Jump to content
Shiloh Discussion Group

Ozzy

Member
  • Content count

    1,439
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    216

Everything posted by Ozzy

  1. Confederate Firearms by Regiment for Shiloh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ; [Chicago Tribune of 28 FEB 1862, page 2 col.4 via Chronicling America.] Thought the study of Grant's February 1862 visit to Nashville was complete, but one aspect of the sojourn remained unresolved: "Why did General Grant take along the commander of the First Division, John A. McClernand?" By the time of the Surrender of Fort Donelson, the relationship between Grant and McClernand was well and truly on the skids. General Grant did not appreciate McClernand's self-serving after-battle reports (and may have suspected he was sending letters containing "who-knows-what" to President Lincoln.) And, although General McClernand redeemed himself at Fort Donelson (after Grant held him partially responsible for the near-success of the Confederate breakout attempt), the rally of McClernand's Division would not have been needed if McClernand's Division had properly anchored its right (where McArthur was incorrectly positioned) in the first instance. So, why take McClernand to Nashville? The above newspaper article, written by Chicago Tribune reporter, Franc Bangs Wilkie, explains, "McClernand had ties to influential political leaders at Clarksville -- in particular, Cave Johnson." Perhaps U.S. Grant felt that John McClernand could be of use, politically, in smoothing the way for Federal occupation of Nashville (by renewing acquaintance with old Democratic Party comrades.) Or, perhaps it was simply a case of, "Keep your friends close; and keep your enemies closer." Ozzy N.B. Along with Franc Bangs Wilkie, Henri Villard (reporter for the Associated Press) travelled to Nashville in company with Bull Nelson; and Whitelaw Reid may have made the voyage, as well (still looking for evidence.) Of interest, Stephen Hurlbut was left at Fort Donelson as "Acting Commander of Post," and John Rawlins remained behind at Fort Donelson as "Acting on General Grant's behalf." [The steamer "B" was usually called "WHB" although the towboat's name was W. H. Brown.]
  24. Bear Creek Bridge

    On 13 April 1862 a force commanded by Brigadier General W. T. Sherman succeeded in leaving their transports and marching south; and upon arrival at Bear Creek Bridge, tore up 500 feet of rail line and then burned the bridge (this achievement having been one of the original goals of C. F. Smith's March 1862 Expedition up the Tennessee River.) Questions: "Which Union officer conducted the first dedicated attempt to destroy the Bear Creek Bridge?" "On what date (plus or minus three days) was this original attempt to cut the Memphis & Charleston Railroad?" [Hint: William Tecumseh Sherman was not involved.]
  25. Shiloh Memorial Park

    The following report was created by Colonel E. T. Lee, originally of the 41st Illinois, but who closed out his Civil War service with the 53rd Illinois. After the war, E. T. Lee became a prime mover in the Shiloh Battlefield Association, which successfully pushed for establishment of Shiloh National Military Park. The Battle of Shiloh By Colonel E. T. Lee (originally published 2 April 1891) There was no battle of the war for the Union which has been more written about and less understood than the Battle of Shiloh, or Pittsburg Landing, which was fought on the west bank of the Tennessee River on 6 and 7 April 1862, between the Union army commanded by Major General U. S. Grant and Major General D. C. Buell, and the Confederate army under General Albert Sidney Johnston and General PGT Beauregard. But before we enter into a description of the two days’ battle, let us look at the situation of the two armies and their commanders. On the side of the Union, General Grant, with his victorious Army of Tennessee, had just taken Forts Henry and Donelson, with 15,000 prisoners and all the cannon and small arms, and had gone up the Cumberland River and captured Clarksville and other points, then sent gunboats up the Tennessee as far as Pittsburg Landing. These victories had thrilled the loyal North, for Fort Donelson was the first great Union victory of the war. The troops had caught the inspiration, and felt that they were invincible, and were anxious and ready to meet the enemy on any field. But the triumph of these troops and the achievements of their commander had already awakened jealousy in the minds of those higher in authority, and as the great army gathered at Fort Henry to take the steamers to go up the Tennessee, there came an order which read as follows: “To General Grant. You will make your headquarters at Fort Henry until further instructions. Turn the command over to General C. F. Smith. By order of Henry W. Halleck, Major General.” Imagine the feelings of the army and its commander, upon the receipt of this unexpected order. General Halleck had trumped up charges against General Grant, claiming that he had failed to report the strength of the army under his command, and that he had exceeded his authority by taking Clarksville and visiting Nashville. He made these charges to General George B. McClellan, then in command of the army. Like the good soldier that he was, General Grant obeyed this order and turned over his command to General C. F. Smith, who was a gallant soldier and admitted that a very great injustice had been done General Grant. The troops went on board the large fleet of steamers, and one of the grandest sights ever witnessed on the Western Waters was the old Army of the Tennessee leaving Fort Henry for the new base at Pittsburg Landing. The troops were rejoicing that they were to go on to the front to meet the enemies of our Union and the old flag, and as the steamers passed each other, with bands playing and flags floating, cheer after cheer echoed over the Tennessee River. The Silver Moon and the Glendale joined in the grand chorus with their steam calliopes, with one playing, “Dixie,” and the other, “The Girl I Left Behind Me.” The river was high on account of the Spring rains, and gunboats accompanied the transports up the river. The boat which carried the 41st Illinois, the Aleck Scott, was the fastest on the river, and we passed every other steamer except General S. A. Hurlbut’s headquarters boat, and landed at Pittsburg Landing, the first of all the troops who went up on that occasion. There had been two companies of the 32nd Illinois and one of the gunboats up there a few days before, and they had had a skirmish at the Landing, and one or two of the 32nd boys had been killed or wounded. We loaded our guns on the steamer and deployed up the bank and out into the timber, but found no enemy there at that time. We went out about one mile from the Landing and went into camp. The remainder of our division followed, and soon WHL Wallace, General B. M. Prentiss, General John A. McClernand, and General W. T. Sherman, with their divisions, arrived and went into camp farther out; Generals Sherman and McClernand occupying the ground near the Shiloh Church, where the battle opened the morning of the Sixth, about two miles and a half from the Landing. General Lew Wallace with his division was stationed at Crump’s Landing, some six miles down the river, on the west side. General C. F. Smith established headquarters at Savannah about eight miles down the river, on the east bank. Thus was the Union army located. Pittsburg Landing was an elevated location and heavily-wooded land. Snake Creek emptied into the Tennessee River on the north, and Dill’s Run and Owl Creek on the South. The place could have been made impregnable in a very short time by the erection of breastworks, but there were none thrown up; and it was here that our Western army was to learn its great lesson that was ever afterward remembered, with our commanders always on the lookout for any emergency, and ever ready to receive or to make an attack. It was a dear lesson, but a positive one, that Grant or Sherman never afterwards forgot. General Grant remained at Fort Henry and assisted with sending forward troops and supplies to General Smith. On the 24th of March, Commodore Foote sent word to General Smith that he desired to see him aboard his flagship, to consult with him in reference to sending the ironclads down the river, as the water was falling very rapidly. In stepping into a yawl from his headquarters steamer, General Smith missed the step and slipped, and severely bruised his left leg from the ankle to above the knee, not only removing the skin, but tearing the flesh from the bone in places. He was 62 years old, six feet three inches high, and weighed over 200 pounds. He was a WestPoint graduate and every inch a soldier, and he was well liked by his troops. (He grew worse, and this injury caused his death at Savannah in April, after the battle.) He wrote to General Grant at Fort Henry and told him of his injury, and asked that he come up and take command of the army. In the meantime General Grant had asked to be relieved from any command under General Halleck, who he considered had done him a great injustice, as he had reported the number of troops under his command, and considered he had authority to take Clarksville and visit Nashville. General Halleck, seeing the situation, wrote to General Grant asking him to go up to Pittsburg Landing and take command of the army, and lead it on to still greater victories. He went as requested, on the steamer Hiawatha. April 2, just four days before the battle, there was a council of war held, and General Smith turned over the command of the army to General Grant. Halleck had ordered Grant to Pittsburg Landing to take command and await the arrival of the Army of the Ohio under General Buell, when Halleck was to come down from St. Louis, take command of the combined armies, and move on the enemy at Corinth, 24 miles away, where they had strongly intrenched themselves. It was never any part of the program on the part of the Union commanders to fight a battle at Shiloh. At this council of war, General Smith said to General Grant, “In the next few days you will have to meet, and I hope, defeat the ablest General in the Southern Confederacy, Albert Sidney Johnston, he being, in my opinion, the ablest military man of his day.” Grant replied modestly, “We will do the best we possibly can to defeat him.” McPherson, Hurlbut, McClernand, McArthur and Sherman were present at this council. Thus it will be seen that General Grant was placed in full command only four days before the battle, and with his former experience with Halleck, he would do nothing not specified in his orders from Halleck. Shiloh was considered only a temporary camp for the army awaiting the arrival of the Army of the Ohio and General Buell. The headquarters had been established at Savannah by Smith, and they yet remained there when the battle opened on the morning of April 6. Now, let us look at the Confederate side before the battle opened. General Albert Sidney Johnston had just been sent West by Jefferson Davis to take command of Confederate forces. He had only reached Bowling Green, Kentucky, a short time before General Grant took Forts Henry and Donelson, and had not time to arrange his troops, that were scattered from Cumberland Gap to the Mississippi River, and on west to Pea Ridge, Arkansas. The capture of the forts caused General Johnston to fall back from Bowling Green, and when Nashville fell, he retreated to Murfreesboro, Tennessee. This so enraged the Southerners, that they said in their papers that he was not competent to lead the army, and charged him with being untrue to the South. So great was the pressure that Jefferson Davis ordered PGT Beauregard to come up from Charleston, South Carolina, to assist in command of the army. It was decided to concentrate the Confederate forces at Corinth, Mississippi, 24 miles from Pittsburg Landing and if possible stop the farther invasion of their soil by General Grant’s army. Troops were hurried to this point from every quarter, until an army of 45,000 or 50,000 men were gathered there. General Johnston heard of Buell’s army marching toward Pittsburg Landing, and he and Beauregard decided to make a forced march and attack Grant’s army, and if possible, capture or destroy it, before General Buell arrived. He gave orders for the army to move on Pittsburg Landing at once, and that all the various commands must be in position near the Union lines before 3 p.m. on April 4, but owing to the bad roads and a portion of the army getting mixed up, they did not get into position until the evening of the 5th, too late to commence the battle that day. There was a council of war called that night at General Johnston’s headquarters, and General Beauregard insisted that it should only be labelled a reconnaissance in force, and no attack should be made, as he felt sure they would find the Union forces behind breastworks, as there had been heavy skirmishing the day before. But General Johnston said that the battle must go on, and he would take command of the troops in person on the field, while General Beauregard was to see to sending forward of the reserves as he should need them. There had been some skirmishing the day before, and General Prentiss had sent out Colonel David Moore of the 21st Missouri with five companies of his regiment to reconnoitre. They returned and made a report that there was activity in front, and that a huge cavalry force had been developed. At three o’clock Sunday morning, Colonel Moore with five companies of his regiment again went to the front, and at break of day he drove the advance pickets of the enemy in and engaged their advance line. He sent for the remainder of his regiment, which was sent to him, and soon Prentiss’s whole division was in line of battle and hotly engaged about a quarter mile in front of their camp, where they made a desperate struggle to beat back the enemy, but were overpowered and outflanked, and compelled to fall back to their color-line, where they made another stand and were again compelled to retire with heavy loss. General Prentiss then rallied his men and fell back about one mile, and joined General Hurlbut at what became known as the “Hornet’s Nest,” where he and his gallant division stood like a wall until 5 p.m., when he was outflanked, overpowered and captured. General Sherman’s advance brigade, Hildebrand, soon became engaged, and then his whole division. It came like a thunder-clap from a clear sky to General Sherman, who admitted, “It was not until I saw the long line of glistening bayonets emerging from out of the timber that I became convinced that the enemy intended a general attack.” Many of his troops had never been under fire, and many were just from their homes in the North, and did not stand the fire of the enemy like the others who had fought at Fort Donelson, and his division was soon driven back with heavy loss. General McClernand threw his division into the breach and made a desperate attempt to stem the tide of battle that was sweeping the Union forces back toward the Landing. The battle raged around the old Shiloh Church, and to the right and left. General Hurlbut had taken a position about one mile to the left and rear, at the Peach Orchard. He had sent Veatch’s brigade to the assistance of Sherman and McClernand. WHL Wallace had brought his division up to the line occupied by Hurlbut, and soon the whole army had concentrated along this line. General Grant and Staff were at Savannah when he heard the first cannon of the morning. He was sitting at the breakfast table of the old Cherry House, and Mrs. Cherry was just in the act of handing him a cup of coffee when he heard the first gun fired. He said, “The battle has opened, and we must go.” He ordered his aides and staff to go on board the steamer, Tigress, and as soon as steam could be raised they started for Pittsburg Landing. He slowed up at Crump’s Landing long enough to tell General Lew Wallace to have his division in readiness to march to whatever point he might be needed, and then proceeded on to the front. Arriving there about 9 a.m., he and his staff passed through Hurlbut’s division at the Peach Orchard and went out to where Sherman’s and McClernand’s divisions were engaged. He soon returned, and as he passed inside the lines of Hurlbut’s division, he said, “Boys, you will soon have something to do,” which was verified by the attack of the enemy on our division, and the battle opened all along the line. This was the place that witnessed the most desperate fighting that occurred during the battle. [An excerpt of William Preston Johnston’s depiction of the Battle of Shiloh is here given, to provide the viewpoint from the Confederate perspective.] Returning to his narrative: “Thus ended the life of General Albert Sidney Johnston, the greatest Confederate leader in the Western army, who had for six hours urged on the Confederate forces against Hurlbut’s and Wallace’s troops, and in the last desperate attempt to beat the Union troops back had lost his life, so very anxious was he to crush Grant’s army before nightfall, and to gain the victory he had so desired.” It was near 4 p.m. when our line was driven back. The brigade of Stuart, on the left, was beaten back, and at last Hurlbut’s Fighting Fourth Division was forced back, out of ammunition, and with ranks depleted. The gallant 9th Illinois that had fought on the left of the 41st Illinois had lost 365 men in killed and wounded, the heaviest loss sustained by any regiment at Shiloh. The troops marched back in perfect order and replenished their cartridge boxes, and took up their position on the last line of defense, one mile from the Landing. General Prentiss and General WHL Wallace still held their positions on the right, and Prentiss says he had orders from General Grant to hold his position at all hazards, which he did until he was surrounded, and compelled to surrender. General WHL Wallace, in trying to extricate his command from the perilous position at the Hornet’s Nest, was shot, and died on a steamboat. About 5 p.m., General Prentiss, with some 2000 men, were made prisoners, after a long and desperate fight, in which he stayed the onward march of the Confederate army for many hours. There was a lull in the battle for a short time when Prentiss and his men were captured. General Grant, with his chief of artillery, Colonel Webster, had gotten up a siege battery from the Landing, and all the field artillery as it came in from the battlefield was parked around the brow of the hill, covering Dill’s Run and the Landing. Some light breastworks had been thrown up, and as the remnant of that gallant army came back from the front they were formed along this line. There were no cowards in that last line on Sunday evening. (Those men had all gone to the river, and left their comrades to fight it out as best they could.) Sherman and McClernand, with the remnants of Wallace’s division, were on the right, which rested on Snake Creek, where they anxiously awaited arrival of Lew Wallace’s Division, 6000 strong, who had been ordered to the field early in the morning, but which did not arrive until the battle had ended Sunday evening. The last line had only sufficient time to form, when they were attacked by General Chalmer’s Mississippians. They came to the ravine, and in range of the artillery, when the guns opened on them, and such a sheet of flame as poured forth from this line was never witnessed in any battle. The scene will be forever remembered by all who witnessed it. There were no troops that could withstand such a fire, and to add to the awful roar of battle, the gunboats, Conestoga and Lexington, lying in the Tennessee River, threw open their portholes and began firing their 15-inch shells up Dill’s Run, at the Confederate forces. The Rebels were driven back out of the reach of our cannon, and occupied our camps for the night. It has been said that General Beauregard issued an order withdrawing the Confederate forces after General Johnston’s death. Colonel Alexander Chisholm, chief aide de camp to General Beauregard, says of the closing scenes on Sunday evening at Shiloh, “After General Beauregard became cognizant of the death of General Johnston, he sent me with orders to the front, which led to the concentration of Confederate forces which resulted in the capture of General Prentiss and so many of his men. After 5 o’clock I carried orders to General Hardee, who was then engaged on the Federal right. I remained with him until almost dark, up to which time no orders had reached him to cease firing. On the contrary, he was doing his best to force back the enemy in his front. Had Colonel Preston Johnston been present at that last hour of the battle of the 6th, a witness of the actual fruitless efforts to storm the last position held by the enemy upon the ridge covering the Landing, he would be better informed why it was that that position was not carried, and be less disposed to adduce such testimony as that of General Bragg, to the effect that, but for the orders given by General Beauregard to withdraw from action, he would have carried all before him. General Beauregard did tell General Bragg not to unnecessarily expose his men to the fire of the gunboats. That there was a struggle for the last line of defense several hours after General Johnston had been killed, everyone who was there well knows. The division of General Nelson, of General Buell’s army, arrived on the field just as the last struggle was going on, and Ammen’s brigade formed in line of battle and the 36th Indiana fired several rounds at the retiring Confederates, having one man killed and three wounded. This was the extent of Buell’s loss on Sunday. General Lew Wallace’s division arrived Sunday evening, as did a large part of Buell’s Army of the Ohio, and orders were issued by General Grant to move on the enemy at daylight, on the morning of the 7th. The rain set in and kept falling all night, which was a Godsend to the thousands of wounded who were left lying on the battlefield. All day the steady roll of the artillery and infantry had been heard along the line, and foot by foot had every inch of ground been contested, and both sides had left the ground covered strewed with dead, wounded and dying. The loss had been fearful with both friend and foe, and neither side made a correct report of their losses on that day, as many future statements have proved. General Grant says that at no time did we have over 25,000 men in line, while the Confederates, according to their own statement, had from 41,000 to 46,000 men engaged. With the early morning of the 7th the Federal troops moved forward and attacked the Confederates, driving them back from every position until they were back at the old Shiloh Church, where the battle had commenced on Sunday morning. They held one ridge very stubbornly. General Grant seeing this, selected Veatch’s brigade of Hurlbut’s division, with other regiments, and formed them in line. Well do I remember when they took off their hats and gave three cheers for the Union and the old flag. Then sweeping up the slope and over the ridge they disappeared down the decline, sweeping everything before them and driving the Confederates from the field. Cheer after cheer rent the air as the last shot died away in the distance, and Shiloh was won. The gallant army under Buell, and Lew Wallace’s division, aided by the divisions of Hurlbut, McClernand and Sherman, did a grand day’s work for the Union cause on that day, and the Rebel hosts were driven back to Corinth, with their Commander-in-Chief killed, and with a fearful loss in killed and wounded. They had met the sturdy sons of the Northwest in an open-field fight, and with much the largest army, had been defeated. As to their losses, General Beauregard just after the battle made an estimate of their loss, which placed it at 10,699. In a letter to the writer in 1884, he acknowledged that this report was incorrect, and gave as his reason that his subordinate commanders sent their reports direct to the Confederate War Office at Richmond in place of sending them through his headquarters. The facts are that their loss was nearly 20,000 in the two days of battle. On the other hand, General Grant estimates the Union loss at 13,047, which was very far short of our actual loss. The positions occupied by General Grant and General Beauregard at that time would not have been held by them ten days had they made accurate report of their losses on that occasion; for it will be remembered that both were under a cloud, and had the actual facts been known they would have been superseded at once. General Grant says that the burial parties that he sent out reported that they had buried 4000 Confederate dead on the field, and then not all of them reported. Confederate division and brigade commanders have since made reports which show that their loss was at least 20000. This battle was a great lesson to the commanders of the Union army, and made them ever afterward use greater care and caution to always be prepared to receive an attack, and it was these lessons that afterward made Grant and Sherman the great leaders in the war that was finally ended at Appomattox, where Lee surrendered his army to Grant, and the great rebellion was at an end.
×