I have not blogged about Chattanooga through the sesquicentennial of that battle. Mostly because I was unable to make an expedition that way during the fall to refresh my photographic archives. Lots of cannon stories and interesting subjects for “walk arounds.” But I’ve not visited since the late 1990s, and don’t have good pictures to back up the posts.
That said, let me pull up one familiar wartime artillery photographs taken at Chattanooga which featured artillery:
I count eighteen tubes in this view. All 12-pdr Napoleons. Some with the straight muzzle of Confederate manufacture. Others with a muzzle swell, which could be captured Federal (but not in this case) or those of early Confederate manufacture.
Captain Thomas G. Baylor, Chief of Ordnance for the Army of the Cumberland provided a by-type listing of guns that Army captured at Chattanooga. Since the photo carries the caption linking to that particular field army, let us figure odds are good the weapons in the photo are among those listed in Baylor’s report. Baylor tallied:
- Eight 6-pdr guns
- Thirteen 12-pdr light field guns, Confederate pattern
- Six 12-pdr light field guns, Leeds & Company, New Orleans
- Three 12-pdr field howitzers
- One 3-inch rifle, Confederate pattern
- Four 10-pdr Parrott rifles, 2.9-inch bore
- Two rifled 6-pdrs with 3.67-inch bore
- One James rifle with 3.8-inch bore
- Two 24-pdr siege guns.
A grand total of forty guns. That does not count a handful of weapons captured by other formations (outside of the Army of the Cumberland) in the battle. Aside from the siege guns, no real surprises here. The Army of the Tennessee had benefited from the battlefield captures from Chickamauga. With the defeat on Missionary Ridge, the Army of Tennessee lost almost a third of its artillery. And a substantial portion of the guns remaining were off near Knoxville in another ill-fated endeavor.
So eighteen of the nineteen Napoleons show up in that photo (maybe I miscounted or maybe one is tucked away at the end of the line). That’s almost five (four gun) batteries of the preferred Napoleons. And all of those Napoleons recorded by Baylor were Confederate manufacture. That was like a solid punch in the gut to the southern war effort. All the time and resources allocated to producing those fine guns ended up a naught. Another photo of that line of Napoleons, taken from a different angle, best illustrates that point:
The markings are out of focus. But looking close at the trunnion on the second gun in the row, there’s a three line manufacturer stamp.
Sort of reminds me of the stamp used by Augusta Arsenal:
The fourth gun also teases with an out of focus stamp:
If I had to venture a guess, I’d say Leeds & Company. But that would be a wild guess.
Others who have interpreted this photo pick out the stencil on the carriage trail for the first gun in the line:
“Macon Arsenal // 1863 // GA.”
So total up the cost to produce one bronze gun tube, a carriage, limber, implements, and such. Multiply that by nineteen. There’s the cost of that line of guns in dollars in cents to the Confederate war effort.
And by the way, those nineteen guns? That would represent about 5% of the total Confederate bronze Napoleon production through the entire war. All in a nice row, but under new ownership. No doubt a few of them destined for a return to the battlefield… but as static displays long after the sounds of war disappeared.
(Baylor’s report appears in OR, Series I, Volume 31, Part II, Serial 53, pages 99-100.)