When reviewing the 4th US Artillery Regiment’s summary from the fourth quarter, 1862, we saw an extra line designated for the “Colonel” of the regiment. That line covered tools and stores on hand at Fort Washington, Maryland. The equipment, which did not include any cannons but did include some small arms, were items not issued to batteries. Presumably, Colonel Charles S. Merchant, commander of the regiment (more a “paper” command, of course) had direct responsibility for those stores.
But for the first quarter, 1863, that line for Merchant’s stores is absent:
Not a significant change, but one worth pause for discussion. When an officer received equipment, he was responsible for the care, maintenance, and, very importantly, accountability of the equipment. An officer might be held liable if the equipment is damaged or lost while assigned to him. When the equipment was transferred, the officer needed documentation to support relief from responsibility. This is one reason we often find correspondence between officers discussing relatively trivial matters of equipment. That said, there was probably some document in Merchant’s personal papers concerning the transfer of three revolvers or various implements to another party. The good colonel would not want some trouble over such trivial issues to detain him later. Just something to consider when looking through correspondence.
But we are not concerned with property accountability 150 years after the fact, but rather the status of those batteries. And here’s what was reported:
- Battery A – At Falmouth, Virginia with six 3-inch Ordnance Rifles. The battery was assigned to the artillery reserve of Second Corps, Army of the Potomac. During the winter, Lieutenant Alonzo Cushing replaced Lieutenant Samuel Canby in command of the battery.
- Battery B – Reporting in from Belle Plain, Virginia with six 12-pdr Napoleons. Lieutenant James Stewart commanded this battery assigned to First Division of the First Corps.
- Battery C – Around Falmouth, Virginia with six 12-pdr Napoleons. Supporting First Division, Second Corps and commanded by Lieutenant Evan Thomas.
- Battery D – From Suffolk, Virginia and reporting six 3-inch Ordnance Rifles. Assigned to Seventh Corps and commanded by Captain Frederick M. Follett.
- Battery E – No report. Transferred from the Ninth Corps in February, Lieutenant Samuel S. Elder’s battery became part of the Horse Artillery assigned to the Cavalry of the Army of the Potomac.
- Battery F – At Stafford Court House, Virginia with six 12-pdr Napoleons. Lieutenant Franklin B. Crosby, who would not survive the Chancellorsville Campaign, commanded this battery supporting First Division, Twelfth Corps.
- Battery G – Outside Fredericksburg, Virginia with six 12-pdr Napoleons. Assigned to the Army of the Potomac’s Artillery Reserve and commanded by Lieutenant Marcus P. Miller.
- Battery H – Out in Murfreesboro, Tennessee and in possession of four 12-pdr field howitzers. In January, Batteries H and M (below) split. Lieutenant Charles C. Parsons retained command of the battery at that time, but later in the springpassed command of the battery to Lieutenant Harry C. Cushing. Battery H supported Second Division, Twenty-First Corps.
- Battery I – Winchester… Tennessee, not Virginia with four 12-pdr Napoleons. Lieutenant Frank G. Smith commanded this battery, supporting Third Division, Fourteenth Corps.
- Battery K – Another battery at Falmouth, Virginia with six 12-pdr Napoleons. Lieutenant Francis W. Seeley remained in command of this battery, which was assigned to Second Division, Third Corps.
- Battery L – At Suffolk, Virginia with two 12-pdr field howitzers and four 10-pdr Parrotts. Lieutenant Henry C. Hasbrouck commanded this battery of Seventh Corps.
- Battery M – At Murfreesboro, Tennessee reporting four 12-pdr Napoleons and two 24-pdr field howitzers. After the split with Battery H, Lieutenant Francis L. D. Russell assumed command. The battery supported Second Division, Twenty-First Corps.
Note that all but one battery’s return was received in Washington for the quarter. And those received between April and August of 1863. The 4th Artillery kept on top of their paperwork.
The regiment had thirty-eight Napoleons. As such, we see a lot of 12-pdr rounds on hand:
Most of the entries are as we might expect, but one entry raises questions:
- Battery B – 216 shot, 92 shell, 216 case, and 92 canister for 12-pdr Napoleon.
- Battery C – 96 shot, 96 shell, 384 case, and 192 canister for 12-pdr Napoleon.
- Battery F – 252 shot, 76 shell, 252 case, and 76 canister for 12-pdr Napoleon.
- Battery G – 86 shot, 35 shell, 103 case, and 40 canister for 12-pdr Napoleon.
- Battery H – 240 shell and 240 case for 12-pdr field howitzer. Then 128 in the column for 12-pdr mountain howitzer canister. Though as mentioned last week, I think this was the clerk’s expediency and was actually canister for field howitzer of the same caliber.
- Battery I – 200 shot, 64 shell, 188 case, and 64 canister for 12-pdr Napoleon.
- Battery K – 288 shot, 96 shell, 288 case, and 96 canister for 12-pdr Napoleon.
- Battery L – 140 shell and 154 case for 12-pdr field howitzer. 32 canister for 12-pdr mountain or field howitzer, as the case may be.
- Battery M – Here’s a question of what should have been. The battery reported no ammunition for its 24-pdr field howitzers. I’ve shown the empty columns here (split to the right as they appear on the next page of the form). So were the ammunition chests empty?
One other question comes to mind when comparing the numbers to the previous quarter. There are no changes, for the most part, in reported quantities within the batteries supporting the Army of the Potomac. Is that to say the batteries were “topped off” in December 1862 and needed no more? Or might this be a “copy what we reported last quarter” approach to filling the form? Either way we have a reason to question the quantities.
Moving next to see what feed the gunners had for rifled guns, first the Hotchkiss projectiles:
Two batteries with 3-inch rifles and two batteries with Hotchkiss:
- Battery A – 120 canister, 50 percussion shell, 305 fuse shell, and 725 bullet shell for 3-inch rifle. And note, these are the same quantities reported by the battery for the previous quarter…. go figure.
- Battery D – 53 canister, 49 percussion shell, 342 fuse shell, and 576 bullet shell for 3-inch rifle. Now these quantities do differ from the previous quarter.
The next page of the summary covers Dyers, James, and Parrott projectiles, along with a few columns for additional Hotchkiss and Schenkl projectiles. But there is a lot of empty space in that section. The whole snip is posted for your review. I’ll focus on the Parrott columns:
Just one battery reporting, as expected:
- Battery L – 480 shell, 240 case, and 96 canister for 10-pdr Parrott.
And yes, that is exactly what Battery L reported the previous quarter… the trend continues.
The Schenkl/ Tatham columns are bare:
So we turn to the small arms:
All except Battery E reporting something here:
- Battery A – Seventeen Army revolvers and twenty-five horse artillery sabers.
- Battery B – Thirty-seven Navy revolvers and twenty-four cavalry sabers.
- Battery C – Thirteen navy revolvers and thirty-two cavalry sabers.
- Battery D – Nine Army revolvers and 139 horse artillery sabers.
- Battery F – Sixteen Army revolvers and thirteen horse artillery sabers.
- Battery G – Seven Navy revolvers and Ninety-three horse artillery sabers.
- Battery H – Seventeen Army revolvers and six cavalry sabers.
- Battery I – Four Army revolvers and forty-three cavalry sabers.
- Battery K – Twelve Army revolvers, two Navy revolvers and fifteen horse artillery sabers.
- Battery L – Fourteen Army revolvers and 118 horse artillery sabers.
- Battery M – Seven Army revolvers and seventeen cavalry sabers.
I would point out these quantities differ from those reported the previous quarter. And such leaves a conundrum. Are we to conclude the ammunition quantities reported were accurate, with little to no resupply over the winter? Perhaps there was some omission, across the board, of ammunition numbers? Or maybe some clerical magic was in play? And I’m sure you can come up with other possibilities. Again, the point here is that the summaries should not be considered very accurate of data sets. We have to keep the anomalies and questions in mind. But… they are the most complete sets of data available for the subject!