sword and sidearm. I'm not sure if these were with him at Shiloh though.
  20. 1 point
    To be honest, I am more familiar with the John Pope of Second Bull Run than the John Pope of Island No. 10. In that instance, Pope was put in a very difficult position. Of course, he did not necessarily help himself very much either. What if Grant had been called east in July 1862 instead of Pope? I am not convinced he would have been a whole lot more successful than Pope was. In any event, it was a good thing for the North that it was Pope who was called east. If it had been Grant I'm not sure there would have been a Vicksburg.
  21. 1 point
    Memoirs of Francis T. Moore, 2nd Illinois Cavalry Serendipity. The result of research by which something truly interesting is uncovered while searching for something else. Such occurred with the subjects of this post, revealed as more neglected members of the team associated with Brigadier General Prentiss. In part because of my recent exchange with Rbn3 the search for information regarding the staff of General Prentiss was done in a different way; a modification or two applied to the search terms. And in consequence a Hit returned that revealed the existence of Francis T. Moore. A carriage maker from Quincy, Moore enlisted as a Private in the Adams County Dragoons in Summer 1861; that unit became Company L of the 2nd Illinois Cavalry. And before Summer was over Private Moore and Company L found themselves in Missouri, operating in vicinity of Pilot Knob and Iron Mountain, and incorporated onto Prentiss's staff as his bodyguard. While performing that duty, Company L was present for “the second seniority dispute” IRT Prentiss vs. BGen Grant. As Francis Moore later wrote: “We were just informed that General Prentiss had been superseded by General Grant; no reason given, but there must be some cause. And it was a shame General Prentiss had to go, because he was well liked by the entire command, and we shall be sorry to lose him.” Revealing what was known at the time of Grant, Moore states: “He was late Colonel of the 21st Illinois. We have had no access to newspapers for days, perhaps weeks; so we have no knowledge of what has taken place and why... General Grant we know little or nothing of. He was an officer in the Mexican War and belongs to the Regular army.” [And the brief affiliation of Company L with General Prentiss came to an end... Interesting that “Captain Grant” and “regular army” were successfully traded as valid currency for Civil War rank and status.] This Memoir was created by Francis T. Moore (who eventually rose to Captain of Company L) after the war, making use of newspaper clippings, Harper's Weekly magazines, and his own daily diary. The Grant versus Prentiss dispute is contained pages 30 – 35 and also features thorough description of the Battle of Belmont. Period sketches created by the author are scattered throughout. And a clear depiction of Civil War cavalry tactics, and how they evolved during the four years is presented. Captain Moore wandered further and further afield from Quincy after the war, and eventually found himself in California. While resident of National City he wrote his Memoirs; and they mostly rested on a shelf, unread, in the Special Collections of University of California at San Diego until noticed by a Librarian. She and her husband had a read, tidied them up, and re-released them in 2011 on amazon.com as “The Story of My Campaign: the Civil War Memoirs of Captain Francis T. Moore, Second Illinois Cavalry.” Cheers Ozzy References: https://www.hsqac.org/quincy-s-memoir-chronicles-civil-war Bio of Francis Moore of Quincy Illinois. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=c628DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT2&lpg=PT2&dq=Memoir+of+francis+t.+moore+2nd+illinois+cavalry&source=bl&ots=9QuxmcYR_6&sig=ACfU3U0kZbRdj2CRpBZFmE4PqiUBiC99_g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiykI3-2-ToAhXFxzgGHXG6B4IQ6AEwB3oECAsQKA#v=snippet&q=Prentiss&f=false Limited access to "The Memoirs of Captain Francis T. Moore" https://www.amazon.com/Story-My-Campaign-Captain-Illinois/dp/0875804411 Full access to "The Memoirs of Captain Francis Moore" (2011) by Thomas Bahde, with Forward by Michael Fellman. N.B. At the end of the war, Francis Moore revealed that his favorite Generals were Grant and Grierson. [And “Grierson” is the other search term I used to find this Memoir.]
  22. 1 point
    Family History Research guideline To compile your full Family History: 1. Begin with what you already know. Write a brief history of yourself on a single sheet of 3-ring binder paper, including Date and Place of birth; Date and Place of marriage; Dates and schools attended; Dates and places worked. Children, parents, spouse, all with Dates and Places of birth. For deceased relatives, record Place and Date of death; and record the Name and Location of the Cemetery [In earlier times, you may find the same cemetery used for many members of the same family, and their uncles, aunts and cousins.] 2. Attempt to recreate the above dosier on EVERY Family member, using only one sheet of paper for each person. Record Aunts and Uncles (as well as brothers and sisters of Grand parents and G-Grand parents, because it is often those brothers that lead to the parents.) Keep these pages in 3-ring binder, so they can be moved around (to account for re-marriages and step-brothers and sisters; and noteworthy uncles and cousins.) 3. Ask your older relatives what they know (and what they think they know. Who holds the Family Bible and Family Photographs? Often Family Legends have a basis in fact: how the family got to America; where they lived in the Old Country.) Write down details from these interviews in a notebook. Record all of your leads and suspected family connections and useful sources of information in this notebook, so you have one place to go to find all of your Prospects and Leads. Label and date all information recorded (and where you found it) so it can be found again. 4. Create a Chart. Once you have the first two or three generations determined, record yourself, your Parents, and your Grand parents on a chart. Write small, and in pencil, but record full names, Year of birth, and Year of death. Place a number adjacent to the name that corresponds to that person's dosier in your 3-ring binder (Families tend to reuse first names; numbering James (1812 – 1871) as B42 avoids confusing him with James (1783 – 1857) who is Father of James B42, and is labelled James Buchanan B51. 5. Once you have gone back four or five generations, and feel that the Chart for those generations is complete, make copies; and give a copy of the Chart to each of your brothers and sisters (and put your name on it, so nieces and nephews know who to ask, years from now.) Sources of Leads for extending the Family back in time: 1. Find-a-grave online burial records. Full name of ancestor is often recorded (but check for misspellings); and may include birth date, death date, and names of spouse, parents, siblings and children. These find-a-grave entries are not necessarily complete; but they provide Leads that can be verified and extended to find other family members. 2. Family Search. Use this Free site (provided by Mormon Church, and takes about 10 minutes to register online) to find every possible relative in your family, beginning with a parent or Grand parent. Double-check everything because other families (not yours) used the same names, and lived in close proximity to Your family. Once satisfied that a Relative has been found, create a dosier on that person; and record all possible Leads to other family members. 3. Census records. The U.S. Government (and each State Government) conduct Census every 10 years. These are freely accessible on familysearch.org and help confirm the prospective ancestor belongs to your family. [All years available prior to 1921.] 4. Family Bible. Many families that originated in Europe, UK, Scotland, Ireland maintained a Family Bible, and wrote Birth, Death, and Marriage records inside. 5. Church records. Especially in Europe, the records of Birth, Death and Marriage were kept by the local Church. Some of these Church records are online; others are only available by travel to Europe and view them in person. Some USA and Canada Church records are available online; and find-a-grave holds most of the Church Cemetery records. [Many Americans arrived in USA through Canada.] 6. New settlers arriving in America came by ship; and those ships mostly unloaded their passengers at Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore (and New York); or at Montreal, Lower Canada; or in the Canadian Maritime Provinces; or at Charleston, Savannah and New Orleans. 7. As new settlers established themselves, they tended to migrate further and further west. Those that arrived in Philadelphia (and other Northern Ports of Entry) tended to stay “in the North.” Those who arrived at Baltimore and Charleston and other Southern ports tended to stay “in the South.” As settlers took up new residence, they associated themselves with the County of the State in which they resided. Therefore, County Historical Associations (most are online) are excellent sources for Family historical information: Land ownership; military service; business records; Court records. Some County Historical Societies are better than others; but every place a relative lived is worth a look. 8. Military records. Americans (and British soldiers in Regiments of Foot who became Americans) fought in the French-and Indian War; and many were given Land Grants. These records are held by individual States; and most are available online. The Revolution of 1776 began by being fought by State Militias; and those records are held by State Archives (and most are available online.) Beginning 1778 the Continental Army became established; and those records are held by NARA. War of 1812 and Mexican War were fought by State military units; and those records are held by State Archives (and most are available online.) 9. Civil War: the South. Much (or most) of the Military records held in Richmond were burned in April 1865. And many County Court Houses across the South were destroyed during the war, and their records lost. However, Militia Units became State Guard Units. And States organized their own Regiments of Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery (so try State Archives online first, for example “Alabama Adjutant General Civil War” or “Georgia Adjutant General Civil War.”) When you determine what County your relative was recruited from, check that County Historical Society for their holdings. Some inspired people have constructed Regimental Histories and Rosters: check for those (and be aware of amalgamations and re-numbering that was prevalent with CSA regiments, so check all possible numbered regiments.) Once you have exhausted Family Search, and are ready to pay for a subscription to ancestry.com there is good news: ALL available Southern soldier records are accessible through ancestry.com with your subscription to Fold3. [Just double-check names, dates and regiment assignments to make sure the person being investigated belongs to your Family.] 10. Civil War: the North. Once you are certain that a particular soldier belongs to your Family, and you desire more information, acquire his Microfiche Film and Roll numbers from NPS Soldier and Sailor database online (and check the spelling of his name, as THAT spelling is used by NARA) and then contact National Archives using NATF Form 86 and include the Microfiche numbers in “Additional Information” box (order available online for about $35) to get that soldier's complete file sent to you: file can be as little as six or seven pages, or more than 100 pages, depending on length and breadth of service. Northern regiments were recruited by COUNTY, so check County Historical Society for additional records. “Illinois Adjutant General Civil War” and “Ohio Adjutant General Civil War” etc, etc provide access to records held by State Archives. And in the North, militias became Home Guards. Hope this gets you started. Feel free to ask questions (I am more than happy to provide guidance, but I do not have time to do your research.) All the best Ozzy N.B. I keep all of my Family History collection in a big plastic box to avoid water damage... actually TWO big plastic boxes. Additional records of interest to Jim Davis: https://archive.org/details/alabamaherhisto00brewgoog/page/n630/mode/2up 21st Alabama in "Brewer's Alabama" https://www.nps.gov/civilwar/search-battle-units-detail.htm?battleUnitCode=CAL0021RI 21st Alabama history at NPS https://www.nps.gov/civilwar/search-soldiers-detail.htm?soldierId=4456D594-DC7A-DF11-BF36-B8AC6F5D926A This H.G. Davis might be your relative. Confirm via Marengo, Baldwin or Mobile County records and/ or find-a-grave and/ or details at familysearch.org https://archive.org/details/ohioatshilohrepo00lcohio/page/n143/mode/2up Ohio -- Shiloh Battlefield Commission. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000454243 Ohio Regiment rosters [19th OVI is in Volume 2] https://www.nps.gov/civilwar/search-battle-units-detail.htm?battleUnitCode=UOH0019RI01 19th OVI at NPS https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/15th_Regiment,_Mississippi_Infantry Use this entry point to Register for Free Family Search account. https://www.nps.gov/civilwar/search-soldiers.htm#sort=score+desc&q=Thaddeus+Capron+55th+Illinois+infantry Click on Thaddeus Capron at NPS Soldier and Sailor Database to get Microfiche numbers for use on NARA NATF Form 86 Additional Hint: Do NOT pay for any information or service until you are CERTAIN that they hold information you want.
  23. 1 point
    One reason why Pope was selected to command in Virginia was that Lincoln knew him personally and he had never met Grant. Also Pope was a known Republican, whereas Grant's political position was not so well known in the administration.
  24. 1 point
    Two key players in the Picket Skirmish 4 April 1862 There were two men intimately caught up in the Picket Skirmish of 4 April 1862 who, despite direct involvement somehow get little mention by historians. The first of these is James H. Clanton. Born in Georgia in 1827, Clanton migrated to the State bordering on the west with his family as a child, attended the University of Alabama, but suspended his studies in order to participate in the War with Mexico. The military veteran returned to Alabama in 1847, studied law, and passed the bar and by 1850 was living and practising in Montgomery. Gravitating towards politics, James Clanton served in the Alabama State Legislature in 1855 and was involved in the Presidential Election of 1860 (as supporter of John Bell and the Constitutional Union coalition.) Following the November election, and subsequent eruption of the Secession movement, James Clanton organized a company of horsemen and in early 1861 rode to the Florida coast (where a protracted standoff involving Federal occupation of Fort Pickens denied Southern control of Pensacola Harbor.) Captain Clanton's Company was joined over subsequent months by other horse enthusiasts; but in a location requiring infantrymen and artillerists, there was not much to occupy cavalry on the white sand beaches except to act as orderlies for senior officers; act as mounted pickets and conduct patrols; and perform courier duties (Major General Bragg's district initially stretched from Pensacola City west to the Navy Yard, Fort Barrancas and Fort McRee, a distance of twenty miles; and over time that territory extended one hundred miles west to include Mobile.) And over time, the growing number of independent cavalry companies in Bragg's Department of the Gulf led to their amalgamation, and creation of the First Alabama Cavalry, with James Clanton elected as Colonel. The relatively relaxed assignment on the Gulf Coast came to an abrupt end with the arrival of news that Fort Donelson had fallen. Bragg's Army of Pensacola was ordered north; and Clanton's Alabama Cavalry found itself in Corinth Mississippi. And appears to have been assigned patrol of territory extending north from Corinth. When the decision was taken in early April to march Johnston's Army north, Clanton's Cavalry was already familiar with Pea Ridge and Monterey; and loosely assigned to Brigadier General James Chalmers, the cavalry outfit extended its reach further north, northeast, northwest... screening the advance... approaching to within pistol distance of the sprawling Union encampment supplied from Pittsburg Landing. Safe houses with welcoming locals were identified, and some of those safe houses acted as base of operations for daily patrols. Unbeknownst to Clanton's Cavalry, at least two of those safe houses were detected, and subsequently surveilled by Union scouts. And that unwitting detection led to an operation launched pre-dawn of April 3rd in an attempt by Federal cavalry to surprise Rebel cavalry at a safe house, and scare it away to the east... into an ambush mounted by companies belonging to the 54th Ohio. The attempted ambush failed because the horsemen rode away to the northwest, instead. But the Federal operation bagged one wounded horseman; and one captured. And Colonel Clanton made his report in person to BGen James Chalmers. The other man deserving of discussion is Leroy Crockett of "New York." Born in 1831 in Ohio, Crockett was raised on a farm; and as a young man went to work in grain buying and storage. With eruption of War due to Rebel attack on Fort Sumter, Leroy Crockett joined a military unit that promised “honor, prestige, and a good-looking uniform,” the 1st U.S. Chasseurs of New York. Mustered into the unit (also known as 65th New York Infantry) the men performed drill in their distinctive, French-inspired uniform until a high proficiency had been achieved... and then were called south for duty protecting the National Capital, where they arrived in August, not long after the embarrassment of Bull Run. A battalion of the Chasseurs saw action during the September 11, 1861 Battle of Lewinsville; and the regiment is recorded as involved with the October 1861 Reconnaissance to Lewinsville (but it is unknown, at this time, whether First Lieutenant Crockett was present at either, neither or both, of those engagements. Regardless, he knew military drill and basic infantry tactics (according to Hardee.) The 72nd Ohio Volunteer Infantry was recruited during OCT/ November 1861 and had Ralph Buckland as Colonel and Herman Canfield as LtCol; and neither man knew military drill. When the man tentatively selected as Major decided to withdraw his name from consideration, Colonel Buckland seized the opportunity and poached Lieutenant Crockett from the New York unit, and installed him in the 72nd OVI as Major on 26 NOV 1861. Records at the time indicate Major Crockett “was a strict, stern disciplinarian; and he took military drill seriously. But, it was also acknowledged that the Major exhibited a fine balance of care and concern for the welfare of soldiers under his charge, making sure they had adequate provisions and shelter. His men may not have loved him; but they respected him” [extract of a recollection of then-Captain John Lemmon 72nd OVI.] References: https://archive.org/details/alabamaherhisto00brewgoog/page/n684/mode/1up Brewer pp.677, 475 Party Politics in Alabama, 1850 – 1860 by Lewy Dorman (2014) pp.202 -204. The Struggle for Pensacola, 1860 – 1862 by Mike Maxwell (2020) Appendix One. OR 10 pp.86 – 87. Reports of Taylor and Chalmers. https://www.nps.gov/civilwar/search-soldiers-detail.htm?soldierId=B45C3A8D-DC7A-DF11-BF36-B8AC6F5D926A James Clanton's entry at NPS site. Clanton's Alabama Cavalry https://www.nps.gov/civilwar/search-battle-units-detail.htm?battleUnitCode=CAL0001RC POW Prison Record for Madison Georgia, 1861 – 1865. https://www.rbhayes.org/collection-items/local-history-collections/crockett-leroy-colonel/ bio and list of letters sent and received by Union army officer Leroy Crockett, 72nd OVI. http://dan-masters-civil-war.blogspot.com/2018/06/honoring-lieutenant-colonel-leroy.html bio. 72nd OVI history. https://www.ohiocivilwarcentral.com/entry.php?rec=1136 https://www.nytimes.com/1861/09/02/archives/letter-from-the-first-united-states-chasseurs.html Cincinnati Daily Press 15 SEP 1861 page 1 col.4 “The Fight at Lewinsville” details action of 1st U.S. Chasseurs at Lewinsville near Washington, D.C. on 11 SEP 1861 https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84028745/1861-09-15/ed-1/seq-1/#date1=1861&sort=date&rows=20&words=Chasseurs&searchType=basic&sequence=0&index=12&state=Ohio&date2=1861&proxtext=Chasseur&y=0&x=0&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1 Another Chasseur/ Battle of Lewinsville connection https://sites.google.com/site/wppricememoir/home/1861---1865-the-war-years/1861-battle-of-lewinsville from 1905 Dahlonega Nugget. Major Crockett's record of muster with 72nd OVI on 26 NOV 61 https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112047586026&view=1up&seq=95 Ohio Regimental Rosters vol.6 https://dmna.ny.gov/historic/reghist/civil/rosters/Infantry/65th_Infantry_CW_Roster.pdf Original muster in with 1st U.S. Chasseurs (65th NY Inf) on 15 July 1861 (page 491). https://www.nps.gov/civilwar/search-soldiers-detail.htm?soldierId=5942EB91-DC7A-DF11-BF36-B8AC6F5D926A Leroy Crockett's entry at NPS site.
  25. 1 point
  26. 1 point
    As mentioned previously, John Fremont (promoted to Major General at start of the Civil War) was in Europe procuring small arms, artillery and cavalry equipment in April 1861 and is responsible for equipping Midwestern regiments – many of which fought at Shiloh – with modern equipment. On return to New York and Washington, Fremont debriefed President Lincoln and then set off for St. Louis, where he enjoyed a good working relationship with Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon (until that man's death at Wilson's Creek in August 1861.) During his tenure as Commander, Department of the West, MGen Fremont constructed the defences that encircled St. Louis; extended the telegraph to the end of all Missouri railroad lines; initiated the Camp of Instruction at Benton Barracks; contracted for “Pook ironclads” and initiated a Corps of Telegraph Operators, and a Corps of Intelligence Collectors known as Jessie Scouts. He also managed to defuse a tense situation that erupted between Brigadier Generals Grant and Prentiss concerning seniority. But John Fremont, initially a Naval contractor and NOT a graduate of West Point was a Regular Army officer until he resigned in 1848 “due to irregularities” regarding his involvement regarding the soon-to-be State of California. During his military service, Army Officer Fremont instituted and promoted the U.S. Army Corps of Topographical Engineers about 1838; and then set off on treks of discovery across the West of America (these treks so caught the American imagination, that the trails blazed by Fremont and followed by settlers of the West earned him the name, “Pathfinder.”) A Corps of Topographical Engineers with interest in Civil War history (and generation of accurate Civil War maps) has recently departed from the internet and “gone dark.” While searching for their new online location, ran across ANOTHER topographical engineers site, with their own magazine: LIDAR. This group appears to have been established in 2010 and consists primarily of retired members of the U.S. Army Corps of Topographical Engineers... (or whatever the Army calls that group of map-makers, spatial engineers and topographical intelligence collectors today.) Their magazines (about six per year) occasionally include Civil War material, such as: https://lidarmag.com/2004/02/29/bookmarks-pathfinder-john-charles-frmont-and-the-course-of-american-empire-by-tom-chaffin-2/ John Fremont. http://lidarmag.com/wp-content/uploads/PDF/LIDARMagazine_Maune-TopographicEngineers_Vol6No3.pdf Explanation of Topographical Engineers. and this is the site for their archives: https://lidarmag.com/archives/ LIDARMagazine N.B. After leaving the Army, John Fremont made a fortune during the California Gold Rush. He invested much of his wealth in the purchase of small arms in Europe in May/ June 1861.
  27. 1 point
    Andreas Shiloh Map of 1884 (Completed to assist with construction of the Shiloh Cyclorama on display at Chicago.) The below Shiloh map gets the placement of Tilghman Creek correct; includes the locations of Snake Creek (Wallace) Bridge and Owl Creek Bridge; and attempts to more accurately depict the location of Union artillery [notice the three positions of Munch and Hickenlooper, of Prentiss's Sixth Division. When some argue that "Prentiss only had an insignificant fraction of his division remaining after withdrawal to the Hornet's Nest," they fail to consider the valuable contribution of these batteries, both of which fought ALL Day and ended up in Grant's Last Line.]
  28. 1 point
    Hello Idaho Native, when was the account you posted originally published? Hello Ozzy, yes indeed Sherman engaged in some serious 'CYA' and got away with never really having to answer for his arrogant dismissal of the overwhelming amount of intelligence of an impending attack in the days leading up to April 6th, even going so far as issuing an order to arrest Lieutenant Eagler of the 77th Ohio for his report of seeing the enemy to his front, which was not obeyed. No explanation of why he did not have the men entrench, and something that has always stood out to me, his odd placement of the camp of the 53rd Ohio, all alone with no close support, out in front of the army. Thanks.
  29. 1 point
    I saw this and wanted my fellow Shilohians to view what a two man front and advance looked like-- This is it-- just picture in your mind a line like this 2 milles long and 3 files like this one in depth. With all the flags, the Officers mounted in front, horse drawn cannons racing between the ranks-- the drums and the music--
  30. 1 point
    Ozzy et al., Although there was talk of Grant abusing alcohol on the trip to Nashville, I haven't seen any specific evidence for it. Have you? Boynton in the NY Sun of 1/23/87 wrote that, "There are living witnesses of the excesses of that river trip to Nashville, but Gen. Grant was brought out of it, first by Gen. Rawlins's discretion, and next and mainly, by the forebearance of Gen. Halleck, who deemed it best to withhold from the people the knowledge of this affair, and give the officer who had won such a notable victory another trial. . . . There is no more glaring instance of ingratitude in our history than the attacks of the friends of Gen. Grant upon Gen. Halleck for his action in connection with this affair on the Cumberland." E.D. Kittoe wrote to J.H. Wilson [LoC - Wilson Papers 7/15/85] that Rev. Knowlton told Kittoe he had read the letter from Halleck to Grant, "written in the most friendly Spirit [sic], and reminded Grant of his former drunken habits causing his resignation from the US Army, and told him that now (i.e. at the time of the Nashville fiasco) the country was looking to him for great things and that if he would give him his pledge to abstain from drink that there would be no further action in his case, but that he would be reinstated in command, Mr[?] Knowlton read the pledge Grant sent to Gen[sic] Halleck and says it is a remarkable paper evidently written in a maudlin condition. Of course I know but little of this matter ....
  31. 1 point
    Taylor's Battery One of the solid performers at the Battle of Shiloh (where it was known as Barrett's Battery) this Light Artillery unit, organized in Illinois, possesses a more interesting history than most realize. Bjorn Skaptason has gone the extra mile, and in producing this 25-page examination of Taylor's Battery uncovered details and facts not readily available in other Civil War works. Some surprising revelations: connections between Taylor's Battery and the 1st Illinois Light Artillery, Battery A; and Battery B; and Willard's Battery; and Wood's Battery; and the Chicago Light Artillery (milita artillery unit organized in the Windy City that contributed to April 1861 Occupation of Cairo, preserving that vital river port for the Union.) mention of the pedigree of Waterhouse's Battery; reminder that Grant's staff officer, Joseph Webster, had a connection to the Chicago Light Artillery; the pre-war careers of significant members of the Volunteer Artillery. Blooded at Belmont, and acknowledged for performing a crucial role at Fort Donelson on 15 FEB 1862 (Ezra Taylor was one of “Grant's Heroes,” rewarded along with WHL Wallace and Jacob Lauman with a trip to Nashville) the Chicago Light Artillery performed ably at Shiloh, while Major Ezra Taylor acted as Chief of Artillery for Sherman's Fifth Division. The Battle of Shiloh is told from the Union artillery point of view. “The Chicago Light Artillery at Shiloh” by Bjorn Skaptason was published in the Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society No. 1-2 vol. 104 (Spring/ Summer 2011) beginning page 73. The article is available in full via JSTOR (requires ten minutes to register for access to JSTOR holdings.) “Ezra Taylor Battery Civil War” [for JSTOR listing at google.] https://www.jstor.org/stable/41201304?seq=1
  32. 1 point
    This YouTube video of 36 minutes was published on 2 May 2019 by Misesmedia, a publication of Mises Institute at Auburn, Alabama. It relies heavily on the Diary of young Elsie Duncan to describe life for civilians of Hardin County after the Battle of Shiloh, after the Union Army mostly moved south to besiege Corinth, Mississippi. The Horrors of War are fully described, including mass graves, the number of wounded overwhelming available surgeons, “raiders” (roaming bands of Union deserters), “guerrillas” (roaming bands of Southern supporters), avoiding “summary justice,” and the increasing difficulty over time to avoid starvation. In addition, mention is made of Duncan's Cave, and Hoker's Bend. "Life After Shiloh: Tory Rule" is narrated by Chris Calton, and is part of the Historical Controversies series. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qITGlHH0iW8 "Life after Shiloh" [Other titles in the Historical Controversies series at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLALopHfWkFlGOn0oxjgp5gGzj-pnqeY0G ].
  33. 1 point
    I just saw this website and thought you guys might enjoy it. http://www.civilwar.org/maps/animated-maps/
  34. 1 point
    I had an interest in such a question on Grant years ago. I was researching US Grant and the Battle of Belmont, MO. fought on November 7th, 1861. I have not been able to get a definitive answer, but at one point, post WW 1, that the Staff at West Point tried to put together basically, a class or study on what makes a great and successful General. What traits are shared, what attributes, what brain power, what cognitive gift do they have and can it be taught to others. I do not think it went anywhere, but the attempt to try and understand US Grant as a Commander was done. What I saw in Grant was how he would listen to others. Get their views on a subject, attack, retreat, move and how to move-- then take a break, come back, and using all he heard give a succinct order that all had part in. Another was ability to write an order that was to the point and easy to understand. That he would rise at dawn, work all day, writing orders etc., then in the evening eat something and sit around the campfire and listen to jokes and bantering, he loved it. His War Secretary was asked what made Grant successful. His answer, "success?, we followed Grant because he was successful." He just did it---
  35. 1 point
    Ran across an extremely interesting 250 page Doctorate Dissertation on the Life of McPherson. Produced in 2016 this work by Eric Dudley sheds light on West Point Graduate McPherson that many of us either take for granted, or ignore. Some highlights: Born in 1828 Jimmy McPherson just “made the cut” before becoming too old for admission to the U.S. Military Academy. Graduating in 1853, Lieutenant McPherson was 24 years old and ranked Number One in his West Point Class. Initially assigned to Instructor duty at West Point, McPherson put his Engineer training to use at Fort Delaware (south of Philadelphia) improving that facility; then went to San Francisco in 1857 to complete the fort on Alcatraz Island. Still a Lieutenant in the Army Corps of Engineers during most of his stay in California, McPherson followed with interest the deterioration of the Nation taking place “Back East” via slow mail from New York – Panama – San Francisco (six weeks delayed.) With initiation of the Pony Express the delay in receiving news diminished to 8 – 12 days (with no telegraph to San Francisco during McPherson's stay.) Captain McPherson did not depart California (via steamer to Panama; then steamer to New York) until last week of July/ first week of August 1861. During McPherson's stay in California, he would have met Henry Halleck; become re-acquainted with William Tecumseh Sherman; and served under Albert Sidney Johnston. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c6a4/98c03e2ee2cc70f6fe249be693588b0bb37a.pdf The Memory & Memorialization of James B. McPherson (2016)
  36. 1 point
    [Life & Letters of WHL Wallace page 191.] The above report of an occurrence Saturday afternoon, 5 April 1862 is indicative of the information that will be revealed when "The Diary of I. P. Rumsey" is published...
  37. 1 point
    im going to have to answer these bit by bit..very busy dont have much time at all to research.. 1-warm in the morning which led to later showers... 2-Ohio..72nd--48th--70th 5th Oh cav 4-2-2:30pm 5-Sherman 6-Buckland 14-7 men and 1 officer Herbert of the 70th will be back..go to go check my cows that are calving.... Mona
  38. 1 point
    Belfoured Thanks for your continued interest in Pfaender and Peebles and Munch's Battery. I have attempted to find primary sources that confirm your claims, but without success. There is indeed “a mystery” concerning WHO commanded the section of howitzers during the Chickasaw Bluff recon (Pfaender claims he did; but there is an almost complete lack of a roster of participants in that expedition conducted by Sherman; and without knowing full details (i.e. did other officers of the battery go along; was anyone sick and left behind at Pittsburg Landing), all that can be made are assumptions.) These are the best references I have run across with significant mention of the 1st Minnesota Light Artillery and its key players: “Minnesota in the Civil and Indian Wars” (1890 – 93) [contains details not in 2005.] “Minnesota in the Civil and Indian Wars” (2005) [contains info not in 1890 version.] OR 10 parts 1 and 2 OR 52 part 1 Minnesota Historical Society http://www.mnopedia.org/group/first-battery-minnesota-light-artillery http://libguides.mnhs.org/firstartillery 1st Minnesota Battery resources The Battle of Shiloh: the Union Armies (2019) by Lanny K. Smith Shiloh Discussion Group [a number of topics and posts on the SDG site, easily found by searching for “Minnesota” or “Munch” or “Pfaender” via Search Box at top of Home Page.] http://www2.mnhs.org/library/findaids/civwar04.pdf Report of the Shiloh Monument Commission William Pfaender http://www.mnopedia.org/person/pfaender-wilhelm-1826-1905 William Pfaender and New Ulm http://collections.mnhs.org/MNHistoryMagazine/articles/30/v30i01p024-035.pdf Brother of Mine: the Civil War Letters of Thomas and William Christie (2011). Cheers Ozzy
  39. 1 point
    Why is the above information important? First, because it illustrates what happens to a Civil War battlefield if not properly protected (Dranesville, less than two miles east of Dulles International Airport, has been absorbed by suburban sprawl from Washington, D.C.) And second, if we accept that William T. Sherman, James B. McPherson, Philip Sheridan, EOC Ord, Grenville Dodge, and John Rawlins were members of Ulysses S. Grant's "Inner Circle" by 1864, then knowing when Grant first encountered these men, and became aware of the talents each one brought to his exclusive team is essential to understanding U.S. Grant, because Grant did not achieve greatness on his own. Like many capable leaders, U.S. Grant identified talent, and benefited from a willingness of the men comprising his Inner Circle to commit themselves to Grant and his vision for prosecuting the war. And with the exception of Grenville Dodge (who brought an intelligence collection network to Grant's team) all of the named men were known to General Grant by the time Henry Halleck departed Corinth for Washington, D.C.
  40. 1 point
    Had never seen this complete list in print before, but it is the Seniority List of Generals in the Provisional Confederate Army, just prior to Battle of Bull Run (First Manassas). Of interest to SDG because of the many names associated with Fort Donelson, Shiloh and Siege of Corinth (and it is interesting to see a list of Confederate Generals without Albert Sidney Johnston's name near the top... but General Johnston was enroute from California when this list was printed in St. Mary's Beacon of Leonardtown, Maryland 18 July 1861.) https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn89060119/1861-06-13/ed-1/seq-2/ St. Mary's Beacon of 18 July 1861 page 2.
  41. 1 point
    The 33rd Alabama Infantry arrived at Corinth too late to take part in the Battle of Shiloh, but the regiment was present during the April/ May 1862 Siege of Corinth (Hawthorn's 5th Brigade of Hardee's Corps.) With companies arriving at Pensacola Florida in March 1862, the 33rd Alabama was organized by April 1st 1862 and assigned “defense” of Fort McRee (a coastal fortification across the pass from Union-held Fort Pickens, Rebel-held Fort McRee had been reduced to rubble during the November 1861 gunnery duel.) However, it was determined that several of the guns under the collapsed fort were worth salvaging, so when the decision was made by Major General Bragg to evacuate Pensacola and move his Army north to Corinth, the 33rd Alabama was responsible for removing the guns at Fort McRee and accompanying them to Mobile (where they were loaded aboard a train and sent to another stronghold, most likely Vicksburg or Fort Pillow.) The 33rd Alabama afterwards served at Stone's River, and was noted for action at Nashville in 1864. The regiment also had the misfortune of being involved in a train wreck near Cleveland, Tennessee on 4 NOV 1862 which killed 17 members of the 33rd Alabama and injured seventy (which is the main reason this post is here: I had no idea that there were over 500 wrecks and accidents involving Confederate railroads during the Civil War... until now.) References: http://files.usgwarchives.net/al/butler/newspapers/train33rd.txt Train wreck. http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~alavols33rd/military/survivors.htm Victims of train wreck. https://civilwartalk.com/threads/railroad-accidents-kill-soldiers-during-civil-war.113583/ Train wreck discussion at civilwartalk. [Over 500 train wrecks and accidents occurred on Confederate lines during the Civil War. See http://www.csa-railroads.com/index.htm R.R. Accidents under "Essays and Documents" and scroll a little more than halfway down.] Note: The 16th Alabama, veterans of Shiloh, were aboard this same train, but occupied cars not affected by the derailment, and suffered no casualties.
  42. 1 point
    First time I visited Rio de Janeiro many years ago, I arrived by ship. The night before, from a distance of one hundred miles, a star appeared on the southern horizon that seemed to mark the location of Brasil's most reknowned city; and the ship adjusted course and aimed for the star. Curiously, that star did not rise, but remained in place, hovering just above the horizon... but did disappear with the rising of the sun. Of course, what I had seen was not a star, but the brightly illuminated Christ Redeemer Statue that is the symbol of Rio. Next day I went with friends to the top of Mount Corcovado to visit the statue with its welcoming outstretched arms: a small bronze plaque, about a foot square, gave details of the statue and its completion in 1931 ( designed by Heitor da Silva Costa, with assistance from artist Carlos Oswald and sculptor Paul Landowski.) And adjacent to the small plaque was an ENORMOUS sign, three yards wide and a yard high that proclaimed, “Lighting Provided by General Electric.” This story is provided to illustrate the similar feeling of utter disbelief I experienced upon investigating more closely the Thom Maps: “Map of Field of Shiloh” and “Map of the Country between Monterey and Corinth.” Because, boldly proclaimed on both of these beautiful, precise maps are names of commanders Halleck, Grant or Buell, with slightly smaller credit for construction of each map accorded to Staff Officer George Thom. But well away from these bold names, along one edge of each map (and requiring a magnifying glass to read): Otto H. Matz. Naturally, it could be assumed that Otto Matz was a West Point graduate, assisting George Thom with creation of these highly detailed charts, but such is not the case. Matz was born in Prussia in 1830, was trained at the Berlin Polytechnic Institute, and migrated to America while a young man. When the Civil War erupted, Otto Matz offered his services; and he soon found himself assisting Henry Halleck's staff officer, George Thom. When Henry Halleck (and Colonel Thom) were called east in July 1862, Major Matz remained in the west and was incorporated onto General Grant's staff (and assisted with the after-battle Map of Fort Donelson, the Map of Milliken's Bend, Louisiana, and produced maps used during the Vicksburg Campaign.) After the war, Otto Matz returned to Chicago and resumed his work as architect (and he was notably involved with rebuilding Chicago after the Great Fire of 1871.) He died in 1919. References: https://www.loc.gov/search/?fa=contributor:matz,+otto+h. [Some of the maps created by Otto Matz on file with Library of Congress.] http://bobrugo.us/GenealogyFiles/MatzPublic/WP01/WP01_023.HTM Otto H. Matz https://archive.org/stream/CityOfChicagoLandmarkDesignationReports/CourthousePlace#page/n1/mode/1up A Chicago creation of Otto H. Matz (see pp. 3- 4) SDG topic "Bushrod Johnson's Brigade, morning of 6 April" by Billy1977 (see post of 3 SEP 2016: the Thom maps).
  43. 1 point
    Well done, Mona! Captain Sheridan was indeed on the staff of Henry Halleck, and got himself “ordered to Pittsburg Landing” (but too late to take part in the Battle of Shiloh.) But, there is more to the story... Philip Sheridan was one of those officers who found himself “out West” as the Secession Crisis unfolded; and he left San Francisco to return east at about the same time General Albert Sidney Johnston departed California (except Johnston took the overland route, while Sheridan took the steamship to the Isthmus, then from Aspinwall to New York City.) Assigned to the 13th U.S. Infantry, Captain Sheridan headed for Missouri, and while in St. Louis in early November, dropped in to “say Hello” to Major General Henry Halleck (who had just taken over command, and had his HQ there.) MGen Halleck decided he needed an audit of General Fremont's papers and expenditures and Captain Sheridan, with recent experience with quartermaster duties, was put onto the job. Halleck appears to have been satisfied with the quality of Sheridan's work; and Captain Sheridan was next assigned to General Curtis, in a similar QM capacity. And Philip Sheridan, who was reknowned for short temper, impatience and “being argumentative at inappropriate times,” had a falling out with General Curtis in March 1862. Captain Sheridan got himself reassigned to Halleck; and General Halleck sent him north to acquire horses. It was while in Chicago that Captain Sheridan learned of the Battle of Shiloh, and got himself orders to Pittsburg Landing (and upon arrival MGen Halleck put Philip Sheridan under control of Colonel George Thom. But instead of making maps, Captain Sheridan was assigned to improving and building roads.) And along the way, Philip Sheridan struck up a friendship with General William Tecumseh Sherman: by early May, it appeared that General Sherman had come through with a Colonelcy for Sheridan, in command of a new Ohio regiment. But that fell through. Shortly afterwards, the Governor of Michigan (who happened to be in Tennessee visiting Michigan regiments) took notice of the “available West Point graduate” Philip Sheridan, and offered him Colonelcy of the 2nd Michigan Cavalry... which Sheridan accepted. And Colonel Sheridan took part in the March on Corinth. Reference: Personal Memoirs of Philip Sheridan, pages 120- 144.
  44. 1 point
    Finally having acquired my copy of “Grant Under Fire” by Joseph Rose, it may be of value to provide a brief examination of how the Battle of Fort Donelson is presented: It was heartening to find mention of mortars and Flag-Officer Foote's desire to have those weapons available (yet Foote went ahead and attempted his assault against Fort Donelson without them.) Rose addresses the curious fact of General Grant NOT leaving an officer in temporary command when he departed the vicinity of Fort Donelson to visit a wounded Flag-Officer Foote. And McArthur's brigade, borrowed from General Smith and positioned on the Union right, is mentioned for its role in fighting a losing battle to hold back the Confederate break-out of February 15th. Otherwise, the Fort Donelson operation is faithfully and predictably described, beginning with Colonel Forrest's unsuccessful effort to slow the Federal advance; the disposition of Grant's forces in a semi-circle just west of the Confederate stronghold; the addition of Lew Wallace's brigade (increased on site to Division strength) and Wallace's dilemma in responding to McClernand's request for assistance (with General Grant absent, and no one acting as his agent.) The attempted Rebel break-out, rolled back in the afternoon due to incompetence, and Federal reinforcements. And C.F. Smith, Jacob Lauman and James Tuttle share credit for advancing against the Confederate right, breaching the outer works, rendering Rebel possession of the fort untenable (with subsequent surrender next morning.) Grant Under Fire. If acquired solely for its accurate depiction of the Fort Donelson operation, it is worth the purchase. Ozzy
  45. 1 point
    The following is an abridged article from Military Miscellanies, written by an officer who knew Grant at Shiloh and West Point: "One afternoon in June 1843 while I was at West Point, a candidate for admission, I wandered into the Riding Hall and became part of a large assembly of spectators, there to view the final mounted exercises of the graduating class. When the regular service was completed, the Riding Master placed the leaping-bar higher than a man's head and called, "Cadet Grant." A clean-faced, slender, blue-eyed young fellow, weighing about 120 pounds dashed from the line on a chestnut-sorrel horse and galloped down the opposite side of the hall. As he turned at the farther end and came into the straight stretch across which the bar was placed, the horse increased his pace, measured his stride, and bounded high into the air, and cleared the bar, carrying his rider as if man and beast were welded together. The spectators were breathless; but Cadet Grant remained a living image in my memory. "A few months before graduation one of Grant's classmates, James A. Hardie, said to his friend and instructor, "Well, sir, if a great emergency arises in this country during our lifetime, Sam Grant will be the man to meet it." If I had heard Hardie's prediction, I doubt not that I would have believed in it, for I believed the young man who had performed the feat of horsemanship I had witnessed could do anything. "I was not one of the so-called "Grant men" of the Army. It was not until after the war that I became well acquainted with him. But that acquaintance began with the cadet, and matured with the General; and was not disturbed by partiality or interest. I do not number myself among those who attempt to "lift him above the imperfections of man," but instead see him "as Great" in spite of his human frailties. Military men would call him "unsoldierly" in feeling, bearing and appearance. Yet he was a great General, and the most essential trait of soldiership -- obedience -- was next to a religion with him. He knew the value of discipline in an army, but he had neither taste nor aptitude for establishing or enforcing it, and instinctively relied more upon "the man" than upon "the soldier" in his dealings. He loves and cherishes his army associations above all others, but did not like the profession of arms. In a recent interview, I pressed him upon this matter -- his fondness for purely military affairs -- and the General selected a page from his collection and offered it me, upon which was recorded his intention (while a cadet) to prepare himself for a professorship in some institution of higher learning and leave the military service. "In disposition Grant presents as patient, kind and considerate. In manner, quiet, natural and unassuming; somewhat diffident, but not bashful or awkward. Although well educated, it is probably true that the first impression many have is of a plain man, without elements of greatness. Closer association rarely fails to promote firm belief in his extraordinary reserve power. Truth, courage, tenacity and self-reliance are his ruling traits: as General, he did not hesitate in choosing the best course. And if "the best course" was selected by higher authority, he would execute that plan with as much vigor and fidelity as if it had been his own. He did not trouble himself about the past or the future, but concentrated all his faculties upon the matter he was at the moment called upon by his duty to deal with. "Neither responsibility, nor turmoil, nor danger, nor pleasure, nor pain, impaired the force of his resolution, or interrupted the steady flow of his intellect. The war is full of illustrations of his bravery and determination of character, and of his self-reliance and self-possession under trying circumstances. " The General possesses some humor, and occasionally tells a story; but rarely indulges in figures of speech, and does not exaggerate or emphasize, even for the purpose of illustration. He makes no use of expletives, and has little use of adjectives. He would not indulge in profane language, even if he had no religious scruples on the subject. Though not without a temper, Grant is so patient and matter-of-fact that he never feels inclined to "damn things" as some men do. In conversation, he speaks freely and openly; but he does not talk for its own sake: speaking only because he has something to tell. If he does not wish to express his thoughts, he remains silent. "Grant has unlimited faith in those he has taken to heart; his friendships are accompanied by the fullest confidence. A friend "under fire" is never abandoned; and a friend in disgrace or in trouble can rely upon him until the General, himself, finds him guilty. "General Grant long thought himself badly treated by Halleck, yet I have only ever heard him say two or three things against General Halleck. Grant believed himself unjustly accused after Fort Donelson... "The bulk of Grant's admiration and friendship resides with Sherman, McPherson and Sheridan. The day before he started from Nashville to Washington in March 1864, to receive his commission as Lieutenant General, Grant wrote a letter to Sherman expressing a full sense of his obligations to subordinates, and saying, "I want to express my thanks to you and McPherson as the men to whom, above all others, I feel indebted for whatever I have had of success..." "During the war, Grant had antipathies as well as attachments: his relations to his generals would form a striking chapter of history. "The time has not yet come for final judgment of General Grant: he has benefited from great abilities, and great opportunities. "Chance" is undoubtedly an important factor in the race of Glory, and perhaps it favored Grant in the War of the Rebellion. General Sherman goes so far as to say, "Had C.F. Smith lived, Grant would have disappeared to history after Fort Donelson." But that is conjecture. Grant is one of the "singular few" who possessed qualities that would have gained for him a higher place in history, no matter who had lived to compete with him in our great War. We who met him face to face know." More details to come... Ozzy
  46. 1 point
    Besides family, the people who know us best are those we attended school with. Here are a couple of observations of Ulysses S. Grant (one of which you've probably encountered already. But the other...) "One day at West Point, as our section in mathematics was marching to recitation hall, Frank Gardner produced an old silver-cased watch, about four inches in diameter. It, as a curiosity, was passed along from one lad to another... it chanced to be in Grant's hands as we reached the door of the recitation room, and he tucked it into his tunic and buttoned it up. The regular Professor was absent; Cadet Z. B. Tower occupied his chair. He sent four cadets to the blackboards, Grant being one. Grant quickly solved his math problem, and turned to begin his demonstration, when all of a sudden the room was filled with a sound not unlike a Chinese gong. All looked amazed, and Tower, thinking the noise was in the hall, ordered the door closed. And that only made the matter worse. Grant, with a sober countenance, continued his demonstration. The racket ceased, and shortly afterwards, so did Grant. Tower had no idea from whence the noise came (Gardner had accidentally set the alarm on the ancient timepiece concealed in Grant's bosom.) Tower's bewilderment, and Grant's sobriety afforded us much amusement." Rufus Ingalls (USMA 1843) was known at West Point as "the Prince of Good Fellows." During the Civil War, he served as Chief Quartermaster of the Army of the Potomac; and one night during Spring of 1865, at City Point, he and General Grant and a few others were sitting around their camp fire. Conversation had lapsed into silence, which after a while was suddenly broken by Grant exclaiming: "Ingalls, do you expect to take that yellow dog of yours into Richmond with you?" Ingalls nodded. "Oh yes, General. You see, he belongs to a long-life breed." Silence returned, but many of the witnesses had to remove themselves for a time...
  47. 1 point
    Van Dorn flag. Although the forces of Earl Van Dorn were noted at Shiloh by their absence, they did arrive in time to defend against the May 1862 Siege of Corinth. As regards the flag... after accepting the handcrafted banner in November, Major General Van Dorn carried it with him in January 1862 when he took command of the Trans-Mississippi. But, by the time Van Dorn arrived in Arkansas, two more Confederate-affiliated State governments had been accepted as members of the Confederacy: Missouri (end of November) and Kentucky (December 1861.) So, there is doubt as to the original number of stars on Van Dorn's flag: eleven, twelve, or thirteen. However, by time it was put to use as template for regiments belonging to Van Dorn's trans-Mississippi, 13 stars were standard (as indicated by above flag belonging to 4th Missouri Infantry.) Every flag used during the Civil War had its own peculiar story. Ozzy References: Recollections Grave and Gay (1911) by Mrs. Burton Harrison, Scribners & Sons, New York (pages 60 - 63, especially page 62, copied above.) http://www.civilwarvirtualmuseum.org/road-to-war/ extracts on Earl Van Dorn and Pea Ridge. http://www.4thmoinfantry.com/Unit-History.html 4th Missouri Civil War Reenactment Regiment. N.B. See following post, as the story continues...
  48. 1 point
    I have an account saying that in the weeks following the battle numerous civilians could be seen on the battlefield searching for the graves of their loved ones in an attempt at recovering their bodies to take home for a proper burial. Not to be too graphic but it was noted how gruesome it was for family members to exhume a body that had been buried for a couple of weeks, wrap it up, and take it home. There must have been an embalmer somewhere at Pittsburgh Landing or Savanah. In the 77th Ohio, Mr. Porterfield from Marietta, Ohio, traveled out to the Fallen Timbers battlefield and retrieved the body of his son William whose grave had been carefully marked by his comrades and took him home.
  49. 1 point
    On April 4, I propose to follow a portion of the route of Trabue's Brigade taken during the action of April 6. I am still working out the exact details of the route, but I may start at Water Oaks Pond. Buskwacking will be required for much of the excursion (Gentsch and Skapteson have trained me well). I will not have prepared much commentary beyond Trabue's report in the OR. If I am reading Dr Gentsch's synopsis of his April 6 morning Assault on the Federal Right Flank hike correctly, my excursion will pick up where his ends. I expect to start at about 1400 on April 4 and suspect that the jaunt will take a couple of hours to complete. I would be delighted others would join me. Please drop me a note if you would like to participate, so that we can exchange telephone numbers. I will be driving downrom Louisville earlier on the 4th and will need to contact you in the event that my approach to the battlefield is even more delayed than Buell's.
  50. 1 point
    Below is an outline of some of the events leading up to the battle of Shiloh. Each event is color-coded. Events relating to the Confederates are listed in Red. Those relating to the Union are in Blue. Some events may pertain to both sides but are shown in either red or blue. This will usually signify a victory by that side - the Union capture of Fort Henry is described in blue, for example - or to indicate that the event is more closely associated with one side than the other. The main sources for this timeline are Wiley Sword's Shiloh: Bloody April, Larry J. Daniel's Shiloh: The Battle That Changed the Civil War, Edward Cunningham's Shiloh and the Western Campaign of 1862, and Series 1, Volume 10 of the Official Records. A few other sources not listed here were also used to try and clarifiy some of the dates as much as possible. Times shown on April 5th are approximate and not meant to be exact. ------------------------------------------------------- September 1861 - General Albert Sidney Johnston arrives in Nashville, Tennessee, to assume command of Confederate Department #2. The vast command stretches from the Appalachian Mountain range all the way to Indian Territory west of the Mississippi. Fall/Winter 1861 - Johnston establishes a 400 mile defensive line between the Mississippi and Appalachians. Running mostly through Kentucky, the line is formidable on paper, but quite thin in reality. November 18th, 1861- Major General Henry W. Halleck is placed in command of the Union's Department of the Missouri. Halleck will be the main player on the Union side in the events leading up to Shiloh. January 19th, 1862 - Battle of Mill Springs, Kentucky. This northern victory breaks the eastern end of Johnston's defensive line, placing eastern Tennessee in danger of a Union invasion. An invasion that does not materialize. February 2nd - A combined Union army/navy expedition leaves Cairo, Illinois, bound for Fort Henry on the Tennessee River, just south of the Kentucky border. The fort, along with nearby Fort Donelson on the Cumberland, is considered a weak spot in the Confederate defensive line. February 5th- General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard arrives in Bowling Green, Kentucky. The "Hero of Fort Sumter" has been sent west as second in command to Albert Sidney Johnston. Johnston, focused on Bowling Green, assigns Beauregard command of the troops between the Tennessee and Mississippi rivers. February 6th - Fort Henry falls to Union gunboats, piercing Johnston's defensive line. The one-sided battle is over before the supporting Union army under Brigadier General Ulysses S. Grant can arrive to take part. The fall of Fort Henry is a major turning point in the campaign leading to Shiloh, and in the war itself. February 8th - Halleck attempts to replace Grant with Ethan Allen Hitchcock, a retired Army officer. The attempt is unsuccessful. February 11th- Outflanked by the loss of Fort Henry, Confederate forces begin evacuating Bowling Green, Kentucky. Union troops will occupy the town a few days later. February 16th - After a siege of several days and a failed breakout attempt, Fort Donelson surrenders to Grant's army. Some 12,000 to 15,000 southern troops are taken prisoner. The victory earns Grant a promotion to major general of volunteers. February 17th - In response to the growing crisis in Kentucky and Tennessee, the first of several Confederate reinforcements arrive in Corinth, Mississippi from the Gulf Coast. February 16th - 23rd- Following the loss of Fort Donelson, Albert Sidney Johnston evacuates Nashville and withdraws his troops some forty miles southeast to Murfreesboro. This effectively cuts him off from his forces in western Kentucky and Tennessee, now under Beauregard. For the next several weeks, Beauregard and Johnston will operate independently of each other. February 25th - The Army of the Ohio, under Brigader General Don Carlos Buell, occupies Nashville for the Union. Commanding the Department of the Ohio, Buell is independent of Halleck. The two are reluctant to cooperate with each other. Buell has been reluctant to move at all, but the fall of Fort Henry soon changes this. February 28th - Johnston's army heads south from Murfreesboro, on the first leg of a journey that will eventually lead to a junction with Beauregard's forces in Corinth, Mississippi. March 1st - During a patrol up the Tennessee, Union gunboats shell a small Confederate detachment at Pittsburg Landing, driving it inland. A landing party is sent ashore resulting in a brief firefight. March 2nd - Columbus, Kentucky is abandoned by southern forces. With the evacuation of Columbus, the withdrawal from Johnston's original defensive line is now complete. March 4th - Halleck strips Grant of active command by ordering him to remain at Fort Henry. This action is the result of what Halleck considers unprofessional behavior on Grant's part. Historians generally consider it professional jealousy on Halleck's part. Command of Grant's army is turned over to Major General Charles F. Smith. March 7th - Union troops begin arriving at Savannah, Tennessee, on the east bank of the Tennessee River. With a few exceptions, most of the men will remain on board the transports. March 11th - Halleck is promoted to command of the newly created Department of the Mississippi, effectively consolidating Union command in the Western Theater. Buell's Army of the Ohio is now subject to Halleck's orders. March 12th - C.F. Smith skins his leg while climbing into a boat on the Tennessee. Though a seemingly minor injury, a resulting infection will soon incapacitate the highly respected officer. March 12th/13th - A Union division under Brigader General Lew Wallace crosses the Tennessee from Savannah to Crump's Landing. Initially placed to support a raid on the nearby Mobile & Ohio Railroad, Wallace's division will remain in the vicinity of Crump's Landing until April 6th. March 13th - As the domino effect from the loss of Fort Henry and Fort Donelson continues, Confederates abandon New Madrid, Missouri, on the Mississippi River. The move isolates the defenders of Island #10, a nearby stronghold located in a large bend of the Mississippi. The island will surrender on April 8th, after which only Fort Pillow will remain between the Union Navy and Memphis to the south. March 14th - A Union detachment under Brigader General William T. Sherman attempts a raid on the Memphis & Charleston Railroad east of Corinth, Mississippi. The raid is called off the next morning due to heavy rain and torrential flooding. March 16th - Union troops begin occupying Pittsburg Landing on the west bank of the Tennessee. Sherman eventually sets up his division headquarters a few miles from the landing near a small log building known as Shiloh Meeting House. On this same day, following orders from Halleck, Buell's army leaves Nashville on an overland march of some 120 miles, bound for Savannah and a junction with Grant's army. March 17th - Grant arrives at Savannah following his reinstatement to active command of the Army of West Tennessee. He establishes his headquarters in Savannah and settles in to await the arrival of Buell's army. March 20th - The first units of Johnston's army arrive in Corinth, thus forming the all-important junction with Beauregard. March 23rd- Albert Sidney Johnston arrives in Corinth. On this same day, Johnston orders Earl Van Dorn to bring his army across the Mississippi from Arkansas. Van Dorn will not arrive in time to take part at Shiloh. March 29th - Johnston designates the combined force at Corinth as the Army of the Mississippi. April 1st- Johnston receives dispatches from Confederate President Jefferson Davis and his military adviser, Robert E. Lee, urging him to go on the offensive. Although the letters undoubtedly strenghten his resolve, Johnston has already decided to attack. The only question is when. April 2nd - A defensive move by Lew Wallace west of Crump's Landing is misinterpreted by Johnston & Beauregard as a probable attack on a nearby Confederate outpost. A rapid chain of events soon follows, with the two men agreeing that the time has come to move on Grant at Pittsburg Landing. April 3rd- Beauregard draws up what will later become a highly controversial plan for the coming attack on the Union army. The plan is approved by Johnston and the advance begins the same day. Johnston himself leaves Corinth the next morning. April 3rd- With C.F. Smith confined to a sickbed with a tetanus infection, temporary command of his division is given to Brigader General William H. L. Wallace. The forty-year-old volunteer officer has recently been promoted from colonel for his role at Fort Donelson. April 4th - Poor planning, poor roads, miscommunications and inexperience cause several delays in the Confederate advance. Despite this, Johnston orders the attack to commence the following morning. April 4th- Reports of enemy activity to the south of Shiloh Church are largely dismissed in the Union camps. Late in the afternoon a pickett post from Sherman's division literally disappears. A patrol sent to investigate unexpectedly clashes with southern troops supported by artillery. News of this encounter causes some concern throughout the landing area, but Sherman - the informal camp commander at Pittsburg Landing - brushes aside any thoughts of being attacked. Unknown to Sherman, the units encountered are the advance force of the Confederate army. April 5th 2:00 a.m. - Intermittent showers give way to a deluge during the night, turning the roads into quagmires and causing a further delay in the advance. The army is already badly strung out, with some units in line of battle near the Union army and others still miles (and hours) behind schedule. The attack is set for 8:00 a.m. 12:00 p.m. - Still more delays, as many outfits have yet to arrive at their assigned place in line. The attack, already several hours late, shows no signs of beginning anytime soon. 1:00 p.m. - The lead division of Buell's army arrives at Savannah. Brigader General William Nelson, commanding the division, believes Grant's army to be in a precarious position and is anxious to cross his men to Pittsburg Landing. Grant dismisses his concerns and later tells one of Nelson's brigade commanders that transports for crossing the river will be sent later in the week. 2:00 p.m. - As the Confederate battle line slowly begins to take shape, still more problems plague the struggling units to the rear. It will be hours before everything is finally set. 4:00 p.m. - Following a review of his division, Brigadier General Benjamin Prentiss receives a report of southern troops nearby, watching from the woods. He orders out a patrol to investigate. 4:00 p.m. - A regimental commander in Sherman's division becomes alarmed by enemy activity nearby and orders his men into line of battle. Sherman sends a message telling the officer to "take your damned regiment back to Ohio," adding that there is no enemy nearer than Corinth. 5:00 p.m. - Following yet more delays and setbacks, Beauregard actually suggets that the army cancel the attack and return to Corinth. "They will be entrenched up to the eyes," the angry and dejected general says of the Yankees. A surprised Johnston overrules him and orders the attack to take place at daylight the next morning, telling a friend that "I would fight them if they were a million." 7:00 p.m. - The patrol from Prentiss' division returns and reports that a march of three miles has turned up no enemy troops. In truth, the Confederate army is less than two miles away. The exact route taken by this patrol remains something of a mystery, and it appears that the patrol's commander may have filed a misleading report of the distance covered. Prentiss believes the report and is convinced that no danger exists. 8:00 p.m. - During an informal council of war, Beauregard again expresses his concerns that the advance has been detected and that the enemy will be waiting for them. Johnston listens but is not convinced. The attack will go forward as planned. 10:00 p.m. - Hearing of enemy activity just beyond the lines, Colonel Everett Peabody, commanding the First Brigade of Prentiss' Sixth Division, suggests to Prentiss that the division be made ready to receive an attack. Prentiss rejects the idea that the army is in danger and takes no action. ***** After spending part of the day at Pittsburg Landing, Grant returns to Savannah convinced that the army is safe. That night, he sends a note to Halleck that concludes, "...I have scarcely the faintest idea of an attack (general one) being made upon us, but will be prepared should such a thing take place." As Grant writes these words, some 44,000 Confederate troops are less than two miles from his army, poised for the attack he believes will never come.
×
×
  • Create New...