The Folwell letters, June 25, 1863, morning entry: “We are to lay the other Bridge here….”

Captain William Folwell provided two entries for June 25, 1863.  The first was early in the morning, and apparently written as an addition to the June 24th letter:

June 25th, 7 A.M.  Lt. [John] Davidson brought this letter back to me, having met his Co. on the way up.  We are to lay the other Bridge here and not at Monocacy.  The reserve artillery crossed here last night, and the 11th Corps is coming now.  All bound for Harper’s Ferry, they say.  Must get breakfast now and then to work.  We expect mail today.

Brief, but alluding to a couple of points in the larger story of the crossing at Edwards Ferry.  And June 25th was a busy day at Edwards Ferry, to say the least.

Let us focus on what occurred between midnight and 7 a.m. on that day:

  • Sometime after midnight:  Major-General Oliver O. Howard, then at the Virginia side of Edwards Ferry, receives orders to cross the Eleventh Corps the following morning.
  • 3:45 a.m.:  Eleventh Corps breaks camp.
  • 5 a.m.:  Major E. O. Beers, 15th New York Engineers, arrives at the Maryland side of Edwards Ferry with equipment to lay a second bridge at that point.  But the engineers are still unsure as to where the bridge is needed (upstream or downstream of existing bridge?).
  • Between 6 and 7 a.m.: Orders issued to most of the Army of the Potomac to move towards Edwards Ferry for crossing.  This included the Artillery reserve which was at that time near Fairfax Court House.

And… not until 10 a.m. did a response come down from Army Headquarters providing clarity to the question about bridge placement.

I think, given what we know of the “big picture,” 7 a.m. was an important point on the time line.  Troops were beginning to move towards Edwards Ferry… lots of troops.  A second bridge was about to go in the water.  And all sorts of things would be in motion from that point.  But at 7 a.m., things were paused… perhaps stalled… as all these components were breaking the resting inertia.  Those orders trickling out of headquarters were the force to break that inertia, setting things in motion.

One unit that was already in motion which I did not mention above was Major-General Julius Stahel’s cavalry division (not officially at that time, but soon to become the 3rd Division, Cavalry Corps).  Stahel’s command returned from their picket lines on June 24 (generally on the Bull Run Mountains, for brevity here).  The division was immediately ordered to cross the Potomac and march for Harpers Ferry and support the garrison there.  Their assigned line of march was across Young’s Island Ford.  But this is where the time line for them gets muddled.  Likely, Stahel’s troopers did not reach the ford until the morning of June 25. At which time, they found the ford impassible for the entire column.  At most, some of the troopers crossed.  But the wagons along with the 9th Michigan Battery, which was assigned to the division, had to cross elsewhere.  From dispatches on June 25 and subsequent days, it is clear Stahel’s baggage train didn’t cross with the command (and added to the traffic problems at Edwards Ferry… and to the logistic problems in Maryland).   The only real accounting of their crossing comes from Major-General Hooker, indicating “General Stahel crossed the river this morning near Edwards Ferry….”  Of course Young’s Island Ford was plenty near Edwards Ferry, so this is not a precise description.

I bring up Stahel’s cavalry here in an attempt to reconcile a discrepancy between Folwell and the dispatches in the Official Records.  Small discrepancies in a short passage, but some that need be addressed.  We have Folwell’s mention of the Reserve Artillery.  There is a mountain of evidence indicating the Reserve Artillery did not arrive at Edwards Ferry until the evening of June 25.  The artillery crossed the following day, following the Fifth Corps.

So what was the artillery Folwell mentioned?   It is unlikely any of the reserve batteries were detached at that time, as we have no record of such.  More likely is that Folwell, having enjoyed a good night’s rest, was simply passing along what came to him in conversation… in other words – rumors.  Something with horse teams and wheels crossed that night, but it wasn’t the Reserve Artillery.  I would hold out the possibility that some other artillery crossed early in the morning of June 25. The most likely candidate would be the 9th Michigan Battery, assigned to Stahel.  And such would confirm my long standing assumption that a substantial element of Stahel’s command actually crossed at Edwards Ferry that morning.  But, if I had to bet on this, my money would be on Folwell repeating rumors.

The most important part of this passage, however, is mention of the bridge to be laid.  Folwell, writing at 7 a.m., knew a bridge was to be laid.  But neither him or any other engineer at Edwards Ferry, at that time, knew where the commander wanted that bridge to be laid.  And bridges, once laid, are difficult to move.  Sort of a “you only get one shot to get it right” situation, with the entire Army of the Potomac due to arrive on the Virginia side looking for a dry crossing to Maryland.  More work for Folwell and the rest of the engineers on June 25.  And he would relate that in his second installment for the day, which we will look at next.

(Citations from William Watts Folwell, Civil War Diary, unpublished, transcription retrieved from University of Minnesota Library, pages 417-8 (pages 423-4 of scanned copy))

Summary Statement, 2nd Quarter, 1863 – Kentucky’s Batteries

Kentucky’s batteries appear with different designations across the various sources I have used to formally identify units.  A good example is that organized and commanded through May 1863 by Captain David C. Stone.  The battery appears on the Army of the Cumberland’s return for Stone’s River as “Kentucky, Battery A” which might also be transformed to “Battery A, Kentucky Light Artillery” or as the State Adjutant’s report, compiled post-war, indicated “Battery A, 1st Kentucky Light Artillery.”  But later in 1863, the same battery, under the command of Captain Theodore S. Thomasson, appears in the Army of the Cumberland’s returns as “1st Kentucky Battery” (and there was, just below that entry a 2nd Kentucky Battery, so this was not simply a truncated version with the regimental designation retained).   I’ve written on this before, for the previous quarters.  But for those not tracking posts day-to-day (for shame!), I bring this up again to preface the discussion of the batteries and their returns for the second quarter of 1863.

That all said, we are looking at a couple of numbered batteries plus a couple of detachments for that quarter’s summary:

0185_1_Snip_KY

It appears to me we have “1st Battery” and “3rd Battery” along with detachments under the 14th and 27th Infantry.  But right off the bat, there were indeed three batteries, either numbered or lettered, from Kentucky serving at this time of the war.  And furthermore there was an independent battery serving in West Virginia.  So there is some explaining in order.  First, let’s go with what the summary offers:

  • 1st Battery: At Murfreesboro, Tennessee, with three(?) 6-pdr field guns, three(?) 3-inch Ordnance Rifles, and two 3.80-inch James Rifles.
  • 3rd Battery: At Gualey Bridge, West Virginia, with six 10-pdr Parrotts.
  • Company K, 14th Regiment: At Louisa, Kentucky with four 6-pdr field guns.
  • Company H, 27th Regiment, Infantry:  At Munfordsville, Kentucky, with two 6-pdr field guns.

I have several issues with the identifications offered by the clerks at the Ordnance Department.  But they were there and I was not.  So we’ll work with those.  But before proceeding, here’s what I think those entries should have been:

  • Battery A, or 1st Battery:  At Murfreesboro under Captain Thomasson.  Placed in First Division, Fourteenth Corps when the Army of the Cumberland reorganized. But by June the battery was unassigned.  In May, Captain David C. Stone was relieved due to disability.  It appears around that time the battery was detached from the division and remained in Murfreesboro.  This should be the line marked “1st Battery” on the summary.
  • Battery B, or 2nd Battery: Assigned to Second Division, Fourteenth Corps, under Captain John M. Hewett.  The battery accompanied the division on the Tullahoma Campaign.  There’s no reason the battery should be missing from the summary.  But here we are.  However, I would point out a listing of artillery complied from returns for the Army of the Cumberland indicated Hewett’s battery did not provide a return for the quarter.
  • Battery C, or 3rd Battery:  Authorized in May 1863, according to returns, this battery did not complete organization until September 1863.  Captain John W. Neville would command.  However a curious story-line which I have not completely confirmed places the battery, while still organizing, at Lebanon, Kentucky in July 1863.  And Lebanon fell to Brigadier-General John Hunt Morgan on July 5, 1863, with most of the garrison surrendering, receiving parole. At any rate, this is not the 3rd Battery we see on the summary.
  • Simmonds’ Independent Battery, also 1st Kentucky Independent Battery: Captain Seth J. Simmonds commanded a battery formed out of Company E, 1st Kentucky Infantry.  The battery served at Gauley Bridge and Kanawha Falls, West Virginia in June 1863.  The battery became part of 3rd Division, Eighth Corps.  This battery is probably that identified by the clerks as “3rd Battery.”   This matches the armament and location given for the battery in the previous quarter.
  • 14th Kentucky Infantry: The regiment was formed at Louisa, Kentucky in December 1861.  And they returned home for a while during the winter and spring of 1863.  The regiment was part of the Army of the Ohio.  Colonel George W. Gallup commanded the regiment.  But while he served as commander of the Louisa garrison, Lieutenant-Colonel Orlando Brown, Jr. was in charge.  No further details that I know of regarding the four gun detachment.
  • 27th Kentucky Infantry: This regiment was also part of the Army of the Ohio.  And it was, as indicated on the summary, serving at Munfordsville, Kentucky in June.  Colonel Charles D. Pennebaker was commander. But while he served as garrison commander, Lieutenant-Colonel John H. Ward served in his place.

For clarity, allow me to identify the four lines using the clerks’ convention.  But I will put my identification in parenthesis.

For smoothbore ammunition on hand, we have this short report:

0187_1_Snip_KY

  • 1st Battery (Battery A): 197 shot, 180 case, 111 canister for 6-pdr field guns.
  • 14th Infantry: 596 shot, 411 case, and 306 canister for 6-pdr field guns.

No indication what, if any, the 27th Infantry had on hand.

There are no Hotchkiss projectiles reported on the first page.  That is notable, as the 1st Battery/Battery A had 3-inch rifles on hand.  So no rounds reported to “feed” those guns.

Moving to the next page, we can break those columns down into two sections.  First entries for James rifle projectiles:

0188_1A_Snip_KY

Note, we have a ‘stray’ column of Hotchkiss here:

  • 1st Battery (Battery A):  40 Hotchkiss canister for 3.80-inch James rifles.

Then to the “James” proper:

  • 1st Battery (Battery A): 12 shot and 66 shell for 3.80-inch James rifles.

To the right of that are the Parrott and Schenkl columns:

0188_1B_Snip_KY

These all go to the battery at Gauley Bridge:

  • 3rd Battery (Simmonds’):  1027 shell, 575 case, and 265 canister for 10-pdr Parrott; and 69 Schenkl shot for 10-pdr Parrott.

Simmonds’ Battery reported a substantial stockpile of ammunition the previous quarter, keeping with the trend.

For the next page, there are two entries:

0188_2_Snip_KY

  • 1st Battery (Battery A): 250 Schenkl shell for 3.80-inch rifles; 110 Tatham canister for 3.80-inch rifles.

So, in all a few gaps to question, particularly the 3-inch ammunition for 1st Battery/Battery A.  Otherwise nothing stands out to argue with.

Lastly we have the small arms:

0188_3_Snip_KY

Only the two artillery batteries reporting:

  • 1st Battery (Battery A): Fourteen Navy revolvers, ten cavalry sabers, and twenty-five horse artillery sabers.
  • 3rd Battery (Simmonds’): Thirty-eight Army revolvers and fourteen cavalry sabers.

That concludes a toiling translation of four lines of the summaries.  I don’t like all the guesswork, but that is unfortunately where the trail runs.

Summary Statement, 2nd Quarter, 1863 – Howitzers of the Indian Brigade

Below the lengthy listings for Indiana’s batteries are several short sections to consider:

0185_1E_Snip_IndianBde

We might “bash” through these in a run, covering seventeen batteries at once.  But that wouldn’t be as much fun, when we have time to examine each section in turn… and in detail.  Besides, the first section to consider introduces an entirely new formation – the Indian Brigade:

Briefly – as the story of the Indian Nations during the Civil War is both interesting and complex – the Indian Brigade consisted of four regiments formed from loyal members of the Civilized Tribes.  And that is a gross oversimplification.  The Cherokee, for instance, were deeply split between those who favored the Confederacy and those who remained loyal to the Union.  And that split was convoluted, with some individuals changing sides in the middle of the war.  Early in the war with the successful Confederate diplomatic efforts, the Nations were allied with the Confederates.  Military formations from the Nations fought in several noteworthy actions.  But by mid-1862 there was dissatisfaction within the Nations around the alliance, partly reflecting inter-tribal politics.  With that, refugees – some of whom were deserters from the Confederate-allied formations – moved north to Kansas and Missouri.

Federal authorities formed three Indian Home Guard Regiments, from those seeking refuge and from active recruiting in the Indian Territories, through the summer and fall of 1862. (Two more would be started, but never completely form by war’s end.) It is my understanding these regiments were formed somewhat like the US Colored Troops were later in the war – with white officers appointed, mostly from volunteer regiments.  Those regiments saw service through the war in the District of the Frontier (Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, and the Territories) constituting the Indian Brigade.  Their most important role was providing garrisons as the Federals tried to regain some semblance of control in the Indian Territories.

And again… I’m trying to shove into a few paragraphs what deserves (and has received) book-length treatment. What concerns us are those three regiments.  And most specifically the 3rd Regiment.

0185_1_Snip_IndianBde

The line we have is:

  • Third Regiment:  Fort Blunt, C.N. (Cherokee Nation).  Two 12-pdr mountain howitzers.

The Third Regiment formed through the summer of 1862 under Colonel William A. Phillips, a Scottish-born lawyer and correspondent who’d been an active free-state advocate in pre-war Kansas.   The regiment saw active service through the fall and winter, particularly during the Prairie Grove campaign.  During the winter months, the Indian Brigade moved into the Cherokee Nation.  One of the main garrisons established (or perhaps re-established is a way to put it) was at Fort Gibson, close to the confluence of the Neosho River (known as Grand River in that stretch) and the Arkansas River.  The brigade built Fort Blunt just above Fort Gibson.

So the location given matches to what we know of the regiment’s activities.  But who “commanded” those two mountain howitzers?  For that we turn to the Official Records.  Reports for operations in June and July 1863, including the First Battle of Cabin Creek, mention Captain Solomon Kaufman in charge of a detachment of howitzers.  And Kaufman’s name is associated with the howitzers in later reports, well into 1864.  So it appears those were “his” charge.

Kaufman was, as the name might suggest, another officer transferred from the volunteers to the Indian Home Guard.  Kaufman descended from a German family, which had settled in Pennsylvania, in the 18th century.  He was born in Mifflin County there on Janunary 6, 1832.  More  of Kaufman’s background is found in Portrait and Biographical Record of Southeastern Kansas, published in the 1890s:

He was the first member of the [Kaufman] family to choose a trade in preference to tilling the soil.  When nineteen years of age he began learning the carpenter’s trade and served three years’ apprenticeship.  In 1852 he moved to McLean County, Ill., and in 1854 to Iowa…. The fertile soil and political excitement in Kansas Territory were attracting settlers in that direction, and he decided to make a home within its borders…. From Hampden, in Coffee County, they went to the headwaters of the Pottawatomie creeks, in Anderson County, and there took up claims.

At that time there were only five families within a radius of ten miles of their cabin. The border warfare was going on, and Mr. Kaufman at once offered his services to the state organizations.  He enlisted in the Kansas State Volunteer service under Gen. J.H. Lane and afterward joined the Kansas State Militia under Capt. Samuel Walker….

The company was mustered out in November 1856, when United States troops took a larger role in keeping order in Kansas.  Kaufman returned to his claim, and convinced a number of his former state militia comrades to accompany him.

When the Civil War broke out, the settlers met at the house of Mr. Kaufman and organized a company, Mr. Kaufman being chosen Captain. They prepared for duty, but later Mr. Kaufman bid adieu to his company and enlisted as a private soldier.  he was mustered into the service in Company A, Third Kansas Volunteers, the same being subsequently consolidated with the Fourth Regiment, forming the Tenth Kansas Infantry, his company taking the position of Company C. On the 11th of September, 1862, he was commissioned First Lieutenant of Company L, Third Regiment, Indian Brigade, commanded by Col. William A. Philips, and in May 28, 1863, he was promoted to the rank of Captain.  The commands with which he was connected did service in Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas and Indian Territory, and he participated in numerous engagements with the enemy. He was mustered out of service May 31, 1865.

Returning home, Kaufman married to Melissa Patton just three months after leaving the army.  He went on to lead a prosperous life as a farmer, businessman, and local politician.  Kaufman died in 1909, and was buried in the Graceland Cemetery, Burlington Kansas.  I mention this as Kaufman’s story appeals to me somewhat – not a military professional, but quick to answer the call.  And apparently possessing the skills and leadership to get things done – in or out of uniform.

I’ve wandered a bit off track, so let us turn back to the record here.  With only mountain howitzers on hand, we have a short summary of ammunition:

0187_1_Snip_IndianBde

  • 3rd Regiment: 15 shell, 71 case, and 45 canister for 12-pdr mountain howitzers.

Just enough to start a fuss… or finish one.  As the regiment saw a lot of action in June and July, I’d wonder if the quantities were down due to expenditure.

No rifled guns on hand, so we have no rifled ammunition to worry about.  We move directly to the small arms:

0188_3_Snip_IndianBde

  • 3rd Regiment: Two breechloading carbines and sixty-one rifles.

That would lead me to assume sixty-three men were assigned to Kaufman’s detachment.  For two mountain howitzers?  Perhaps that included the crews plus a detachment of men to guard those valuable howitzers.  Sounds like we have all of Company L, 3rd Indian Home Guard accounted for there.

(Citation from Portrait and Biographical Record of Southeastern Kansas, Chicago: Biographical Publishing Company, 1894,  page 254.)

Speaking Event: Rufus Barringer CWRT on October 19

I’m pleased to announce a speaking event scheduled for later this fall.  I’ll be speaking to the Rufus Barringer Civil War Roundtable, in Southern Pines, North Carolina.

Event details:

Subject: Siege and Reduction of Fort Sumter – story of three great
bombardments… and a lot of smaller ones!

Date: 7 PM, October 19, 2017.

Location: Southern Pines Civic Club, 105
S. Ashe St. Southern Pines, NC.

As readers well know, I love to discuss Fort Sumter.  In particular the lesser-followed stories that sort of get overlooked between the opening shots of the war and the ceremony at the end of the war.  In this case, I’ll focus on the Federal efforts to reduce Fort Sumter, by way of prolonged bombardment.

If you are in that part of the Carolinas, please consider stopping in!

The Folwell letters, June 24, 1863: Waiting on orders and hoping for mail

If pressed to put a label on June 24, 1863, from the perspective of the Army of the Potomac, I’d have to say “hesitations.”  Such would allude the posture at army headquarters as Major-General Joseph Hooker deliberated about how to apply his force to a ever changing situation.  A cloud lay over his situational awareness.

I detailed the situation, and lack of appreciation thereof, back in the sesquicentennial.  Tactically the most important movement of the day was the Eleventh Corps marching to Edwards Ferry.  However, the Engineers suffered as headquarters issued orders, only to countermand and issue new orders later in the day.   Here’s the summary of the brigade’s dispositions at the start of the day, from that sesqui post:

[Brigadier-General Henry Benham] … had 300 engineers of the Regular battalion at Edwards Ferry.  Another 360 of the 15th New York Engineers were at the Monocacy, waiting bridging equipment.  At the Washington Navy Yard, he held 135 men to repair equipment brought up from the Rappahannock and 250 more of the 50th New York Engineers.  Benham wanted to remain in Washington, with those 385 men, to supervise the repairs, which he estimated would take a week.  Headquarters agreed to continue the repairs, but still ordered Benham to the field at Edwards Ferry.

So in the morning the intent was to have a bridge near the Mouth of the Monocacy to complement the one at Edwards Ferry.  The bridge at Edwards Ferry was already heavily used, with supply trains going across to Virginia (so much that replacement parts were requested).  So it would reason a second bridge might be needed as supply needs increased.  Indeed, sage wisdom from many grey-haired logisticians says an army in the field should have a minimum of two supply lines.

But before we label this planned bridge at the Monocacy as “supply line #2”, consider the proposed location.  Such would be on Loudoun County’s “Lost Corner” where the Potomac bends out at an exposed angle.  The Virginia side of the crossing was exposed to attack from the west, over Catoctin Ridge.  Furthermore, the location is but 5-6 miles downstream from Point of Rocks, where Confederates had just raided.  So, my conjecture is that if a bridge was needed for a second supply line, then it would have been downstream of Edwards Ferry (say… Young’s Island or the Seneca Creek area… either of which brings up other “what if?” inquiries).   And thus the proposed Monocacy Bridge was instead intended for troop movements.

All this said, and speculated, the bridge at the Monocacy was not to be.  By the end of the day, the engineers then at the Monocacy and those transiting to that position were instead ordered to concentrate at Edwards Ferry.  I think (again, my speculation) that reports from Major-General Henry Slocum, then in Leesburg, about Confederate movements about Snicker’s Gap caused Hooker to reconsider the bridge.

In the middle of all this changing situation sat Captain William Folwell and Company I, 50th New York Engineers, minding their bridge at Edwards Ferry.  And Folwell’s entry for the day was short… perhaps better said… abrupt:

Edwards Ferry, June 24th, ’63.

Lt. [John] Davidson of Co. H. came up yesterday in charge of animals and returns today.  Strange enough Chaplain did not send our mail.  However, we have so far opportunity to send off the letters we write.  Yesterday afternoon, we moved camp across the canal on to a fine place of sloping ground. My tent stands on a spot from which there is one of the most charming prospects imaginable. The winding of the river, the wooded shores backed by green fields of grain and grass, the bridges and the people on them altogether form a very beautiful scene. I presume I shall have to leave it soon, for we have a telegram announcing that another company is on the way with 1000 ft. of Bridge, which is to be laid at Monocacy.  Probably Co. I will be ordered to assist.  It is a little hard on us who are here that they will not think enough of us at Washington to send us our mail while they are living in high style.  Some of the officers having sent for their wives.  Yes, we are to move up to Monocacy tonight.  I hope Co. A. Capt. [George W.] Ford will arrive with the boats, 1400 ft. of Bridge material will be sent.  Here’s Davidson.  Off –

On a personal side, what stands out is this discussion of the mail.  The Chaplain mentioned would be Edward C. Pritchett, who served the regiment through most of the war.  And shame on those “rear area” officers who were “living in high style” back in Washington!

We also see the bridge at Monocacy as an anticipated task.  We sense the “coiling of the spring” as Folwell prepared to support that endeavor.  I don’t quite know what to presume from the cut off at the end of this entry.  I’ve presented it here precisely as it appears in the type-written transcription.  Is that to say “we are off!” Or is that the first word of a new sentence cut off?

The next entry picks up on June 25th at 7 A.M.  A day and time which we know, from the historical record, was perhaps the most difficult of the campaign for the engineers.  We’ll pick up Folwell’s account there.

(Citations from William Watts Fowell, Civil War Diary, unpublished, transcription retrieved from University of Minnesota Library, pages 417 (pages 423 of scanned copy))

 

Summary Statement, 2nd Quarter, 1863 – Indiana, miscellaneous lines

Before we can leave the Indiana batteries, here for the 2nd quarter, 1863, there is the matter of six lines below the numbered independent batteries:

0185_1_Snip_IndMisc

One of these, Wilder’s Battery on line 28, is familiar from the previous quarter.  Furthermore, that battery would receive a number designation, the 26th, later in the war.  But the others are “new” formations from the perspective of the summary reports.  So we should allow space for detailed “administrative” discussion:

  • Wilder’s Battery (26th Battery): At Somerset, Kentucky with six 3-inch Ordnance Rifles.  Lieutenant Casper W. McLaughlin was in command, with battery assigned to Second Brigade, First Division, Twenty-third Corps.  A Department of the Ohio artillery report, dated June 30, 1863, indicated the battery had six 3-inch steel rifles.  However, as we have often seen, the description of wrought iron guns was often imprecise, from a metallurgical standpoint.
  • Arty Det. 65th Vols“- or 65th Indiana Infantry (mounted):  First the listed particulars – this detachment reported from Raleigh, North Carolina with one 12-pdr field howitzer and three 3-inch Ordnance rifles.  The location most likely reflects the date of report receipt in Washington – May 6, 1865.  And in June 1863, the 65th Indiana had many, many miles to travel before reaching Raleigh.  Backing up to that spring, the regiment was mounted, and assigned to the Second Division, Twenty-third Corps, then serving in Kentucky.  Other than that, I don’t have details of the artillery detachment.
  • Battery [attached] to 1st Ind. Cavalry“: At Pine Bluff, Arkansas with three 10-pdr Parrott rifles.  During the spring of 1863, a portion of the 1st Indiana Cavalry operated in eastern Arkansas, at least six companies.  (Detachments of the regiment were assigned to both Eastern and Western theaters, with varied service histories.)  A June 1863 return has Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas N. Pace in command.  In his report for the Battle of Helena (July 4), Pace indicated First Lieutenant Samuel Lefler, Company B, had command of “our battery.”
  • Battery A, 1st Indiana Heavy Artillery: At Port Hudson, Louisiana with four 20-pdr Parrotts.  Part of the siege operations at that place, and assigned to the First Division, Nineteenth Corps.  Captain Eden H. Fisher was in command.  Interesting to note the clerks rated this battery as “field” and those 20-pdr Parrotts as field guns, despite the battery’s tactical role as siege artillery.
  • Battery E, 1st Indiana Heavy Artillery: Reporting from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, with four 20-pdr Parrotts.  Part of the garrison then at the state capital, and part of the Nineteenth Corps.  Captain James W. Hamrick was in command at this time, according to the State Adjutant’s report.  As with the sister battery, it is worth noting the clerks rated this garrison battery as a field battery, with its Parrotts.
  • Lieut. 35 Infy“:  Reporting at Nashville, Tennessee with three 6-pdr field guns.  The 35th Indiana Infantry was at that time assigned to the Third Brigade, Third Division, Twenty-first Corps.  Recruited as an Irish regiment, the unit was under Major John P. Dufficy at this juncture of the war.  But why those Irish infantrymen were assigned three cannon is unknown to me.  No reports link these guns with the regiment (or higher units) during winter months at Murfreesboro or the Tullahoma Campaign.  The receipt date of this return was in 1865.  After the Atlanta Campaign, the regiment was among those sent to middle Tennessee, and fought there in the battles of late 1864.  So the unit has several periods of service in and around Nashville which this return might match with.

So a lot of unanswered questions remain within those six entries.  But, thankfully, the ammunition pages leave few questions.  Starting with the smoothbore rounds:

0187_1_Snip_IndMisc

With only two lines reporting, which appropriately matches to the cannon reported on hand:

  • 65th Infantry Detachment: 250 shell, 20 case, and 470 canister for 12-pdr field howitzers; and also 48 canister for 6-pdr field guns.
  • 35th Infantry Detachment: 28 shot and 4 case for 6-pdr field guns.

Perhaps it would have been nice for the 65th Infantry to send over that canister to the 35th?

Moving to the Hotchkiss page:

0187_2_Snip_IndMisc

Two batteries reported 3-inch rifles on hand.  But how about that third entry line?

  • Wilder’s Battery:  600 canister, 174 percussion shell, 350 fuse shell, and 426 bullet shell for 3-inch rifles.
  • 65th Infantry Detachment: 140 canister and 150 percussion shell for 3-inch rifles.
  • Battery A, 1st Heavy: 439 fuse shell in 3.67-inch rifle caliber.  And that corresponds to the bore of a 20-pdr Parrott.  Interesting entry, as we more often see Hotchkiss of this caliber issued to James Rifles.  And, as seen from the column header, the Ordnance Department considered it a “Wiard” caliber.  Sort of hitting all the spots there.

Moving to the next page, we can focus on the Parrott and Schenkl columns:

0188_1A_Snip_IndMisc

Three batteries reported Parrott rifles.  And we have three lines to consider:

  • 1st Cavalry Detachment:  60 shell and 20 canister for 10-pdr Parrott.
  • Battery A, 1st Heavy: 250 shell for 20-pdr Parrott.
  • Battery E, 1st Heavy:  260 shell and 8 canister for 20-pdr Parrott.

Under the Schenkl columns:

  • Battery A, 1st Heavy: 40 shot for 20-pdr Parrott.
  • Battery E, 1st Heavy:  16 shot for 20-pdr Parrott.

There are no entries on the next page of projectiles.  So we move to the small arms reported:

0188_3_Snip_IndMisc

  • Wilder’s Battery: Nineteen horse artillery sabers.
  • Battery A, First Heavy:  Forty-eight rifles and eighteen foot artillery swords.

I am certain there are lots of “back stories” within the unanswered questions surrounding these six lines.  If any readers have leads, I would greatly appreciate a comment here.

Summary Statement, 2nd Quarter, 1863 – Indiana’s Independent Batteries (Part 2)

We move down the sheet to the second half of the Indiana independent batteries, numbering 13 through 25:

0185_1_Snip_IndP2

Of the thirteen to consider, seven had posted returns for the quarter.  So more than a few blanks to fill here.  Organizationally, these batteries had very few administrative changes from the previous quarter to note:

  • 13th Battery: No return.  Captain Benjamin S. Nicklin’s battery remained at Gallatin, Tennessee.  Though part of the Army of the Cumberland, the battery was unattached.
  • 14th Battery: No return.  This battery remained part of the District of Jackson, Sixteenth Corps, presumably still with three 6-pdr field guns and one 3-inch Ordnance Rifle.  Lieutenant Francis W. Morse remained in command.
  • 15th Battery: Reporting at Paris, Kentucky with six 3-inch rifles.  After assignment to the Fourth Division, Twenty-Third Corps, the battery was part of the Federal response to Morgan’s July 1863 Raid.  Captain John C. H. von Sehlen commanded.
  • 16th Battery: A return of Fort Washington, Maryland without any guns listed.  There is a faint note “Infy Stores” under the regiment column.  Lieutenant Charles R. Deming’s battery were part of the Washington Defenses.
  • 17th Battery: No return.  Captain M. L. Miner’s battery was part of French’s Division, Eighth Corps.  During the pursuit phase of the Gettysburg Campaign, the battery would return to Maryland Heights at Harpers Ferry, with their six 3-inch Ordnance Rifles.
  • 18th Battery:  No Return. Captain Eli Lilly’s battery remained with the Fourth Division, Fourteenth Corps, and thus involved with the Tullahoma Campaign at the end of the reporting period.
  • 19th Battery: Reporting at Chattanooga, Tennessee with four 12-pdr Napoleons and two 3-inch Rifles (not under the usual Ordnance Rifle column). Like the 18th, Captain Samuel J. Harris’s battery was part of Fourth Division, Fourteenth Corps.  Thus the location of Chattanooga reflected a later reporting date.
  • 20th Battery:  At Nashville, Tennessee with no weapons reported.  Captain Milton A. Osborne’s battery was assigned to the artillery reserve posted to Nashville, under the Army of the Cumberland.
  • 21st Battery:  At Camp Dennison, Ohio with six 12-pdr Napoleons. The location offered is clearly an error.  Captain William W. Andrew’s battery was the third Indiana battery assigned to Fourth Division, Fourteenth Corps.  And thus were on the move through middle Tennessee at the time.
  • 22nd Battery: At Bowling Green, Kentucky with four 12-pdr Napoleons.  Under Captain Benjamin F. Denning, this battery was assigned to the Second Division, Twenty-Third Corps, Army of the Ohio.
  • 23rd Battery:  Reporting at Indianapolis, Indiana with six 3.80-inch James Rifles.  Captain James H. Myers’ battery remained in the District of Indiana and Michigan, charged with guarding prisoners. Later in the summer the battery would get the call to the field.
  • 24th Battery: No return. Under Captain Joseph A. Sims, this battery was newly assigned to the Third Division, Twenty-Third Corps, with duty in Kentucky.  The battery was among those mobilized to chase Morgan in July.
  • 25th Battery:  No return. This is a curious entry line.  The 25th would not organize for another year.  So at best this is simply a placeholder.

As I said earlier, very few changes from the previous quarter.

Turning to the smoothbore ammunition reported:

0187_1_Snip_IndP2

Four batteries with quantities to report:

  • 19th Battery: 20 shot, 15 shell, 12 case, and 72 canister for 12-pdr Napoleons.
  • 21st Battery: 463 shot, 126 shell, 491 case, and 161 canister for 12-pdr Napoleons.
  • 22nd Battery: 131 shot, 141 shell, 144 case, and 155 canister for 12-pdr Napoleons.
  • 23rd Battery: 930 canister for 6-pdr field guns.

So there we have the 23rd Battery, guarding prisoners in Indianapolis, with James rifles loaded up with 6-pdr canister.  Well, it would fit into a 3.80-inch bore!

Moving next to the Hotchkiss columns for rifled projectiles:

0187_2_Snip_IndP2

A couple of batteries with 3-inch rifles on hand.  So we see their entries along with the James rifles of the 23rd Battery:

  • 15th Battery: 340 canister,  342 fuse shell, and 1,207 (?) bullet shell for 3-inch rifles.
  • 19th Battery: 76 canister, 68 percussion shell,  55 fuse shell, and 40 bullet shell for 3-inch rifles.
  • 23rd Battery: 390 percussion shell and 330 fuse shells for 3.80-inch rifles.

The next page we can focus down to the Dyers and James columns:

0188_1A_Snip_IndP2

For Dyer’s:

  • 19th Battery: 17 shell for 3-inch rifles.

For James’:

  • 23rd Battery:  95 case shot for 3.80-inch rifles.

None of the batteries reported Schenkl’s or Tatham’s, so we may proceed on to the small arms:

0188_3_Snip_IndP2

By battery reporting:

  • 15th Battery: Twenty-eight Army revolvers and twenty (?) horse artillery sabers.
  • 19th Battery: Fifteen Army revolvers and sixteen horse artillery sabers.
  • 20th Battery: Nineteen Army revolvers.
  • 21st Battery: Thirty Army revolvers and thirty horse artillery sabers.
  • 22nd Battery: Thirty-two horse artillery sabers.
  • 23rd Battery:  Twenty horse artillery sabers.

Uniformity… somewhat.  And with that we can close the Indiana independent batteries. Or can we?

0185_1E_Snip_IndP1

Yes, there are six “others” at the bottom of the section.  One of which would become the 26th Indiana Independent Battery later in the war.  We’ll look at them in the next installment.