Jump to content
Shiloh Discussion Group

Ozzy

Member
  • Content count

    1,469
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    224

Ozzy last won the day on August 17

Ozzy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

630 Excellent

2 Followers

About Ozzy

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Reynella, South Australia
  • Occupation
    Writer
  • Interests
    Family history research, car restoration, travel...
    Welcome to my SDG page: the image at top is of Dubuque's Governor's Greys, which became Company 'I' of First Iowa Vol. Inf. Regt. (Uniform worn Battle of Wilson's Creek, 1861.)
    My book, Falling through the Hornet's Nest' (Martin Samuels) is now available at Amazon.com as ebook. My next book (focus on Henry Halleck 1861-62) entitled 'Shiloh was a Sham: the untold story of the iconic Civil War Battle,' will be available April 2016, on Amazon as e-book.

    I can be contacted at bzmax03@chariot.net.au by any SDG member so inclined.

Recent Profile Visitors

4,991 profile views
  1. Found in the 12 APR 1883 edition of the Civil War Veteran's newspaper, The National Tribune, the following article contributed by then-Private Daniel B. Baker 25th Missouri, Co.F http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82016187/1883-04-12/ed-1/seq-2/ [National Tribune of 12 APR 1883 page 2.]
  2. Bear Creek Bridge

    Time for another hint... There are a number of reasons why this attempt against Bear Creek Bridge is deserving of mention: · It began as one mission, and morphed into another; · The adopted mission involved cutting the M & C R.R. in vicinity Iuka (but that position was found to be too strong) · Although failing in the effort to cut the Rebel-controlled rail line, the expedition returned to Cairo having accomplished the following: determined positively that there was strong Union sentiment at Savannah; the strong Union feeling and number of Federal-supporting citizens in vicinity meant Savannah was “a promising location to site a base of operations,” and was recommended as such; one thousand sacks of flour (on hand for delivery to Confederate forces) were confiscated at Clifton Tennessee; the controversial figure, Fielding Hurst, was happened upon during the return of this expedition down the Tennessee River, and delivered to Cairo Illinois. Now any guesses when this first attempt against Bear Creek Bridge occurred? Ozzy
  3. Ex Post Facto

    Would have added this to the initial post of 29 June 2016 if it had been encountered: often discussed, but rarely seen... GALENA, ILL., May 24, 1861. Colonel L. THOMAS, Adjutant-General U. S. Army, Washington, D. C.: SIR: Having served for fifteen years in the Regular Army, including four years at West Point, and feeling in the duty of every one who has been educated at the Government expense to offer their services for the support of that Government, I have the honor, very respectfully, to tender my services until the close of the war in such capacity as may be offered. I would say that, in view of my present age and length of service, I feel myself competent to command a regiment if the President, in his judgment, should see fit to intrust one to me. Since the first call of the President I have been serving on the staff of the Governor of this State, rendering such aid as I could in the organization of our State militia, and am still engaged in that capacity. A letter addressed to me at Springfield, Ill., will reach me. I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, U. S. GRANT. [Found in OR 122 page 234, and sent by Mr. U.S. Grant just days before being offered colonelcy of 21st Illinois by Gov. Yates.]
  4. We Meet Again

    While investigating this topic, it was bothersome that Congressman John McClernand was referred to as "Colonel" in the New York Herald of 20 July 1861 (see reference in above post of 13 July 2018.) But, during sessions of Congress at Washington during Summer of 1861, John McClernand was also tagged as "Colonel McClernand." Knowing that McClernand had served as a Private during the Black Hawk War in Illinois, I began to believe that someone was having a joke at McClernand's expense; perhaps his bellicose rhetoric had inspired colleagues to call him "Colonel..." But, while reviewing the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion (OR 122 -- Senior Union official correspondence, page 214) ran across a memorandum from Governor Yates of Illinois, sent from Springfield on 18 May 1861, in which he refers to John McClernand as "Colonel McClernand." There is no possibility of Governor Yates having a joke; therefore, John McClernand must have been sworn into State service as a Colonel (perhaps as member of the Illinois Militia.) The implication: if it is accepted that John McClernand was commissioned as Colonel on or before 18 May 1861, then he was senior to U.S. Grant (appointed as Colonel of 21st Illinois, effective 15 June 1861.) McClernand would remain senior to Grant until both were confirmed by the Senate as Brigadier Generals and acknowledged as such by General Orders of the War Department No.61 (dated 19 August 1861) and with McClernand and Grant accorded the same effective date of rank (17 May 1861), then from August 19th Grant was senior to McClernand due the appearance of his name on the List of Brigadier Generals ahead of McClernand's name. Amazing what's buried in the Official Records... Ozzy References: http://ehistory.osu.edu/books/official-records/122/0214 OR 122 page 214 http://archive.org/stream/generalorderswa00deptgoog#page/n140 General Orders No.61 dated 19 AUG 1861. http://alplm-cdi.com/chroniclingillinois/items/show/1093 From "Yates Family Collection" a Letter dated 16 MAY 1861 from Governor Yates to President Abraham Lincoln (and delivered personally by "the Hon. John A. McClernand.") This letter of interest due the form of address used IRT John McClernand AND for its contents as concerns Kentucky. For John McClernand, either he was appointed Colonel after delivering this Letter, or Yates used what he believed was the more significant address: not "Mister," not "Colonel," but "The Honourable" by which Members of Parliament and Congress, with at least one term of service under their belt, are addressed.
  5. HELLO FROM WISCONSIN-- SHILOH STUDY

    https://issuu.com/cowans/docs/trownsell_042914/202 Cowan's Auction: Robert Trownsell Civil War Collection, 29 APR 2014. The above reference (with ability to zoom in) showcases a collection of CDV images of the Civil War, primarily of Union officers who became Generals of Volunteers. Of the hundreds of photographic images on offer, these are IRT and of interest to Battle of Shiloh: pages 76 - 77 U. S. Grant and Henry Halleck (Grant and Rawlins in group image page 54) p. 83 Hurlbut p. 86 Lauman p. 88 John A. Logan pp. 90 - 91 McClernand, McArthur and McPherson p. 91 McCook p. 92 Meade (for those with interest in Gettysburg) from page 200 Midwestern officers (Illinois, Iowa and Wisconsin) from page 208 fourteen pages of Western officers and uncategorized images. The above is just a sample, with most images filed alphabetically. The initial fifty pages of the reference provide full-color images of Civil War Uniforms (mostly officer uniforms, but also a few enlisted uniforms.) And many photos show the inside lining of the coats and overcoats (and some contain original owner's name.) These photographs are of uniforms from across the theatres of the Civil War, and include infantry, cavalry and artillery, and one medical officer. (There are two possibly from Pittsburg Landing, on pages 10 and 47 and an interesting item from 12th Missouri on page 12; and 2nd Ohio Lt Artillery on page 32.) Cheers Ozzy
  6. Sherman's Diary

    Did you know William Tecumseh Sherman was a diarist? Over at University of Notre Dame (Archives) are to be found diaries kept by Sherman from 1843 - 1861 and 1866 - 1890. Where are the diaries William Tecumseh Sherman kept during the Civil War? [Still looking, but they may be at Library of Congress, or some University Library.] But, W. T. Sherman also wrote a lot of letters... http://archives.nd.edu/findaids/ead/xml/shr.xml William T. Sherman Family Papers (Letters, telegrams, diaries and other documents). [Click on above link, and scroll down: everything in "blue" is online; mostly copies of handwritten documents (which can be hard to read) but also many typed transcripts]: 13 NOV 1861 Special Orders No.305 relieving Sherman of command and replacing him with BGen D. C. Buell. 24 NOV 1861 Special Orders No.8, by which BGen Sherman is assigned duty as Inspector in Department of the Missouri. DEC 1861 Letter, in which Sherman indicates, "he has met Halleck in St. Louis, and will press for a command." JAN 1862 Letter to wife, Ellen (from Benton Barracks) indicates, "There is something in the works for Tennessee (including a feint on Columbus from Cairo)." 12 FEB 1862 Letter to Ellen (from Benton Barracks) "General Halleck plans to go to Paducah..." 1 MAR 1862 Letter from Paducah to Ellen: "I have been busy sending away Prisoners from Fort Donelson." 3 MAR 1862 Letter from Cairo to Ellen: "I am getting ready to be part of an expedition; and the Rebels are abandoning Columbus, because of Genl Grant's victory." 3 APR 1863 Letter from Pittsburg Landing to Ellen: "Buell's forces are expected at Savannah about Monday (April 8th). Bragg is at Corinth, 18 miles away with 80 regiments... and I am satisfied they will await our coming. The weather is warm and Springlike: apples and peaches in blossom, and trees beginning to leaf." And much, much more... Ozzy
  7. Value of the POWs

    Prentiss, Prisoners and Prognosticating Nature abhors a vacuum... and I have attempted over the past several months to determine, "Why was General Prentiss' Report of Battle of Shiloh in error, as regards the roles of Peabody and Powell ?" (Errors of omission, as in, "no credit given for the early morning reconnaissance ordered by Colonel Peabody and performed by Major Powell.") Before providing my evidence, I affirm my bias as supporter of Benjamin Prentiss; so take the following report with as much salt as required. Following the surrender of General Prentiss on Sunday afternoon 6 April 1862, he was immediately separated from other captured Federal soldiers and interrogated by a host of Confederate officers. The following morning, Prentiss and the captured Federal prisoners were sent away south; and upon reaching Corinth the prisoners were loaded aboard a train bound for Memphis (with officers kept separate from junior ratings, making the journey in separate cars from the enlisted men.) During this train travel to Memphis; brief stay at Memphis (officers kept separate); onward journey to Selma (via Jackson and Mobile) Benjamin Prentiss would have had opportunity and time to discuss all aspects of Sunday's battle, and events leading up to that battle, with his fellow officers. Eventually, the senior Federal prisoners, held for two months at Selma, were sent away to confinement at Madison, Georgia (arriving at that three-story cotton warehouse in June 1862.) Over the next few weeks, General Prentiss and his fellows (Captain and above) were joined by all of the surviving officers captured at Shiloh (lieutenants and a few captains.) Until the Release of 8 October 1862, all of the officers captured at Shiloh (nearly 200 men) were confined together at Madison Prison (with ample time and opportunity for Benjamin Prentiss to discuss the battle and "get his story straight" for the report he would submit upon release. The question to be asked: "If you were Commander of the Sixth Division, wanting to accurately construct details of the action that took place prior to waking up at sunrise on Sunday morning, who would you want to question ?" Colonel David Moore, 21st Missouri. Prentiss sent away Moore (and Captain Fisk, 18th Wisconsin) evening of 5 APR to conduct a reconnaissance in front of the Sixth Division: nothing of serious interest was found. Upon waking up Sunday to All Hell erupting to his front, Prentiss learned that Colonel Moore was out front, engaging an enemy force... and then discovered that Colonel Peabody was somehow involved... [Colonel Moore was wounded, removed from the field, and escaped capture.] Colonel Peabody (25th Missouri) in Command 1st Brigade. Upon learning that Peabody "was somehow responsible" for the action now taking place to his front, General Prentiss confronted that officer ("hooted at him," another Missouri officer claimed) and then sent Peabody away with his force to bolster Moore's force. [By 9 a.m. Colonel Everett Peabody was dead, killed in action.] Colonel Madison Miller (18th Missouri) in Command of 2nd Brigade. Colonel Miller likely woke up about the same time as Prentiss; but General Prentiss soon made use of Miller and his brigade in an unsuccessful effort to "stem the grey tide." Falling back to the line that would become known as the Sunken Road and the Hornet's Nest, Madison Miller was captured at about the same time as General Prentiss (and spent a month confined with Prentiss, before being sent away north in attempt to organize a prisoner exchange.) The two men undoubtedly shared their recollection of the battle, before Colonel Miller departed -- but Miller would have been clueless as to "what sparked the engagement of Sunday morning." Major Powell, 25th Missouri. Undoubtably, General Prentiss would have benefited by querying Major Powell about his role in the instigation of action on Sunday morning; and once Prentiss became aware that Powell may have had some involvement, possibly ordered by Peabody, likely intended to query Major Powell, once the Operation occupying everyone's attention Sunday was brought to successful conclusion... Unfortunately, the battle ended badly for Prentiss (and for Powell, who was severely wounded Sunday afternoon, and expired an hour or two afterwards.) In absence of all of the above (except Colonel Miller) General Prentiss would benefit from interview with any officer of the 16th Wisconsin or 25th Missouri, who could assist in creating an accurate, factual report, free from rumor and innuendo... http://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/turningpoint/harg/cw/pdfs/harg0455-001-001.pdf List of Federal Prisoners held Captive at Madison, Georgia. The above document (pages 9 - 15) contains a complete list of the Officers, captured at Shiloh, and confined together at Madison Georgia... I cannot find a single officer belonging to 16th Wisconsin or 25th Missouri on that list. Can you? Ozzy
  8. McArthur (part 2)

    Rbn3 Thanks for the additional information in regard to John McArthur, Joseph Webster, Patrick Gregg... and how interconnected things became in the fullness of time. I still have a suspicion that Grant and McArthur met upon McArthur's return from convalescent leave -- during the Move on Corinth -- and "something" occurred during their conversation that mended the rift between the two generals. However, it may remain as just "another unsolved mystery..." Regards Ozzy
  9. Ex Post Facto

    Prentiss, between encounters with Grant On 17 SEP 1861 in the midst of a bad three weeks in Missouri for Major General Fremont, Benjamin Prentiss – at home in Quincy, awaiting Court-Martial on Grant’s charges – was visited by a senior officer who informed him that the charges had been dropped; there was to be no Court-Martial; and in accordance with Special Orders No.210 Brigadier General Prentiss was restored to active service, given Command of that part of Missouri north of the Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad. Prentiss arrived in Missouri, and rode the train from Hannibal to Brookfield, at which station he met the two thousand or so Paroled Federal prisoners (many of whom were wounded) sent north following Mulligan’s surrender of 20 SEP at Lexington. After sending the wounded away to hospital at Quincy, General Prentiss set to work securing his district from the depredations of Missouri irregulars and State Guard units. Over time, the following units were attached to Prentiss, for use in his territory: · Birge’s Western Sharpshooters · 21st Missouri Infantry (Col. David Moore) · 26th Illinois Infantry (Col. Loomis ) · Glover’s 3rd Missouri Cavalry · Foster’s Regiment · 23rd Missouri Infantry (Col.Tindall) · 15th Illinois Infantry (Col. Turner) · 16th Illinois Infantry (Col. Robert Smith) · At least 300 members of Missouri Home Guard In addition, on his staff: Lieutenant Edwin Moore (from 21st Missouri) and Captain Henry Binmore, AAG (former personal secretary to the late-Stephen A. Douglas.) While Prentiss worked in the north, his boss, Major General Fremont, embarked on an expedition into Southern Missouri that failed to prevent Fremont from being removed from Command of the Western Department, ultimately replaced by Major General Henry Halleck on about 9 NOV 1861. It appears that Halleck believed Prentiss was doing a good job, because on 26 November, Halleck expanded Prentiss’ area of control (just about doubling the size of that man’s territory) to include “everything north of the Missouri River” and called, The District of Northern Missouri [General Orders No.9 in OR 8 page 380]. Soon afterwards, Halleck telegraphed to General George McClellan (6 DEC) “Prentiss is engaged in an operation to clear out “organized insurgents” in Northern Missouri, in particular at Weston, Platte City, Liberty and Richmond” [OR 8 p.408]. Soon, however, Halleck was complaining to McClellan about the “state of affairs” in Missouri: he did not like the irregular nature of the war being fought there; he was incensed that Missouri Home Guard troops refused to muster into Regular volunteer service (subject to being sent out of Missouri); Major General Price refused to “stand and fight” in a clash of big armies, instead resorting to men dressed as civilians looting and raiding; and burning bridges and tearing up Halleck’s prized railroad tracks and telegraph lines. As the months wore on, Halleck persisted in attempts to force “major unit combat,” while issuing “Orders to the Civilian Population” that became more draconian with time. It was in this environment of irregular warfare that General Prentiss appears to have thrived, keeping his headquarters in the saddle, making use of small units and informants to find out State Guard forces and take them into custody, or drive them away, out of his area. General Halleck acknowledged as much to General McClellan on 16 DEC: “Prentiss has cleared out Northern Missouri of Rebels, but… he did not do it the way I wanted him to, the way it was ordered. I do not know if Prentiss is careless, or negligent, or obstinate. But his actions thwarted my plans” [OR 8 p.438]. On 17 DEC 1861 General Halleck telegraphed to Prentiss (Prentiss was then at Carrollton, and the telegram was relayed through Chillicothe): “Continue your march east to Brunswick and Glasgow until you meet [my] force sent out from Jefferson City. Having cleared out the Rebels from the counties north of the Missouri River, you will report to these headquarters for further orders” [OR 8 p.440]. Many modern Historians pooh-poo General Prentiss and his “little engagement at Mount Zion Church” without recognizing two facts: that engagement was fought within thirty miles of the Missouri River (even further south than Lexington, where Mulligan came to grief); and the skirmish was not fought in accordance with Halleck’s program (but it was conducted the way a campaign against insurgents should be operated.) Beginning with contact on 27 DEC at Hallsville, when a reconnaissance sent out by Prentiss drew fire, the General did not “fly to the nearest telegraph station to contact Halleck,” but instead, upon learning of the skirmish (and learning the location of the enemy force) General Prentiss organized elements of the 3rd Missouri Cavalry and a force of Birge’s Western Sharpshooters, and departed his then-base at Sturgeon, heading south at 2 a.m. At 8 a.m. Prentiss encountered the Rebels between Hallsville and Mount Zion, and arrayed his force to attack from two sides. After engaging the enemy, and finding that this was not the main body of Rebel forces, it was decided to follow the retreating enemy further south to Mount Zion Church. Prentiss dismounted his cavalry and sent them forward, while despatching Birge’s Sharpshooters to engage the enemy (estimated 900 men) from the Rebel left. The sharpshooters experiencing difficulties, Colonel Glover led his remaining cavalry force to the assistance of the sharpshooters. As General Prentiss records: “The Rebels could not stand the fire of our rifles, and retreated, leaving in our hands 90 horses and 105 stand of arms. The battle was brought to a close at 11 a.m.” [OR 8 pp.43- 45]. Prentiss sent his report of the Action at Hallsville and Mount Zion Church in January 1862. It is of interest to note that there are almost no reports in regard to Benjamin Prentiss after mid-January 1862. And Prentiss begins to “lose” bits of his “insurgent fighters” to other theatres, and other commanders (Birge’s Sharpshooters to Grant in February; the 26th Illinois joined Pope’s move on New Madrid in February; the 21st Missouri was sent to Grant at Savannah in March.) In February, Halleck began to indicate to Benjamin Prentiss that he, too, “would soon be wanted south..” His job in Missouri done, on 15 MAR Prentiss turned over command of Northern Missouri to Brigadier General Ben Loan (Prentiss’ lieutenant, based since10 DEC 1861 at St. Joseph) and Brigadier General Prentiss reported to St. Louis for his new assignment(s). Cheers Ozzy References as sited.
  10. McArthur (part 2)

    A little off topic... As mentioned earlier (post of 5 January 2018) U.S. Grant "tagged along" with the Jo Daviess Guards to Springfield, and provided that company with training along the way. And when it became evident that the Guards of Augustus Chetlain would become part of the last of the Illinois regiments -- the 12th Illinois -- it always struck me as curious that Grant never made a play for the colonelcy of that regiment. At least, I could never find evidence of any attempt to put U.S. Grant in command of the 12th Illinois Volunteers... until now. In a paper read before Members of the Loyal Legion of the United States (MOLLUS) -- Illinois Commandery -- on 2 DEC 1885, Augustus Chetlain has this to say: "Once we were all together at Camp Yates, I suggested to the company officers (of the 12th Illinois) that Captain Grant was a suitable man for the colonelcy of the regiment. And the suggestion was favorably received. However, a prominent and influential politician of the State, who had aspirations of his own, strenuously opposed Grant's election, on the grounds "that an officer who had been forced to leave the Army on account of his "personal habits" was not a safe man to be intrusted with command of a regiment." I found it impossible to overcome the objection, and Grant's name was dropped. When the election took place, Captain John McArthur was elected over his only other competitor, Captain J. D. Webster. And I (Augustus Chetlain) was chosen Lieutenant Colonel without opposition." The rest of the story... Ozzy Reference as sited (page 15).
  11. Henry vs. Spencer

    Stan, click on following link and scroll to paras. 28 - 32... http://www.rarewinchesters.com/articles/art_hen_02.shtml Henry Rifle in Civil War Service, USA and CSA While investigating the use of Henry Repeaters during Civil War, was able to confirm use (by both sides) during 1862. And Kentucky took an active interest in the weapon, with hundreds of sales recorded at Louisville. In the above link, Lieutenant William S. Skelton, Company E, Stirman's 1st Arkansas Cavalry Battalion is credited with use of Henry No.287 at October 1862 Battle of Corinth. (Was difficult to verify this information due to fact there were three other "First Arkansas Cavalry" units; but only Stirman's was at Corinth.) Another Confederate user of a Henry Repeater was Captain Lorenzo Fisher, 10th Kentucky Partisan Rangers (he used his during 1862 in Kentucky.) Cheers Ozzy Other good references: http://www.henryusa.com/henry-history/ (first two paras. of Home Page) http://www.ammoland.com/2015/08/henry-rifles-history/#axzz5NHzzvpEj (scroll past the ad) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Arkansas_Cavalry_Battalion_(Stirman's)
  12. Pensacola connection, part 3

    By the Noble Daring of her Sons: The Florida Brigade by Jonathan C. Sheppard This Doctor's Thesis of 403 pages, published in 2008: http://fsu.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fsu:176253/datastream/PDF/view Although this resource provides concise details of Florida's early colonial history; and the "unusual connection to Iowa" (pages 13- 14); a solid description of settlement by cotton planters and tobacco farmers (with development of political structure based on agricultural pursuits -- pp.15 to 24)... The interesting bits for SDG begin on page 24: 24 - 25 Florida the third Southern State to secede (after South Carolina and Mississippi) 26 - 27 Pensacola and Adam Slemmer (and Picken's Truce) 28 - 34 Patton Anderson 34 - 36 Braxton Bragg at Pensacola 49 - 55 Raid at Santa Rosa Island of October 1861 66 - 72 Fort Donelson loss requires Major General Bragg to move north 72 - 74 Roles of BGen Samuel Jones and LtCol William K. Beard after Patton Anderson leaves Florida 75 - 80 Federal movement up Tennessee River leads to Day One at Shiloh 80 - 81 Day Two at Shiloh (and return to Corinth) 81 - 82 Aftermath of Florida Battalion. Details of Battle of Shiloh from Florida Battalion perspective (with interesting descriptions not found anywhere else.) Mostly accurate depiction of the Battle of Shiloh, with the only real blemish: the timing being out by thirty - sixty minutes on a couple of occasions. Otherwise, a solid effort; and worth the thirty minutes to read. Cheers Ozzy
  13. Who was In Charge?

    Mona Well stated, in regard to "Grant's concern about McClernand." At Fort Donelson, it is obvious that Grant did not put McClernand "in temporary command, in Grant's absence" because he did not trust McClernand. That evaporation of trust is even more profound at Pittsburg Landing (where Grant took extraordinary efforts to keep McClernand away from the levers of power.) Sherman: as you suggest, Grant likely selected fellow-West Pointer, in-need-of-a-sponsor Sherman, because he knew Sherman (who was still "on his way back" from a nervous breakdown, trying to rejuvenate his career) would do as he was told. And after having promoted and supported all of Grant's decisions -- up to the unexpected moment of Confederate attack on Sunday morning -- U.S. Grant (who valued LOYALTY) was not going to cut his loyal lieutenant loose to "take the consequences" for the surprise at Shiloh. That scapegoat (for a tangential matter) was Lew Wallace; but both Wallace and McClernand were consigned "to the reserve" after Shiloh: as far removed from the levers of power as possible. Regards Ozzy
  14. Henry vs. Spencer

    http://44henryrifle.webs.com/westernsharpshooters.htm 66th Illinois and their Henry Rifles (see paragraph 10). So far, the only Corinth connection encountered is a Federal soldier at above link: Lorenzo Barker paid $40 for his (which he may have had shipped to Corinth Mississippi in September 1863). Ozzy
  15. Who was In Charge?

    Exercising acting-Command at Pittsburg Landing The initial post of this topic was presented a bit “tongue in cheek,” because as we all know, the real commander at Pittsburg Landing in absence of U.S. Grant was Major General C.F. Smith. But MGen Smith being away from Pittsburg Landing on Sunday 6 April, the acting-commander should have been John A. McClernand (in fact, McClernand was the ranking Major General to the more junior C.F. Smith.) But, U.S. Grant had gone through extraordinary exertions to get everyone on board with, “Charles Ferguson Smith is in command; but due to his being temporarily away sick, Brigadier General W.T. Sherman is acting at Pittsburg campground on his behalf” [Badeau Page 70 and 79; and US Grant Memoirs p.338; Papers of USG vol.4 p.379]. Of course, General Grant did not consider an attack by Albert Sidney Johnston against Pittsburg Landing as likely; but when that event actually occurred, early on Sunday morning, it left the situation as regards Federal “acting commander” in a sticky mess: McClernand should have taken charge, but was cowed by Grant, coerced into relinquishing command to W.T. Sherman. But, what is truly disturbing: it could be expected that the “acting-Commander” would greet Major General Grant on the bluff overlooking Pittsburg Landing. That acting commander would give a solid (concise-as-possible, yet comprehensive) report of the situation as it then stood; and then turn over control to MGen Grant in a seamless hand-over, before returning to continue the fight as Commander of the Fifth Division. But, the above hand-over did not transpire, because W.T. Sherman was a “commander of convenience,” who had been elevated to that status merely because it kept MGen McClernand away from his lawful exercise of command. In the days prior to Shiloh, Sherman’s primary function was as “mouthpiece” for the orders and strategy of General Grant; and as cheerleader/ enforcer to keep the Grand Directive: “Do nothing to bring on a general engagement.” In support of that Directive, Sherman scoffed at suggestions that “a serious force of Rebels was anywhere near,” and admonished and ridiculed individuals who expressed concern (Appler). The support of Grant’s decisions extended to Colonel Worthington (prevented from acquiring equipment for felling trees for abatis, or digging protective trenches.) Sherman’s “actions” on Sunday morning would be comical, if not of such dire consequence: · “Heard a good deal of picket-firing, so had breakfast, and then rode out to see Appler” [Memoirs page 258] · “I did not think the enemy intended anything more than a strong Demonstration” [Memoirs page 263] · “I offered support if he required it,” said McClernand, “but was told by Sherman to only provide some cavalry. Soon as the cavalry was sent forward, word arrived – from Sherman, himself – that he required support” [OR 10 pp.114 – 5] · Sherman, himself: “I sent word to McClernand to support my left.” · Sherman, again: “I sent word to Prentiss, alerting him to the presence of the enemy in our front.” · Sherman continues: “I sent word to Hurlbut, requesting he support Prentiss…” Sherman is silent in regard to “anything” sent to C.F. Smith/WHL Wallace; yet would not an “acting commander” have made contact with all of the divisions under his charge? And sent word to “the commander at Savannah” in timely fashion, of “serious action taking place” ? Following Shiloh, U.S. Grant continued to support Sherman by declaring that officer “the Hero of Shiloh” (and by only endorsing Sherman’s report of events.) Sherman supported Grant by poo-pooing Buell’s claims to “having saved Grant’s Army at Shiloh,” and by helping defuse Lew Wallace’s push for a Board of Inquiry or Court-Martial, in order to “reveal the Truth about Battle of Shiloh.” In summary, it is my belief that, based on the above evidence, no one was in charge for the Federals at Pittsburg Landing, prior to arrival of Major General Grant, himself, between 8:45 and 9:30 a.m. on Sunday. But, believing it “sounds better” to have someone in charge (instead of asserting that no one was in charge) I settled on Mrs. Ann Dickey Wallace. Ozzy References: OR 10 Badeau’s Military History of General U.S. Grant Sherman’s Memoirs Grant’s Memoirs Papers of US Grant vol.4 (especially page 381, in which Grant states to Sherman that “All troops are to report to you.” ) In meantime, McClernand was kept at Savannah a few days; and when he finally was sent with First Division to Pittsburg Landing, it apparently was “hoped” he would “accept Sherman as being in charge of the campground at Pittsburg Landing.” On pages 386 - 7 a Communication (18 MAR 1862) from Grant to Halleck also stresses, “McClernand is at Savannah; Smith has decided campgrounds at Crumps and Pittsburg, but if I feel they are in any way deficient, I will relocate the camps.” On page 388 (18 MAR 1862) Grant gives instructions to Sherman IRT “brigading of all troops that arrive at Pittsburg with appropriate divisions.” On Page 411 (23 MAR 1862) – the start of the ruse involving “Major General Smith, commanding US Forces at Pittsburg Landing” (in effort to keep McClernand, now assigned to Pittsburg Landing, from exercising acting-Command there in Grant’s absence… including (in notes) the direction from Smith that “Sherman is to act in accordance with my instructions.”) A similar “direction” from Grant to Smith to be found Page 423. McClernand initially complains, sensing “fraud,” [see Page 429 – notes] but after demanding “resolution of the matter of seniority IRT CF Smith and JA McClernand,” McClernand agrees to “go along with the situation” as “he does not have access to the materials that Grant obviously has in making this decision” [Page 430].
×