One of the things that I really enjoy doing when working on my projects is developing orders of battle. I’ve always been very proud of my ability to put together detailed orders of battle that include a lot of useful information, such as the names of regimental commanders, and, if something happened to them, successors.

Sometimes, it’s just not possible to get everything. Given that the Battle of Monroe’s Crossroads occurred a scant few weeks before the end of the Civil War, and given the wretched state of Confederate record-keeping at that time, in spite of years of research and my very best efforts to do so, I was unable to identify several of the regimental commanders on the Confederate side. That really bothered me, because it was the first time that I’ve ever been unable to fill in all of the regimental commanders in an order of battle.

This evening, I started working on an order of battle for the July 9, 1864 Battle of Monocacy, which is going to be the next project for J. D. and me. I got a decent start on it, but I’ve still got a bunch of regimental commanders on both sides to identify.

This time, though, I’m going to succeed. I’m going to get all of them.

Continue reading

Always being on the alert for examples of neo-Confederate idiocy, I came across this prize on one of the Yahoo Groups e-mail lists on the Civil War that I subscribe to. It came across last night, and I hereby declare it the neo-Confederate grand champion for 2008, as I cannot imagine ANYONE topping this little prize:

I would also like to add that I am a founding family of Virginia and America. My family fought for the South. None of my ancestors owned any slaves. Also, with my family coming into this country in 1609 and 1614 I had many direct ancestors die in the Rev. war. If your family has not been in this country since before the ACW, I would rather not hear your opinion. As I do not believe you to be an American.

By our hero’s definition, more than 90% of U. S. citizens are not Americans, including me–my family did not immigrate to the U. S. until 1904. I wonder what our neo-Confederate hero thinks about Native Americans, since they pre-date his family?

Nice grammar, too.

Not surprisingly, our genius refuses to sign his posts, so nobody knows what his name might be. However, I do wish he’d head back to the mobile home, raise the Confederate battle flag with “git ‘er done” on it, turn on the Dukes of Hazard, and hopefully, never, ever reproduce. Like Britney Spears, this guy is a prime example of why people should be required to obtain a license to reproduce.

Continue reading

As you will recall, last week, I posted here about a thread that I had started on the Armchair General forum boards about the differences between Union cavalry in the Eastern vs. Western Theaters of the war.

When I began that thread, I was afraid the someone would hijack it and try to turn it into a “Nathan Bedford Forrest was God” discussion, and I worked very hard to try to prevent that. After years of study, I remain absolutely convinced that Forrest was nothing more than a nuisance, John S. Mosby on a larger scale (No, Val, this will not become a Mosby discussion, so please don’t go there). My only point was that it’s easy to run up a gaudy won-lost record when you only ever face the junior varsity, and with very few exceptions, that’s what Forrest faced.

One of the Forrest worshippers kept trying to shanghai my thread, and went on and on and on. I finally suggested that we simply agree to disagree on the subject and let it go, but he insisted on taking another shot at it, saying that I couldn’t call Forrest a nuisance until I definitively proved to him that I was right. I hope I just put an end to it. I put up a post saying that it was not my responsibility to prove my opinion, and that my opinion was just that: my opinion. In the hope of preventing an all-out flame war, I said that I would not respond to any further posts on the subject.

I just don’t get it. What is it about Forrest that inspires such emotional and hate-filled responses? Even things that have almost nothing to do with Forrest instigate the inevitable and very predictable response. I have to say that I find it terribly distasteful, and that I think that the best course of action from now on is to simply avoid the topic altogether. Which is sad, considering that I’m a cavalry historian and that that’s the focus of this blog.

Continue reading

Jack Dempsey, a fellow barrister from Detroit, has been keeping us posted on Michigan’s efforts to commemorate the sesquicentennial of the Civil War. Jack recently posted a proclamation by the Governor of Michigan forming a committee to plan the state’s commemoration of the sesquicentennial. Today, the Michigan State Senate passed a resolution commemorating the Abraham Lincoln bicentennial. Michigan is keenly aware of the significance of the Civil War, and deserves a vast amount of credit for being proactive in commemorating the sesquicentennial.

My state, Ohio, unfortunately has nothing remotely like it. Sadly, history is given short shrift in this state; when the General Assembly needs to cut funds, the Ohio Historical Society is the first budget they slash. To date, nothing like the commemoration planned by Michigan has been planned or discussed here in Ohio, which is just stunning to me. Consequently, I will be sending the following letter to Governor Ted Strickland tomorrow:

The Honorable Ted Strickland
Governor’s Office
Riffe Center, 30th Floor
77 South High Street
Columbus, OH 43215-6108

Re: Civil War Sesquicentennial

Dear Governor Strickland:

Although I practice law for a living, I am an award-winning Civil War historian by avocation. In researching and writing fourteen books on the war, I have devoted much of my adult life to the study of the Civil War. I am a native Pennsylvanian, but I have lived in Ohio for more than twenty years, and consider the Buckeye State my home.

In the course of my years of study, I have learned the following facts: War-time Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton and Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase were both Ohioans. The State of Ohio raised nearly 320,000 soldiers for the Union army, behind only New York and Pennsylvania, and gave the most men per capita of any state in the union. Among the Union’s leading generals, a disproportionate number of them were Buckeyes: Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman, Philip H. Sheridan, William S. Rosecrans, and George A. Custer are the first to come to mind, although there are others. Five Ohio-born Civil War officers later served as President of the United States: Grant, James Garfield, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, and Rutherford B. Hayes. The Fighting McCooks, an Ohio family, were the largest family unit to serve in the Civil War, contributing six Union generals to the cause. Finally, one of the largest all-cavalry battles of the war was fought in Meigs County during John Hunt Morgan’s great Indiana and Ohio raid of 1863.

There were two major Confederate prisoner of war camps in Ohio. One was located on Johnson’s Island in Lake Erie, and the other was located right here in Columbus. More than 2,000 Confederate dead rest in the Camp Chase Cemetery in the Hilltop region of Columbus.

Needless to say, the Civil War was the seminal event in American history. 600,000 Americans died, slavery was eradicated, and the question of the legality of secession and the dominance of the Federal system were settled once and for all. Instead of a loose confederation of states, the Civil War forged this country into the United States of America.

The year 2011 marks the beginning of the sesquicentennial of the Civil War, which will last until 2015. A number of states have already formed sesquicentennial committees to commemorate their contributions to the war. Recently, the Governor of Michigan issued this proclamation:

EXECUTIVE ORDER No. 2007-52

OBSERVING THE SESQUICENTENNIAL OF THE CIVIL WAR

WHEREAS, Section 1 of Article V of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 vests the executive power of the State of Michigan in the Governor;

WHEREAS, under Section 8 of Article V of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, each principal department of state government is under the supervision of the Governor unless otherwise provided, and the Governor shall transact all necessary business with the officers of government;

WHEREAS, at the beginning of the American Civil War in 1861, Michigan residents responded enthusiastically to President Abraham Lincoln’s call for troops to put down the Confederate rebellion, eventually sending 90,000 men, and a few women, to the Union Army;

WHEREAS, Michigan sent 50 percent of its military age male population to fight in the Civil War, including specialized regiments of sharpshooters and engineers, and more cavalry per capita than any other northern state;

WHEREAS, at least 68 Michigan men were awarded the Medal of Honor for gallantry on the battlefield during the Civil War;

WHEREAS, Michigan mines produced tons of ire ore used to make cannon, iron clad ships, and rails, all of which contributed to the military success of the Union in the Civil War;

WHEREAS, the year 2011 marks the sesquicentennial of the beginning of the Civil War;

WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the State of Michigan to provide for appropriate commemorative activities recognizing the 150th anniversary of the Civil War;

WHEREAS, recognizing the sesquicentennial of the Civil War will increase awareness of Michigan’s cultural heritage and assist cultural economic development in this state;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jennifer M. Granholm, Governor of the State of Michigan, by virtue of the power and authority vested in the Governor by the Michigan Constitution of 1963 and Michigan law, order the following:

I. DEFINITIONS

As used in this Order:

A. “Department of History, Arts, and Libraries” or “Department” means the principal department of state government created by Section 3 of the History, Arts, and Libraries Act, 2001 PA 63, MCL 399.703.

B. “Michigan Historical Commission” or “Commission” means the commission created under Section 1 of 1913 PA 271, MCL 399.1.

II. STATE ACTION TO RECOGNIZE THE SESQUICENTENNIAL OF THE CIVIL WAR

A. The members of the Michigan Historical Commission shall constitute an advisory body within the Department of History, Arts and Libraries, for the purpose of all of the following:

1. Advising the Department and the Governor on matters relating to fostering authenticity and inclusion in Michigan’s observance of the 150th anniversary of the Civil War.

2. Encouraging, planning, and developing activities, events, programs, observances, and services appropriate to commemorate the Sesquicentennial of the Civil War.

3. Enlisting the support of private citizens, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and governmental entities in the planning and promotion of the Sesquicentennial of the Civil War.

4. Encouraging private citizens, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and governmental entities to organize and participate in Civil War Sesquicentennial activities.

5. Encouraging schools and cultural institutions in Michigan to participate in activities recognizing the Sesquicentennial of the Civil War.

6. Encouraging Michigan’s participation in national and international activities commemorating the Sesquicentennial of the Civil War and facilitating communications with other states commemorating the Sesquicentennial.

7. Serving as a clearinghouse for the collection and dissemination of information about Civil War Sesquicentennial plans, events, programs, observances, and services.

8. Researching and promoting the development of cultural, historical, and economic development opportunities relating to the Civil War in connection with the Civil War Sesquicentennial.

9. Reviewing, planning, and recommending strategies to promote and preserve the history of Michigan’s role in the Civil War.

10. Performing other functions related to the observance of the 150th Anniversary of the Civil War, as requested by the Director of the Department or the Governor.

III. OPERATIONS

A. The activities of the members of the Commission under this Order shall be staffed and assisted by personnel from the Department under the direction and supervision of the Director of the Department, subject to available funding.

B. The Commission may establish advisory workgroups composed of members of the public who are not members of the Commission to assist the members of the Commission in performing duties under this Order. The Commission may adopt, reject, or modify any recommendations proposed by an advisory workgroup.

C. In performing duties under this Order, the Commission may, as appropriate, make inquiries, studies, investigations, hold hearings, and receive comments from the public. The Commission may also consult with outside experts in order to perform its duties, including, but not limited to, experts in the private sector, organized labor, government agencies, and at institutions of higher education.

D. In performing duties under this Order, the Commission may hire or retain contractors, sub-contractors, advisors, consultants, and agents, and may make and enter into contracts necessary or incidental to the exercise of the powers of the Commission and the performance of its duties, as the Director of the Department deems advisable and necessary, in accordance with this Order and the relevant statutes, rules, and procedures of the Civil Service Commission and the Department of Management and Budget.

E. The Commission may accept donations of labor, services, or other things of value from any public or private agency or person related to activities under this Order.

F. Members of the Commission shall refer all legal, legislative, and media contacts related to this Order to the Department.

IV. MISCELLANEOUS

A. All departments, committees, commissioners, or officers of this state, or of any political subdivision of this state, shall give to the Commission or to any member or representative of the Commission, any necessary assistance required by the Commission or any member or representative of the Commission, in the performance of the duties of the Commission so far as is compatible with its, his, or her duties under this Order. Free access shall also be given to any books, records, or documents in its, his, or her custody, relating to matters within the scope of inquiry, study, or review of the Commission under this Order.

B. This Order shall not abate any suit, action, or other proceeding lawfully commenced by, against, or before any entity affected under this Order. Any suit, action, or other proceeding may be maintained by, against, or before the appropriate successor of any entity affected under this Order.

C. The invalidity of any portion of this Order shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the Order, which may be given effect without any invalid portion. Any portion of this Order found invalid by a court or other entity with proper jurisdiction shall be severable from the remaining portions of this Order.

D. This Order is effective upon filing.

Given under my hand and the Great Seal of the State of Michigan this 27th day of December, in the year of our Lord, two thousand seven.

__________________________________________
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM, GOVERNOR

The committee selected to implement this order has already had its first organizational meeting; 2011 is not that far away, and there is obviously a great deal to do to prepare for the sesquicentennial.

Given the fact that Ohio’s contributions to the Civil War dwarf those of Michigan by comparison, isn’t it time for Ohio to do something like this to honor this state’s contributions to the war?

I would be pleased to discuss this with you or your staff, should you wish to do so. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you wish to do so.

Very truly yours,

ERIC J. WITTENBERG CO., L.P.A.

Eric J. Wittenberg

I don’t expect to receive a response, but I hope that the message is at least received and that something is done to commemorate Ohio’s contributions to the Civil War. I will be terribly disappointed if nothing is done, but it would, sadly, be typical of this state.

Continue reading

William Henry Bonser (“Harry”) Lamin was a British enlisted man who served in the trenches of the Western Front during World War I. His grandson, Bill Lamin, an information technology teacher in England, found his grandfather’s letters home while a boy, and has decided to present them in a blog format. The letters are run, verbatim, on Bill’s blog on the 70th anniversary of the date on which they were written. The first letter appeared in 2005, and 57 of them ran in 2006. Bill refuses to give any clue’s to Harry’s fate, and his readers wait to find out what will happen to Harry in real time. The letters contain a fair amount of mundane discussion of family matters, such as how much Harry misses his boys, but they also provide some tantalizing glimpses at the horror of the life in the trenches during The War to End All Wars.

Bill’s blog has recently gotten a tremendous amount of attention in the media, both here and in England, which it richly deserves.

I think it’s an absolutely brilliant use of the blogging format and is a very welcome addition to the body of knowledge. I like the idea well enough to consider doing the same thing if I can locate the right set of letters or a soldier’s diary with which to do it.

Anyway, kudos to Bill for a magnificent idea. Harry’s saga can be found here.

Continue reading

David Woodbury has an absolutely hysterical take on neo-Confederate nonsense on his blog today. Be sure to click on the picture to get the enlarged image, or else it won’t make sense.

Enjoy.

Continue reading

Dave Powell left an incredibly insightful comment on last night’s post adding to what I wrote and amplifying on it as well. It was so good, in fact, that I decided to give Dave the bully pulpit here. Here’s Dave’s comment:

Eric,

Thanks for this supremely (to me) interesting post.

A couple of things:

1) I am not sure that Rosecrans really disliked David S. Stanley all that much, despite his faults. However, starting in early september, Stanley was getting ill, which definitely hindered his capacity, so much so that on September 16th Stanley relinquished command and was hauled back to Stevenson by wagon. He would be some time recovering.

The ranking commander under Stanley was a politician that scared both Rosecrans and Stanley – Robert B. Mitchell. (Not exactly a household name in ACW lore.) After Chickamauga, Mitchell was quietly sidelined, being ordered back to DC for court-martial duty, and then later given a series of frontier commands, chiefly Nebraska. He was an Ohio politician, not a soldier, and it showed.

I think that Stanley’s illness, as much as anything, lay behind Rosecrans request for Buford. I wish he had lived to go, too – that would have been the subsequent year extremely interesting.

However, there were a number of highly competent Union Cav guys – mostly brigade-level – who did do very well. Minty, Wilder, and George Crook come to mind. Crook orchestrated the pursuit of Wheeler duing his October 1863 raid, in which Wheeler lost roughly half his command.

This example and Wade’s point touch on the larger theme that I see about Cavalry in the West. While the Rebel performance there was at times flashy, and “stunt-laden” in the manner that caught many postwar fabulist’s attention, the CSA routinely failed at the critical cav duties that made up the bulk of Cav’s role, as boring as it was.

Stuart might have had his stunts, riding around the AOP and the like, but his men also performed well in the scouting and screening role. That was a marked difference between east and west.

This goes hand in hand with Ethan Rafuse’s column over on Civil Warriors as well, and accepting the idea that the CSA cavalry was equal on both fronts, but Union cav was weak in the west.

In fact, I think the CSA cavalry was a massive failure in the west. Even in raiding, with a few exceptions, they failed to achieve much of significance.

First, never overlook the fact that the CSA invested huge numbers in CSA cavalry between the mountains and the Mississippi. It is the only branch were the CSA has the advantage of numbers – sometimes 2/1, usually a 3/2 ratio – for much of the war. Despite this, it rarely effects Union operations, and the Rebel horse never manages to win the scout/screening fight.

For example, in the Spring of 1863, the CSA Cavalry in East Tennessee, with Bragg, and in Pemberton’s theater amount to nearly 30,000 men – larger than Bragg’s army, BTW. This huge force amounts to more than two infantry corps of strength. (I doubt CSA Cav in VA ever amounted to half that, despite the larger overall field forces Lee commanded.) Union Cav in the west amounted to about half – roughly 17,000 men, not counting the garrison forces in KY that were simply not available for field duty.

A note about those garrisons, because they create a different dynamic than in the East. Federals in the West controlled large areas of disputed territory, far more than in the East, and so each department – Grant in West Tennessee, Rosecrans in Middle Tennessee, and Burnsides in SE KY and East Tennessee – had to leave about 40 % of their troops in permanent garrisons to secure the occupied territories. This is why Grant might muster 90,000 men in his department in March, but can only free up 50,000 to take the field against Pemberton. While the Eastern Feds had garrison issues, (MD and the B&O RR) they tended to be much smaller as a percentage of forces, and often were close enough to the war to have a role to play, during Gettysburg for example.

Despite this disparity in numbers, however, the Rebels were constantly fooled by Union offensives. Rosecrans outmanuvered and Surprised Bragg three times; during the approach to Murfreesboro, famously at Tullahoma, and again in crossing the Tenn. In each case Wheeler failed miserably, at Tullahoma, Forrest contributed significantly to the confusion.

Or consider Grant’s inland operations behind Vicksburg. Both Pemberton and Johnston were paralyzed with indecision, and had terrible intel. Grant had far superior intel despite his lack of cav, because he was able to use the local slave network and he operated in all but a Rebel Cav vacuum.

Burnsides in East Tenn had similar success. Buckner was at first deceived as to Burnsides’ entry points, and later, the cav sent to help Longstreet never managed to dominate against the limited Federal mounted force there.

We can go back to Perryville and see the same pattern, where Bragg completely misreads the two Federal column, thinks Sill’s diversion is the main body, and attacks Buell’s whole army with 15,000 men. Now we can certainly blame Bragg, but we must also blame Wheeler’s horrible intel during the campaign, as well.

Neither Grant nor Sherman needed developed an emphasis on good cav because they never really needed to – they had all the operational freedom and intel they needed without it. this remarkable fact says a lot about the overall incompetence of the CSA cavalry in the west.

yes, there were some spectacular raids. Holly Springs is the most famous. But even Forrest’s great triumph – Brice’s Crossroads – is a strategic defeat. Forrest needs to be operating against Sherman’s supply lines, where he might have some real effect, not aimlessly chasing Sturgis in Northern Mississippi. The mere fact that he is fighting Sturgis and not Sherman is a failure of Confederate strategic thought.

Of course, the indiscipline of the CSA cav in the west played a major role in this ineffectiveness. Wheeler simply could not control his men, who often came and went as they pleased. Thus, while the CSA did have 30,000 armed and uniformed men roaming the western theater in the spring of 63, for example, maybe only 20,000 of them were responding to army discipline at any one time. Two quick examples can demonstrate the scope of this problem:

In August 63, Rebel cav dispersed to refit. Wharton’s men went to Rome, GA, where they proceeed to earn a remarkable reputation as thieves. When they departed for the front they left behind many men who infested the region for the next 6-8 months as bushwackers and bandits. Similarly, when Dibrell’s Brigade moved to Sparta (home turf) that same month, at least half of his 1200 men stayed behind when Dibrell was recalled to open the Chattanooga campaign.

Much more telling, however, are Wheeler’s numbers during the march to the Sea. Wheeler reports roughly 9,000 men on hand at the start of the march, and nearly 8,000 pfd in January, 65, after the march. During the campaign, however, he claims never to have more than 2,500 men with him. Where are the others? Basically, off pillaging. Many of Wheeler’s men are as bad as any of Sherman’s bummers. Wheeler is simply unable to control them, and they are not really interested in fighting.

This topic is large enough to demand far more attention than I can provide here, but hopefully you get the idea.

I feel that one big reason for the CSA defeat is the mismanagement of the Rebel Cav in the west – the one resource, ironically, that the Confederates had (at least) numerical superiority in for almost two years – mid 62 to mid 64.

The glamour that Forrest and Morgan tend to bring to CSA western cav ops is so strong that the strategic realities get obscured by the mythology, but once you start peeling back the layers, it is hard not to realize that tactically, the Federals dominated the scout-screen mission in campaign after campaign.

Dave Powell

Dave is an authority on the Western Theater and has studied cavalry operations in the Chickamauga Campaign in particular. Thanks for the excellent contribution, Dave.

Continue reading

Last week, I asked this question on the Armchair General forum boards: I’ve often said that part of the reason why I don’t have a great deal of respect for Nathan Bedford Forrest is because, with the distinct exception of James H. Wilson at Selma, he always faced the second team.

I have some thoughts on the subject, but I would be interested in hearing why people think that, until Wilson’s independent command was formed during the fall and winter of 1864-1865, the Union cavalry in the West got short shrift and not the best of the commanders or the weaponry that were commonly distributed to the Army of the Potomac’s Cavalry Corps.

Because I was interested to see what folks might come up with in response, I waited almost a week to propose an answer to my own question. Here’s what I wrote, which is, I think, a fair summary:

I asked this particular question for a reason. This is an issue that I am often asked about, and it’s also a question that I have spent a lot of time pondering over the years. There is no right or wrong answer, only theories and gut reactions. This is what I’ve come up with over the years. These thoughts are presented in no particular order.

I think that the synergy of all of these factors are the reason why the Union cavalry in the Western Theater never made the impact that it did in the East. Would anyone care to comment?

Indeed, I welcome your thoughts here. This is a question that I am often required to address, and it’s one I have invested significant amounts of time in trying to craft a coherent answer for.

Continue reading

The following article appears in today’s issue of The Culpeper Star-Exponent newspaper, and it’s some of the very best preservation news that I’ve heard in a VERY long time. Congratulations to the Brandy Station Foundation and the Civil War Preservation Trust, and, of course, Bud Hall, who has devoted the last twenty years of his life to saving this battlefield, for a job VERY well done:

‘The vortex of hell’

“Practically nothing has been protected at Fleetwood Hill,” Campi said. “Fleetwood Hill is certainly one of the most dramatic battles, so protecting land there has been a priority of ours for some time.”

Hopefully, the second sale will go through, and some of the most historically significant, and most heavily fought-over ground in all of Virginia will be saved forever.

Continue reading

Almost a year ago, I noted here that Ira Shaffer, a descendant of perhaps the greatest cavalryman of all, Marshal Joachim Murat, Napoleon’s cavalry chief, had asked me to become a member of the board of trustees of Friends of the Alligator, a group dedicated to raising funds to build a museum to house a replica of Philadelphia’s own U.S.S. Alligator, the U. S. Navy’s first combat submarine, at the Philadelphia Navy Yard, where the submarine was built. The Gator sank off the Outer Banks in terrible weather in 1862. It predated the C.S.S. Hunley. The difference is that the Hunley has been found, while the Gator has not.

Today, Ted Savas, who is also a member of the board of the Friends, shared some horrible, tragic news with me. From the January 1 issue of the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Ira Shaffer, 57, headed charitable group

Mr. Shaffer and his wife met at the Shore and married in 1996. He is also survived by brothers Ronald and Hal.

Ira only recently began the job with Operation Homefront. Just a few months ago, he excitedly told me about the new job in a series of e-mails, and he was very eager to do some good. That was Ira–his prior job was with the Salvation Army. He was a guy who did the right thing.

We had talked about trying to get together for lunch on one of my trips home, and due to my father’s stroke, we hadn’t been able to get it together yet. Now I deeply regret that, as I won’t have the chance.

Ira Shaffer is a loss to the City of Philadelphia, to the community of people at large, and especially to the Civil War community, and I will miss him. Let’s hope that Philadelphia’s finest find the bastard that did this, and that they exact the appropriate measure of justice.

Continue reading