Jump to content
Shiloh Discussion Group

Stan Hutson

Member
  • Content Count

    1,060
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    43

Posts posted by Stan Hutson


  1. This is rather intriguing.  The first question that comes to my mind is wondering how many men were in the 1st Louisiana Cavalry at the time of Shiloh.  This is all speculation as I do not have access right now to the OR's for guidance.  Lots of what if's.  I know many Alabama cavalry soldiers were "farmed out" as scouts, couriers, etc., and did not act together as a unit for all intents and purposes.  I wonder if the same could be said of the 1st Louisiana Cavalry.  If they operated as a solid whole unit, under Forrest, however, I do not see how they could be neglected in records; nor do I see how they could not be mentioned in Forrest's operations at Shiloh, particularly if they numbered over 100 men. 

    The verbiage or rather how the story is articulated in the original article leads me to think they were on the Confederate right flank, near the river, the entire time.  They may have not joined Forrest in his movements near the Sarah Bell cotton field.  The story seems to mix "general Shiloh history" with the actions of the regiment. 

    Although not as good as Fold3, civilwardata.com only lists one member of the regiment as being wounded.  IF, again, IF, they only lost one man wounded, that does not seem to indicate they were in any thick fighting.  One way or another, it seems to indicate that there were a lot of Confederate horsemen "operating" on the Confederate right and/or Forrest had more men under him than I thought.  


  2. http://tcc230.tripod.com/

     

    The following short history was taken from the website above:

     

    In February, 1862, Brigadier General Buckner ordered the 1st Louisiana Cavalry to operate on the north side of the Cumberland River, opposite Fort Donelson, to prevent any Union artillery from establishing across from the Fort. From this assignment until April, 1864, the 1st Louisiana Cavalry Regiment fought exclusively outside of their home state.

    After the fall of Ft. Donelson, the regiment was ordered back to Nashville and remained there until Union forces started showing up on both sides of the river. The regiment was then ordered Franklin, Tennessee and to serve as the rear guard. While in route, Capt. G. Scott and a detachment of 40 men were sent to halt the harassment of a Union cavalry unit that was following. At Granny White's Pike, Capt. Scott and his detachment attacked the 100 man detachment of the 4th Ohio Cavalry, killing 12, routing the troopers and burned their tents. The 1st La. Cavalry detachment lost 1 killed and 1 mortally wounded. The remainder of the trip to Franklin was uneventful and marked the first engagement of a long record of engagements for the regiment.

    At Shiloh, the 1st La. Cavalry was a part of Col. Nathan B. Forrest's Cavalry on the extreme right of the Confederate line. Repulsed the opening attacks on the 7th of April but had to finally give way to reinforcements of fresh troops of the Union forces.

    • Like 1

  3. Scott's Cavalry regiment was the 1st Louisiana Cavalry and from what I found on the net, it shows they were operating under Forrest at Shiloh.  Very odd that they are not independently listed in the OR's, that I can see.  Did a little research and found the obituary, plus another online source, showing one Martin Costley, 1st Louisiana Cavalry, Company L, wounded at Shiloh.  So, they were there it seems.

    The original article you posted is very odd and hard to follow.  Very generic "history" of the battle, almost written as if the writer was not there, just rehashing the Shiloh battle story.  If they were with Forrest, it leads one to wonder if they followed Forrest away from guarding bridges and joined in the attack near the Sarah Bell cotton field?  

    costley_la_cv_03_14_ob.jpg

    costley_la_cv_03_14_ob_1.jpg

    • Like 1

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


  5. The 47th Tennessee Infantry were the only reinforcements the Confederates received on the 2nd day of the Battle of Shiloh.  This article is neat summation of the 47th Tennessee, the weapons they carried, and their action in the battle.  Interesting short piece to read.

    https://emergingcivilwar.com/2016/09/08/the-47th-tennessee-infantry-at-shiloh/

    Below:  Col. Munson Hill of the 47th Tennessee Infantry, wearing fraternal garb.

    Col. Munson Hill, 47th Tennessee Infantry.jpg

    • Like 2

  6. One of my cousins was alongside the 17th.  Captain Jesse Riley Dodd, Company F, 31st Indiana Infantry.  Said to have been wounded at Shiloh, but still looking for paper proof that he was.  I have often wondered how things might have transpired differently had Lauman's men not been moved around as they were, but rather just steadily fell back.


  7. When I refer to "green troops", I mean basically civilians.  Basically no drill, never fired their weapons.  Putting troops THAT green on the front lines is just insane.  By sheer luck, they stood their ground.  But, say had those green troops all run when the first shots were fired.  The Confederates would have readily destroyed the other veteran units due to sheer weight of numbers.  But, what if's.  

    When looking at the Federal perspective it can't be said that "no attack was expected at Pittsburg Landing" AND ALSO say, "we were not surprised on April 6th".  Those statements totally contradict one another.  The Federals were surprised, plain and simple.  Having said that, I think the Confederates were actually surprised when the dawn patrol came along.  Hard to know if the Confederates were expecting it, or if when it happened they thought the weight of the whole Federal Army was about to come crashing down.

    Lastly, yes, Lew Wallace.  I believe it simply is smoke and mirrors.  Watch what the left hand is going while the right hand is actually at play.  You hit the nail on the head Ozzy.  By distracting the masses with Wallace being lost and late, the questions that really needed to be answered were swept under the rug.  Point 5 is spot on.  

    • Like 1

  8. I think the soldiers serving in the position of orderly were the unsung heroes of the battle.  Most of us know, well, largely, Shiloh and it's terrain, where we are at, and how to get from point A to point B.  Put it this way, we have a better understanding of the battlefield than the Confederates did.  I can't imagine being sent, as an orderly, to go find "General so and so and give him this message and then return back to me".  Simply finding someone out in that large vast tract of battlefield acreage seems impossible alone, much less then finding ones way back.  I think the orderlies did a good job of it, to say the least.

    • Like 1

  9. I agree with Bjorn and his observation, in relation to points 3 and 4, that by placing green troops to encamp in your most advanced positions, some who had never fired their muskets, and likewise sending forward troops into line with no ammunition, was, well, a major mistake.  How any military officer can allow such a tactical faux pas to take place is mind boggling. Not entrenching, Point 22, is one thing, but putting rookies in the front line of your army as your first defense, again, that placement of troops was not thought out to any extent.  Either it was done on purpose, and whoever issued the orders for such a camp layout is an idiot, or it was not thought out, and still someone is an idiot, because it should have been thought out.  The buck stops at Grant.  It is hard enough to maintain control of an Army when you are with the Army, much less when you are hanging out at the Cherry Mansion and not “in the field”.  I think you are right Ozzy.  Grant was sly on this account.  Praise your friends and those you want to see shine, barely mention others, again, to leave room for scapegoats, say nothing to shed blame on yourself (Grant’s late arrival). 

    I, for one, have never thought much of Lew Wallace’s arrival in any shape, form, or fashion.  His absence had no influence on the first day of battle.  But, his arrival did influence the 2nd day, much more than he gets credit for IMHO.  Was Wallace going to come in on the first day and somehow single handedly deliver a crushing blow to the Confederates?  Looking back is hindsight 101.  We know the number of troops involved.  At the time, the combatants did not.  Wallace was not going to go blindly plowing in not knowing what was ahead of him.  So, the whole, “when did Wallace get his orders, why the counter-march, how did he get lost”, all the blah blah blah associated with Wallace has always puzzled me as to why modern historians are so engulfed by it. 

    • Like 1

  10. Pvt. James S. Matthews, Company C, 4th Illinois Cavalry (his rank at Shiloh was Private it appears).  Matthews served as orderly for Gen. John A. McClernand at Shiloh.

    Residence Joliet IL; a 17 year-old Clerk.
    
    Enlisted on 10/7/1861 at Camp Hunter, IL as a Private.
    
    On 10/7/1861 he mustered into "C" Co. IL 4th Cavalry 
    He was discharged for promotion on 10/31/1863
    
    On 10/31/1863 he was commissioned into "A" Co. US CT 3rd Cavalry 
    He was Mustered Out on 1/26/1866
    
    
    Promotions:
    * 2nd Lieut 10/31/1863 (As of Co. A 3rd USCT Cavalry)
    * 1st Lieut 8/26/1865 
    
    
    He was described at enlistment as:
    5' 7", light complexion, brown eyes, brown hair
    
    Other Information:
    born in New Jersey
    
    
    Sources used by Historical Data Systems, Inc.:
    
     - Illinois: Roster of Officers and Enlisted Men
     - Index to Compiled Military Service Records
     - Official Army Register of the Volunteer Force 1861-1865
     - Illinois State Archives @ http://www.ilsos.gov/isaveterans/civilmustersrch.jsp
    (c) Historical Data Systems, Inc. @ www.civilwardata.com

    James S. Mathews, Company C, 4th Illinois Cav, orderly for Gen. John A. McClernand at Shiloh.png

    • Like 2

  11. Interesting that the names of Grant's telegraph operator and Bodyguard/orderly are unknown for the Shiloh time period.  Many General's would have more than one orderly, however, so that various messages could be carried at various times.  Having said this, I imagine that if Thomas D. Holliday would not have been killed at Shiloh, that his service as Sherman's orderly would have been lost to history.  His name is, probably, only remembered because he was killed while serving as Sherman's orderly.  

    • Like 2

  12. C.C. Harris, in his image, is wearing what appears to be a frock coat.  His rank of first sergeant is displayed on his coat sleeves.  He wears what most refer to as a Mexican War/mechanics hat.  Great image.  He later served as a 1st Lieutenant in Forrest's cavalry.


  13. On 4/18/2018 at 1:40 AM, Ozzy said:

    Tony

    Thanks for posting this valuable, in-depth analysis by Bjorn Skaptason of Prentiss's Division. We tend to take for granted that the Sixth Division was under-sized, and inexperienced when fighting erupted morning of April 6th 1862. Yet, there was more experience (25th Missouri, 21st Missouri and 18th Missouri; as well as General Prentiss, Colonel Peabody, Colonel Moore, and Major Powell ) than we recognize; and as for "under-sized," truth be known, on the morning of April 6th, all of the elements required for a full-sized division were present at Savannah and Pittsburg Landing, but someone dropped the ball. And that someone was not Benjamin M. Prentiss.

    "The Division that Never Was" gets viewers to think (again) about a subject with which we believed we were familiar. And, as with all of your videos, this one demonstrates the value of "getting another perspective" of a "widely-understood subject."

    All the best

    Ozzy

     

    I can imagine that, had Peabody lived, well, actually, I wonder what would have happened?  I am sure Prentiss would have had him arrested and brought up on charges.  Too many "what if" scenarios, and I do not like what if's.  But I wonder what would have happened had that been the case.


  14. Throw all of this out for a moment.  Hear me out.  All the time I hear about the Prentiss/Peabody/whoever starting the Battle of Shiloh.  How about looking at it from the other end of the field.  The simple version:  The Confederate line was established and ready to assault.  As fate would have it the route the Federal recon party took landed them in front of the 3rd Mississippi Infantry Battalion.  And, there were mounted Confederate horsemen in front of the 3rd, who were themselves on picket as skirmishers.  When that recon party was fired upon by the Confederate horsemen, THAT opened the Battle of Shiloh, in my humble opinion.  

    Somewhat akin to a Lieutenant in the 8th Illinois Cavalry I believe it was firing the first shot at Gettysburg.  One thing that, and I hate to admit it, is that I have never searched for any Confederate first hand accounts of this action.  The Confederate lines were just as close, if not closer, to the initial fighting in Fraley field, as the Federals were in their camp.  

    Has anyone ever looked for Confederate accounts of the opening shots in Fraley field?  I know those records are far more sparse, but removing the bias of looking at the opening of the battle through the one sided lens of the Federal perspective would shed as much, if not more, light on this subject.  Pickets and advance horsemen were placed, but this was standard operating procedure.  But, were the Confederates themselves expecting a probe, or even an attack?  Were the Confederates just as shocked?  Did the Confederates think that THEY might be about to receive a massive attack upon their lines?  Could the "slow start" of the Confederate line advancing be due to the possibility that they were expecting an attack, and therefore didn't want to advance too quickly, not being sure what the Federal intentions were?  

    Lots of questions on the Confederate side of this equation.

    • Like 1

  15. 2 hours ago, Ozzy said:

    Mona

    Could that site be south of the original park boundary?

     

    I would say that would be ON park property.  "at" their camp, to me that indicates just beyond the perimeter of their camp and further beyond.  And it sounds like to me more than one trench, by the way it is phrased.

    • Like 2

  16. On 8/19/2018 at 11:19 AM, CSuniforms said:

    Stan-- You would have to go by Division I think--- and,  as to type of firearm seen most often-- It is hard for me to categorize by Model or year. To me it is just Rifles vs. Smoothbores. The one Rifle I note-- the Hall Rifle-- it had a distance of only 180 yards out-- firing a round ball-- same if someone with a Mississippi or a Civilian Rifle shooting a round ball-- they were good only to 180 yards-- now you put a minie in a Mississippi-- they are good for 300 to 400 yards out-- The Enfield in their manual says they are good out to 600 yards-- if you can see that far! I am working on  something new for Shiloh-- will let you know how it works out. AND! People want me to do a monograph or book on Shiloh----- Are you game? I could use your help on photos etc.-- Uniforms, Weapons and Flags and Other Stuff--- that would be the title! 

    Yep, I would be!  Finishing up my Master's Degree, thesis on CS flags.  Long story short, have some Shiloh accounts and neat flag images to use, especially, go figure, Alabama flags.  

    • Like 1

  17. 15 hours ago, CSuniforms said:

    This is a first listing of the Army of the Ohio under Don Carlos Buell, a listing of the firearms carried by these Regiments at Shiloh. Again if you have any corrections or additions or questions- please post- Grant's Army coming soon-- This is not the final count or rendering-- but I am 99% sure this is it--

    Army of the Ohio—Second Division

    4th Brigade

    1st Ohio Infantry—740 Prussian Muskets and 200 Enfield Rifles for flank Companies

    6th Indiana--- Model 1842 Rifled Muskets

    5th Kentucky--- Enfield Rifles

    U.S. Regulars—15th, 16th, 19th --- New Springfield Rifles

     

    5th Brigade

    29th Indiana---Enfield Rifles

    30th Indiana--- Enfield Rifles

    34th Illinois--- Model 1842 Rifled Muskets

    77th Pennsylvania--- Springfield and Enfield Rifles

     

    6th Brigade

    15th Ohio--- 730 Model 1842 Rifled Muskets

    32nd Indiana--- Initially Greenwood Rifles, all Enfield Rifles by Shiloh

    49th Ohio--- 700 Model 1842 Rifled Muskets and 180 Enfield Rifles

     

    Fourth Division

    10th Brigade

    6th Ohio--- 580 U.S. Percussion Muskets, [smoothbores], 120 Enfield Rifles

    24th Ohio—840 U.S. Percussion Muskets, [smoothbores], 212 Enfield Rifles

    36th Indiana--- Enfield Rifles

     

    19th Brigade

    9th Indiana--- Model 1855 Rifled Muskets

    41st Ohio--- 680 Model 1842 Rifled Muskets, 200 Enfield Rifles

    6th Kentucky--- Enfield Rifles

     

    22nd Brigade

    1st Kentucky--- Austrian Rifles. 54 Caliber

    2nd Kentucky--- Enfield Rifles

    20th Kentucky--- Model 1842 Rifled Muskets

     

    5th Division

    11th Brigade

    19th Ohio--- 600 Pondir Rifles, 200 Enfield Rifles

    59th Ohio--- 200 Enfield Rifles, rest in the Field?

    13th Kentucky--- Model 1842 Rifled Muskets

     

    14th Brigade

    11th Kentucky--- Enfield Rifles

    13th Ohio--- 800 Model 1842 Rifled Muskets, 190 Enfield Rifles

    26th Kentucky--- Enfield Rifles

    20th Brigade {not engaged}

    13th Michigan--- Springfield Rifles- Model 1861

    64th Ohio--- Springfield Rifles- Model 1861

    65th Ohio--- Springfield Rifles- Model 1861

     

    21st Brigade

    15th Indiana--- Springfield Rifles

    40th Indiana--- Austrian Rifles .54 Caliber

    57th Indiana--- 6 Companies Prussian Musket [smoothbores], 4 Companies Enfield Rifles

    24th Kentucky--- Springfield Rifles

     

     

     

     

    Tom,

    In your opinion, what was the most prevalent weapon at Shiloh, well, most prevalent in the Southern Army and the likewise for the Federal Army.


  18. That is exactly it!  Thanks Ozzy. 

    Skelton, I remembered it was a distinct last name.  I did not know other Henry's were used at Corinth.  I could have sworn I saw it in print in a book, but, it could very well have been this article that I stumbled upon. 

    I may be wrong, but I think most people think, "oh, Henry Rifle, they were blasting away like they do in Western movies".  I have even seen Civil War reenactors carrying Henry rifles and they were just blasting away when shooting.  I don't think this is historically accurate.  I think the soldiers lucky enough to have these weapons, especially early in the war, would have been firing "somewhat fast", but still taking deliberate aim.  Ammunition was not just laying around for this weapon.  I can't see someone, especially Confederate, burning through ammunition when ammunition resupply would be a colossal issue.  At Corinth, for Skelton, I think actually it would have been more than a colossal issue.  If he ran out of ammo, there was probably NO resupply, and he would be left carrying a heavy paperweight if he did run out of ammo.  I found the picture of Fisher mentioned in the article, holding his Henry rifle.  Fisher, and the 10th Kentucky Partisan Rangers Cavalry, however, did not fight at Corinth.  Their fighting was done in Kentucky for the most part.  Still, incredibly rare and historically important image.

    I would imagine the most technologically advanced rifle on the field at Shiloh would be the Sharps rifle or carbine.  But, I imagine Birge's Western Sharpshooters, along with other marksmen and sharpshooters, were carrying some finely crafted rifles as well, such as the Dimick rifle.

    Fisher.jpg

    • Like 2
×