Jump to content
Shiloh Discussion Group

Stan Hutson

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Stan Hutson

  1. 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

  2. 2 hours ago, Ozzy said:


    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

  3. 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

  4. 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






    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.

  5. 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.


    • Like 2

  6. 3 hours ago, CSuniforms said:

    Yeah well----- I have been working on my presentation for the Battle of Shiloh Seminar to be held this Fall at the Kenosha Civil War Museum September 15th. I will be sharing the stage with Professor Tim Smith-- Larry J. Daniel, Army of the Tennessee specialist and Bjorn Skaparsan of Ranger Shiloh fame! So I have to do a good job! It took me weeks to do the Confederates and that is not done. I will provide the list when I can after I get my talk on paper and a powerpoint-- You need a powerpoint for uniforms and flags. Here is a total for all, Grants Army of the Tennessee, 30, 759 Rifles and 11, 907 smoothbores. Buells Army 17, 921 and only 2,476 smoothbores. I am still working on this.--- These are close approximates.--- I have it all in my notes--- Maybe I will write a book about it???????????? Tom

    If you ever do Tom, let me know, I would be willing to lend a hand.

    • Like 1

  7. On 8/2/2018 at 8:43 AM, CSuniforms said:

    OK---- On making a determination about how a Confederate Regiment was armed using photographs as a back-up in the majority of the cases-- depends on how many photos you have.. If you have only one or two showing a particular arm, then all you can do is state, "two soldiers are carrying X"- BUT- When you have 10 or 12, like the 19th Alabama showing alternating Mississippi Rifles and Smoothbores-- Then you state, "19 members are carrying X"- and the photos were taken at Camp so and so-- when first mustered, they were issued these type of firearms.  You can make that determination and state it until you have Ordnance records or diaries to show otherwise. So far, no one has come forward to disagree... Yes, Some firearms are props-- and you can prove it by looking up the Ordnance Records. What is happening is that the pictures are backing up the reports-- which is a good thing for research. I have been doing this for many many years-- and have looked at hundreds of CS photos.-- I would state that the Federal Army was more guilty in having its soldiers posed with props.-- especially in the big city's. Louisiana is one State where the Ordnance Records are buried somewhere. We know that in general the State issued a lot of cap and ball smoothbores. The photos show this... so we can make a statement that Regiment so and so was issued smoothbore muskets from the State, backed by Ammunition issues and records. Research continues.

    When will your Federals at Shiloh information be posted?  Inquiring minds want to know.

  8. Don't you love it when you answer your own question.  I see now that the term "Dresden rifle musket" and "Saxon rifle musket", have been used interchangeably over the years, but they are indeed the same weapon.  

    Tom, were the Dresden/Saxon's mainly rifled .69s at Shiloh?  Or did they make smooth bore .69 Dresden/Saxon's and/or other caliber .54/.58?

  9. See, the image you posted, I had always called that weapon a "Saxon" rifle.  Don't ask me why or where that term got in my head, but I have referred to it as such for years.  These European weapons can get truly confusing.  It should have struck me, the big DUH factor, though.  I have seen TONS of images of Wisconsin soldiers armed with the Dresden Suhl, don't know why I didn't put 2 and 2 together and realize this is what they were referring to and what the 14th, 16th, and 18th were carrying at Shiloh.  Pretty neat knowing that so many of these were on the field at Shiloh.

    But, again, that reference I made to the 15th Mississippi, they make mention of using "Belgian and Austrian" muskets.  I wonder, instead of a TRUE Austrian and/or Belgian musket, they were referring to Dresden's?

    Pictured:  Austrian Lorenz rifle musket.


  10. 3 hours ago, WI16thJim said:

    OK, now I'm confused. Everything I've ever found on the 16th WI rifle at Shiloh stated they had 69 caliber Belgian rifles, which weren't very popular.

    I am with you Jim, in that this is where I get confused.  I think many people who don't know, including myself, incorrectly use "Dresden, Prussian, Belgian, French" style musket, when in actuality they look different.  I totally defer to Tom on answering your question though.  The imported muskets from Europe and their use at Shiloh, again, has always confused the devil out of me.

  11. 7 hours ago, Transylvania said:

    How reliable are photographs for identifying firearms?  I agree that if one has a photograph in the field then it should be reliable (but rare, especially in the Spring of 1862).  My impression is that of the studio photographs used the photographer's "props" in the pictures.  If a field studio was being used, then I suppose that a soldier might be allowed to take his weapon to it, but I doubt that he would be allowed to take his weapon into town to a "formal" studio.  I am not trying to discredit your work, which is very exciting, but am wondering how you address this issue. 

    I know this was addressed to Tom, but I will chime in, seeing as how photographs is "my thing".  I love to study period photography, portraits in particular.  The issue of "photographers prop" versus the soldiers actual issued weapon in a photograph.  This is a doozie that IMHO will never be answered.  In many photographs it is obvious what you are seeing is a photographers prop.  How do we know?  Same pistol, same knife, BUT, saying it is the same long arm, that to me is impossible to determine.  I would argue that you see more photographers prop weapons in Confederate images.  I think, in respect to your statement, that Federal soldiers did indeed carry their own weapon to the photograph studio.  Soldiers would not leave camp and leave their weapon behind.  They carried it with them.  It then gets into well, was the photograph made in a town at a studio, was it made by a traveling photographer who set up a studio setting in the field, or what.  Sometimes we can tell the difference, other times, not so easy to decipher.    

    There are a lot of rabbit holes still left untouched as far as research is concerned about this.  There are just tons of mind boggling variables.  Just take a random Confederate photograph for example.  You would have to research to see if the weapon the soldier is holding is the same style weapon that was issued to the unit, at least close to the time.  I have seen photographs, and actually own one, where, down to the T, the soldier is wearing his issued uniform and holding his issued musket.  Samuel Rickey, 7th Iowa Infantry.  I would argue that photographers, mainly in the South, did not have access to THAT many military grade weapons to use as props.  Those weapons were needed in the field.  At a time when the South was buying shotguns, of all things, from private individuals to arm the military, photographers would have a hard time holding on to an actual military grade weapon under such circumstances.  They did have them though.

    As you can tell, this topic could get extremely long winded and go on for infinity.  Copying something I posted earlier, this is just the confusion in ONE unit, the 15th Mississippi Infantry at the time of Shiloh.  "Col. Statham's request for 900 enfields for the 15th Miss Rgt is approved days before Adj. Binford requested 8,000 .69 cartridges and 2,000 Mississippi cartridges for Shiloh.  There isn't a surviving munitions request for enfield cartridges and oddly the enlisted men talk about having Belgian and Austrian weapons at Shiloh, some of the accounts written less than a week afterwards. So they are certainly not conclusive at any rate."

    Weapons carried at Shiloh by Federal soldiers at Shiloh would be MUCH easier to ascertain and determine with a huge deal of confidence.  The Confederate Army, much harder and in some cases I would say dang near impossible without documented proof coming to light.  To make a long story short, using images is a good reference, but ammunition requisitions and other documents to back it up is required.  Photos are a good tool to use, but far from solid evidence if taken alone without any other supporting documentation.  If a soldier is holding an 1816 converted flintlock in an image, but you know for fact based on documents that his regiment was largely carrying Enfields at Shiloh, well, you know the 1816 is either a photographers prop, or that weapon was later turned in and the soldier issued his new Enfield.  

    Having said all this, I applaud Tom's work, it is no easy undertaking and gives us a further glimpse into the events at Shiloh.


    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  12. Something tells me that the mention of the Henry used at Corinth by the CS Captain from Arkansas was from the Ben Kitchens book, but, I could be wrong.  I read it, I know I read it, I just can't find that source again.  Frustrating!  LOL!


    • Like 1

  13. 5 hours ago, CSuniforms said:

    All of them are wearing the State issued 5 button blouse. A distinctive piece of clothing. They also had a State issued haversack and canteen that was different from the rest. They were issued Dresden Suhl Rifled muskets. A very good Class A firearm which they used with devastating effect at Shiloh. Awesome.


    Tom can you post a picture of that type of weapon?  These "Dresden muskets", "Prussian muskets", etc., get highly confusing to me, which is which, etc.

  14. Some of you may notice what appears to be repeated images on the lower right of the forum main page.  I have already posted these images, but decided to make an album unto itself for this group of images.  They are all of members of Company E, 16th Wisconsin Infantry who were killed, wounded, mortally wounded, captured, etc., at Shiloh, all on 6 April 1862.  Given their connection to Shiloh, this is simply an amazing group of images with no equals out there that I know of at present, in relation to Shiloh that is! 

    The only reason you will ever see a "repeat" image normally is if I go back and delete an old picture and replace it with a better quality image of that same picture.  I have done that for several images now.  See an image, then later find a better copy of that same image, so, I use that one.

    I hope that somehow this grouping of images, in some shape, form, or fashion, will be kept together for posterity.  Hope ya'll enjoy them!


    • Like 1

  15. I have been looking and looking for an account I read years ago about a Confederate Captain from Arkansas carrying a Henry rifle at the Battle of Corinth.  Can't seem to "re-find" where I read that account (I hate when that happens).


    • Like 1

  16. On 7/24/2018 at 8:43 AM, CSuniforms said:

    Yes, My notes say Co. G, had 4 Maynard Rifles and the balance Mississippi Rifles, so the 2,000 Mississippi cartridges for Shiloh. The rest of the Companies carried flintlock .69 calibre muskets. I have the Will McDonald notes that says they carried Enfields! Maybe? So you post both-- and hope someone who has the correct factual info offers to share his or her findings. 

    I also use photos. I try to locate photos of soldiers carrying firearms and go from there. All of it has to be included. You are correct in that a lot of this information has disappeared or the Veterans never wrote it down for us. I have discovered a lot of information from CS Regiments who were never at Shiloh-- with massive requisitions, ordnance reports, and letters, diaries and memoirs!! But not at Shiloh!!!! I will stand behind my research until someone proves me wrong. And so far, not a lot of folks have come forward to contest it, which is good. I stated I want folks to challenge it or change it with factual research. 

    I just finished the Federal Army at Shiloh!!!! Their arms!!! A lot of Rifles especially in Buell's Army!!!

    Tom Arliskas

    Look forward to seeing the Federal information for sure.

  17. On 7/17/2018 at 12:52 PM, CSuniforms said:

    Stan, still having trouble finding arms issued to the different Alabama units. I have scanned the Alabama files and found nothing. Can you help. Tom


    As you know, to say that regimental armament at Shiloh is confusing is an understatement.  My buddy, who studies Statham's brigade and the 15th Mississippi in particular, had this to say about that regiment and its weaponry at Shiloh:

    "Col. Statham's request for 900 enfields for the 15th Miss Rgt is approved days before Adj. Binford requested 8,000 .69 cartridges and 2,000 Mississippi cartridges for Shiloh.  There isn't a surviving munitions request for enfield cartridges and oddly the enlisted men talk about having Belgian and Austrian weapons at Shiloh, some of the accounts written less than a week afterwards. So they are certainly not conclusive at any rate."

    I consulted my buddy about doing Shiloh weapons research and trying to determine what unit carried what weapons.  He said lots of this information does not exist on a large scale.  We may know what "some members" of a regiment were carrying at Shiloh, but as for the rest, it is unknown.  He said that one would have to look at requisition forms, like in Fold3, for the regimental adjutant, Major, Lt. Col., or Colonel.  And those appear to be scarce or non-existent in most cases.  

    Long story short, it seems like one heck of a research mountain to climb :)


  • Create New...