TOCWOC - A Civil War Blog

If you're new To TOCWOC, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

While looking through Francis A. Walker’s Second Army Corps in the Army of the Potomac I came across this passage, which describes the fighting between Heth’s division and Hancock’s Second Corps at the Battle of Boydton Plank Road:

It may be interesting to pass to the Confederate side and see how the operations of the 27th of October were viewed there. I have in my possession a letter from Major-General Heth, commanding one of A. P. Hill’s divisions and actually in command of all the troops opposed to Parke, to Warren, or to Hancock during the day. “The grave error of the day committed on your side, in my opinion,” says General Heth, “was that, after crossing Hatcher’s Run and starting to march up, Crawford permitted himself to be stopped in [within ?] certainly half a mile or less, of my right flank. Hearing a force was moving up the run, on the west side, I hurriedly sent about fifty or seventy-five sharpshooters to find out definitely what this force consisted of, and to delay it as long as possible. Mind: all this occurred in dense woods. Crawford, not knowing the smallness of the force opposed to him, formed line of battle, and, I was informed, commenced to intrench. Had he pushed on, my flank would have been completely turned, and I would have been compelled to evacuate my works. About this time, or soon after Crawford’s movement was checked, Mahone reported to me with two brigades of his division. Convinced now that Parke would make no serious assault, and Crawford remaining quiet, I withdrew one brigade, McRae’s, from my lines, and, uniting it with Mahone’s two brigades, I crossed over the river with this force,” etc.

Although Harry Heth gets a bad rap as a general on the basis of his performance on the first day of Gettysburg, he definitely shone this day. Although the Federals initially gained the road, Heth counterattacked and drove them back, retaining the vital artery for the Confederates for the rest of the winter.

This was typical of the way the Confederates used their sharpshooters. Although organized into 3-5 companies for administrative purposes, tactically each battalion usually operated as two “corps” of 70-100 men each. The sharpshooters that Heth sent against Crawford were probably one “corps,” which managed to bluff an entire Union division, allowing Heth to concentrate his men elsewhere.

Lincoln and His Admirals by Craig L. Symonds

Product Details

• Hardcover: 448 pages
• Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA (October 17, 2008)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0195310225
• ISBN-13: 978-0195310221

If this book is not a finalist for a major award in Lincoln and Civil War history, we will have a gross injustice. This intelligent, interesting, readable book is one of the most original informative Civil War histories I have read this year. The author is retired from the U.S. Naval Academy after 30 years of teaching. During that time, he won both the Naval Academy’s “Excellence in Teaching” award (1988) and its “Excellence in Research” award (1998). This shows in his ability to construct a sentence that contains a lot of information without boring or losing the reader.

His portraits of the players are excellent. We never lose sight of the fact that they have not read the history book and do not know what is happening. Each crisis has the feel of current events unfolding as we read. Lincoln’s management style is fully developed and we understand what a masterful politician he is. The fighting between the departments of State, War and Navy are fully developed and completely understandable. While the book is written from the Navy’s perspective, the author never takes sides and faithfully reports the whole story.

Most Civil War history ignores the Nay’s role. This book gives us a detailed history of naval operations and the development of combined Army Navy actions. Lincoln never had a quite day as President. He had just sat down when the problem of supplies at Fort Sumter dropped on him. The author provides a detailed account of the decision-making and the problems associated with that action. His account of the Trent Affair could be one of the best accounts in existence. The same can be said of his Red River Campaign and his discussion of the impact of cotton on the war.

This is not a book of blazing guns! It is a book of politics, technology and personalities interacting during war. Ambition, personal preferences and personality quirks make up the story. This is not a view of the war we often see but it is a very important view that we need to be aware of. Craig L. Symonds gives us this view in an entertaining and informative book that belongs in every library.

A Lincoln letter, or at least an official copy, has surfaced at the Dallas Historical Society. It’s the famous “Bixby letter” in which the president attempts to console a mother for the loss of her five sons. There are problems, as the article points out—Lydia Bixby was no fan of Lincoln’s; all of her sons did not die, and the authorship of the letter is disputed.

Historians have also argued that John Hay, one of Lincoln’s secretaries, wrote the letter. Hay was an accomplished writer who wrote a biography of Lincoln and later became ambassador to the United Kingdom.

“Lincoln probably wrote it,” Cornelius said. “Hay did on some occasions write letters in Lincoln’s name and sign them — or have Lincoln sign them — but probably not something like this that purports to be so personal and individual and heartfelt.”

The letter received widespread attention days after it was written. Bixby either sent it to the Boston Evening Transcript or a postal worker intercepted it and tipped off the newspaper, which reprinted the letter, Cornelius said.

President-elect Barack Obama may not have carried the Deep South, but he did carry the Cotton Belt. Strange Maps, a very neat web site, looks at the politics of cotton then and now. I might add that Obama also carried two states of the Upper South, Virginia and (barely) North Carolina. This may or may not have had anything to do with the fact that these two states joined the Confederacy last, and reluctantly.

Also of interest is the Sweet Tea Line, a sort of cultural Mason-Dixon line, which appears to be moving southward, and distribution of the terms for soft drinks (pop, coke, soda).

Many regional differences, although not nearly as pronounced as they were in the 1860s, still exist.

Longtime TOCWOC reader Mark Kucinic recently contacted us with the following interesting observation:

I just finished reading a biography of Winfield Scott and ran across a piece of info I have never noted before. I went back through my somewhat extensive library and have taken part in a number of discussions about the origins of the Civil War, but no where have come across the fact that two days after Lincoln was inaugurated the Confederate govt called authorized an army of 100,000. This would be proposing the biggest army that had ever existed in the western hemisphere and was akin to the mobilization orders that began WWI. Why does this not get more notice?

Comments?  We’d be interested to hear what everyone thinks.

One of the most common features of the Civil War battlefield was the rifle pit, especially in the last two years of the war. Yet this feature was unknown in Napoleon’s time. As the name suggests, the rifle pit’s introduction coincided with the widespread use of the rifle, and can be dated to the Siege of Sevastapol in 1854-55. It was the brainchild of a Russian engineer, Lieutenant Colonel Franz Todleben, whom one historian described as:

a man whose talents as a military engineer were close to genius. Born in the Baltic provinces of Russia, Todleben was in appearance, origin and temperament a Prussian. He was tall and broad-shouldered and had a commanding presence. His eyes were penetrating, his nose long and beaked, his large, well-brushed moustache followed in its downward curves a wide, determined mouth. He was only thirty-seven but already enjoyed a reputation as a revolutionary military thinker, refusing to accept the concept of a fortress as a static position. The defences of a fortress, as of an entrenched position, must, he thought, be made elastic and capable of constant alteration and modification as the exigencies of the siege demanded. It was an idea which, given time, he was determined to apply to Sebastopol.

After almost being canned for criticizing his superior, Prince Mentschikoff, Todleben took over preparations for the defense of Sevastapol. Most of the Russian defenders were armed with smoothbores, some of which were flintlock relics from the Napoleonic era, while most of the Allies had rifles, many of them the latest Minié versions. The Allies began digging in for a siege, thinking they were secure if they were out of musket range i.e. about 300 yards or so. Todleben, however, was not going to leave them in peace. He concentrated the riflemen he did have to harass them.

Thus, Todleben developed a new feature in trench warfare, which the range and accuracy of the rifle had rendered possible. At night, parties issuing from the place dug, on selected parts of the ground between the opposing lines, rows of pits each fitted to hold a man, and having in front a few sandbags, or sometimes a screen of stones, so disposed as to protect his head, and to leave a small opening through which to fire. At daybreak they began to harass the guards of the trenches opposite, within easy range of them. The French especially suffered by being thus overlooked, and their proximity caused the enemy to adopt this form of warfare chiefly in opposing them.
To direct guns on objects so small as these pits, and frequently at a great distance from the batteries, seemed but a doubtful policy, and they were therefore opposed by men, similarly covered by sandbags, from the parapets.
After a time, Todleben, finding his idea so successful, expanded it; the rows of rifle pits were connected, by trenches, in parts of which shelter was given to continuous ranks of riflemen, and the defence being thus pushed out in advance of the general line, wore the aspect of besieging the beseigers. He had begun these enterprises in November, greatly aggravating the cares of the scanty defenders of the trenches.

To oppose the Russians the French and British both organized sharpshooter detachments of their own, and soon much of the action in the siege centered around vicious little picket fights for commanding terrain. In spite of their superior rifles (the British sharpshooters used the brand new P53 Enfield, the most advanced rifle then in service) they were never able to silence the stubborn Russians, who managed to seriously retard the progress of the siege.

One of the foreign observers in the Crimea was a young engineer captain, George Brinton McClellan, who wrote a detailed report of the siege, including the uses of the rifle pit. Even though barely mentioned by military theorists like Halleck and Mahan, both sides quickly adopted it during the Civil War for the same reasons Todleben found it so useful—it protected your own line and allowed you to harass your enemy’s.

I looked at what a Civil War rifle pit actually looked like in a previous post.

Many Civil War histories sort of assume that tactics developed in a vacuum, without antecedents. In a previous post I mentioned that both sides used tactics developed by the French chasseurs. Here I’ll point those who are interested in light infantry tactics toward some resources on the web.

We hear a lot about “Napoleonic warfare” but see few definitions of what it exactly is. A great place to start your education is the massive Napoleon, His Army, and His Enemies site. Chock full of information about the French army and that of the various allied armies, the weapons, the politics, and much, much more. I particularly recommend the page on infantry tactics, which contains a great deal of info on light infantry and skirmishing. One thing that I hadn’t thought about is that the French term for skirmisher is tirailleur, which translates literally as “sharpshooter.” This tracks pretty well with Confederate usage of the term, which leaves me wondering if that was where they got it from. It certainly makes more sense that seeing them as snipers, which is quite popular today.

If you’re interested in taking a look at the Revolutionary War (which after all took place less than 80 years prior, much of it on the same ground), I recommend Americanrevolution.org. The home page is rather garish, but there’s a lot of good original source material there. Of particular interest is the full text of J. F. C. Fuller’s British Light Infantry in the Eighteenth Century, which is hard to find and pricey on the used market. It’s an excellent overview over the deveopment of light infantry up to the Napoleonic era.

Should you want to look at the American tactical manuals, go to the US Regulars site, which has the complete text of Silas Casey’s Infantry Tactics.

If you’re looking for something to hang on the wall, old-print.com has original Victorian era prints, mostly from newspapers and magazine, for sale. I bought a few of the chasseurs.

If you like miltary art, take a look at Croatian artist Velimir Vuksic’s site. Images of fighting men from all periods, including the Napoleonic and American Civil War.

The Shenandoah Spy: Being the True Life Adventures of Belle Boyd, CSA, the ‘Confederate Cleopatra’

By Francis Hamit

 In his novel, The Shenandoah Spy, Francis Hamit weaves facts and fiction around the espionage activities of the legendary Confederate spy Belle Boyd, creating an entertaining storyline that includes her real-life encounters with other well known historical personalities.

 As Hamit points out in his Foreword, “this book is fiction, but closer to the truth about her (Boyd) than many a history written about her.” This is probably true. I’ve read many stories about Belle Boyd – and then many other stories discounting the ones I had read. That she was a spy and vehemently loyal to the South cannot be disputed, but the liberties both sides took after the war in describing her actions make the details of her war experiences murky at best.

 Nevertheless, Belle’s life as a spy and her interactions with such notable Confederate heroes as General Turner Ashby and General Stonewall Jackson make a compelling and interesting read. The most notable story, that of Belle running through a hailstorm of lead during a battle, serves as the central event of the novel, and offers insight into her courage and devotion to the Southern Cause. It is clear that Hamit has done his research, even weaving in real bits of dialogue that are documented as having occurred.

 The cast of characters in The Shenandoah Spy provides a history lesson in and of itself, but I am sad to say I cannot recommend it as a teaching tool due to the explicit sex scenes. As I have noted in other reviews, I am perhaps overly old-fashioned, but I find such scenes in historical fiction extremely distasteful. As an author, I also found the use of multiple points of view confusing, but many readers are not bothered by this in the least.

 Overall, this novel gives a good glimpse into the lives of civilians who were thrust into war and the choices they made to stand up for what they believed in. It should especially appeal to readers who enjoy Civil War espionage and strong, heroic, female characters.

“There is no evidence” is a phrase that historians love to throw out, but it’s one that ought to be used more cautiously than it is. Just because you haven’t seen it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. Most of what we evaluate is paper evidence, which covers only a small part of what actually happens. Many things happen, particularly in a military context, that everyone knows about at the time, so no one bothers to remark on. Some are never recorded on paper, and much of the paper is ephemeral, that is, something like a duty roster or target score gets written down, used, and then thrown away. When you add in the destruction of war and the passage of time, a lot of information about the Civil War era has disappeared. Then too, many historians rely on the same sources.

I found some of the best information on sharpshooter training not in official documents but in soldier’s letters home. They assumed that the folks back home did not know about that sort of thing and often went into considerable detail.

An excellent example of what I’m talking about is my recent post on the silver stadia awarded to a soldier in the 62nd Pennsylvania for being the regiment’s best shot. The regiment’s Boswell, John Henderson, who has looked at a great deal of material both official and private on it, tells me that “I never have read anything about target practice or marksmanship contests.” Thus one might conclude that “there is no evidence” that the 62nd ever had a marksmanship program. Then the silver stadia pops up. Now we have physical proof of a program, and the top award made just as prescribed in Heth’s book on marksmanship. So this makes you wonder—if this is the case here, how many other regiments had marksmanship programs but did not mention them? Can we still say that lack of evidence is conclusive?

American Civil War units often copied their European counterparts. The best known were the flashy zouaves, but there were others as well, such as the chasseurs. The name means “hunter” in French, and they were light infantry, the functional equivalent of the German Jägers. Chasseurs came in both infantry (chasseurs à pied) and cavalry (chasseurs à cheval) versions. During the period of roughly 1840 to 1855 they completely revolutionized infantry tactics during their service in Algeria. Chasseurs considered themselves elite troops and wore a distinctive outfit with baggy pants, tight blouse, and a peaked kepi.

The new French light infantry system emphasized small unit tactics and individual initiative – both revolutionary concepts in 19th Century Europe (where the soldier tended to be treated as a cog in a machine), but an absolute necessity in an irregular war like Algeria. They extended the British practice of skirmishers firing by files one step further, grouping two files together into a four-man section called comrades de battaille, or comrades of battle, who were also encouraged to form strong personal bonds of friendship and mutual reliance. It also allowed them, especially with the new rifles, to keep up a steady fire while always keeping at least one weapon loaded. To control their lengthy skirmish lines the chasseurs used the bugle, and added over twenty calls to their repertoire. In 1845 they codified these new tactics in a manual, Ordonnance du Roi sur l’exercise et les manoeuvres des bataillions de chasseurs à pied, or “Instructions for the Evolutions and Maneuvers of the Foot Chasseurs.” Ten years later American lieutenant colonel (and future Confederate general) William J. Hardee translated this manual into English at the behest of then-Secretary of War Jefferson Davis to replace the existing tome written by General Winfield Scott. The War Department adopted Rifle and Light Infantry Tactics (later simply called Tactics) on March 29th, 1855. This drill book, essentially a word for word translation of the French, would be the standard tactical reference for both sides during the Civil War.

The French also continued to refine their “scientific method” of riflery with a demanding four month course of instruction at Vincennes, and published an influential manual on the subject, Instruction sur le tir (Instructions on firing), that was in due course translated by US Army Captain (and also future Confederate general) Henry Heth as A System of Target Practice in 1858.

Neither Heth nor Hardee changed anything in the manuals. Even the illustrations (above, from Heth) are of French chasseurs. Thus chasseur tactics and rifle training were standard for both sides during the conflict.

Various American units, mostly Union, styled themselves chasseurs. One of these was the 62nd Pennsylvania, which has an excellent web site put up by New Yorker John Henderson. He’s done a great job of digging out a wealth of information about the regiment and its men, including quite a number of period photos. Two of these show soldiers wearing their Chasseurs de Vincennes uniforms, imported from France. Two regiments, the 62nd and 83rd Pennsylvania, received these uniforms in 1861 as a reward for being the best drilled outfits in the army. One soldier described them thus:

It is blue. The breeches are about three feet across the hips, tapering down to the ankle; a sort of blue monkey jacket, a large cape with a hood fastened to the back of it; one tight cloth skull cap with a tassel, and a dress parade cap which very much resembles our old patent leather cap. This cap has a plume of red, white, and blue feathers.

The men of the 62nd wore these fancy uniforms around camp for awhile, then went back to regulation uniforms for field service, which seemed to be the fate of most of the chasseur suits.

Bill Adams sent me a link to a nice piece of Civil War militaria—a silver stadia. Normally made of brass, the stadia was a primitive range-finding instrument with scales on one side for cavalry and infantry on the other. I’ve never seen a reference to anyone actually using one (estimating by eye usually worked better and was much faster). Still, they were customarily given out as marksmanship prizes, such as to the best shot in the regiment. Silver ones like this were rare and were normally reserved for the army’s top shot.

This one can be traced to an actual soldier who, we would presume, was the regiment’s top marksman.

Solid Silver Civil War Stadia Sight Awarded to “W. A. Lynch/ Co.F 62nd Regt. Pa. Vol.”, Which Is the Period Inscription Engraved on the Reverse of the Sight. As noted above these silver specimens were awarded to the best shot in the regiment, with only a handful of surviving examples. … Lynch enlisted in the 62nd Pennsylvania, an elite chasseur regiment, on July 22, 1861 and was mustered out July 13, 1864.

Bidding starts at a mere $5750 and is expected to get into the $10,000 range.

UPDATE: John Henderson, whose web site I mention above, provides some personal information about William A. Lynch:

Age at Enrollment: 18; Occupation: Painter; Residence: Allegheny Co.; Hair: Dark; Eyes: Brown; Complexion: Fair; Height: 5′ 4″

UPDATE: I rechecked Heth, which you can find on Google:

The regimental prize will be a silver stadia, with a silver chain attached. It will be awarded by the colonel of the regiment to that company prizeman who has made the shortest string ; and his name and company will be announced in regimental orders.

The brass stadia goes to the best company shot. Heth says both will be provided by the Ordnance Department, but you have to wonder whether that applied to the volunteers. The Army prize was a silver medal worn around the neck.