Fortification Friday: “a redan or a lunette, is thrown up on the exterior to cover the outlet”

Before we close the discussion of openings for forts (see what I did there?), let me circle back to compare Mahan and Wheeler in regard to one of the fine points considered.  That being the use of a detached redan or lunette in advance of the outlet.  Recall that in pre-war writing, Mahan suggested:

In very frequented passages, a redan or a lunette, is thrown up on the exterior to cover the outlet, and thus ensure its safety in case of surprise.

And Wheeler, in the post-war, mentioned a similar arrangement, but perhaps narrowed the application to those larger outlets, for sorties, where simple interior traverses would not be practical.

Mahan offered two figures that illustrated the redan to the front of an outlet:

PlateVIIFig48_49

Figure 48 offers a wide redan in front of an outlet, which is further covered and flanked by by the “horns” of the larger work.  A very well protected outlet, we might say.  Mahan considered this a Redan Line.

On Figure 49, we see much more complexity.  Particularly with the defensive lines of fire.  The outlet is nested within a redan of a larger line.  On both sides are faces within redans of differing angles. This is considered a Tenaille Line – a proper definition we will discuss later.  But the point being the covering redan, to the front of the outlet, was absolutely necessary here in order to protect that weak spot.  The covering redan is somewhat off center of the outlet, perhaps to limit exposure at the expense of accessibility.

Wheeler, as you may recall, gave us only a simple rendition of the covering redan:

WheelerFig51

The question I have in regard to these advanced, detached “parts” covering openings is… just how often were these employed during the Civil War?

When examining surviving earthworks, we often find the area around the outlets obliterated.  Sometimes, due to necessity, that is done to facilitate visitor access.  But more often, just a case where the structures around the outlets were the most susceptible to erosion.

And when examining wartime plans, we see some use of these redans… but more often not.  Consider Fortress Rosecrans outside Murfreesboro:

FortressRosecrans

This was, some have said, the largest fort built during the war.  And in this plan we see examples of many features suggested by Mahan.  Specific to the outlets, we see up near the top that Battery Cruft was a detached lunette (maybe a “half lunette”) covering an outlet.  Elsewhere, such as next to Lunette McCook at the bottom right, we see an outlet (an existing road) without a covering redan or traverse.  Though we do see obstacles erected to the right of Lunette McCook.  And certainly that named work was positioned to dominate the approaches to the outlet.  Furthermore, what you don’t see in my “snip” are works in advance of the fortress that covered the railroad and road.  Though those were oriented south and not regarded as covering the outlet in question.

Another plan to consider is from Virginia, at Deep Bottom:

DeepBottomSnip

Here we see five road crossings at the main line of the works.  One of those is blocked entirely by a redan.  The other four (including one that appears to be a path cut just to clear a redan) have no traverses or covering works.  Just obstacles placed in front.

If we are assessing the protection of outlets, with Mahan’s suggestions in mind, we find a mixed application of those covering redans.  Seems to me the use of that sort of feature was based on the engineering assessment of need.

Now considering such use under Wheeler’s suggested implementation, let’s look to the location of a few large scale sorties.  First, how about the works were the Crater assault was mounted:

CraterSector

And further around the lines, and further forward in the historical timeline, to the sector around Fort Mahone:

FortMahoneSector

And to the left of that sector near where the Federal Sixth Corps mounted their sortie:

FortWelchSector

Now the scale of these maps mean these are not so much “plans” as operational maps.  So we know there are structures that escaped the pen here.  But what stands out, with double underlines, is the use of something far more elaborate than Mahan and Wheeler discussed.  We see entire sections of works advanced in a manner to provide staging grounds for those formations preparing for the assaults. Major assaults, mind you, involving whole divisions.  These were, you see, works built for the offensive.  Grand offensives!  In that light, might we say the entire Federal line was one large “covering work” in front of an array of staging areas and supply depots?

Winter reorganizations: Army of the Cumberland

Last week, I gave a lengthy justification for readers to consider winter encampment activities as related to the Civil War.  Overlooked, as we are drawn to the battles or campaigns, these encampments did much to setup those more “attractive” events. One of the examples I offered was the Army of the Cumberland’s stay, which lasted well into the spring, at Murfreesboro in 1863.  The length and breadth of that activity deserves full book length treatment, in my opinion. But for the moment, allow me to focus on one category of that encampment’s activities – reorganization.

The formation that won the Tullahoma Campaign, captured Chattanooga, and then was defeated at Chickamauga, was a different formation than the one which had won at Stones River in January.  Yet, the differences in that organization are somewhat subtle.  Consider the formation that Major-General William S. Rosecrans moved out of Nashville with in December 1862:

Fourteenth Corps Dec 18 1862

Um… this is an eye-test chart, I know.  Click the illustration and you’ll hit Flickr where you can zoom in and out.  This is roughly what Rosecrans had, on or about December 18, 1862.  Some things to note here (as I know you have trouble reading it!):

  • Rosecrans had three hats.  At this period of the war the “commands” of Department of the Cumberland, Army of the Cumberland, and Fourteenth Corps were almost interchangeable.
  • The formation of the Department/Army/Corps was a hand over from the previous Army of the Ohio as it was under Major General Don C. Buell.
  • In the old Army of the Ohio, there had been an organization for the field, for campaigning, and an organization on paper, for administration.  The former was built around wings and was temporary to meet situations.  The later included numbered divisions (up to Twelve) with separately numbered brigades (into the thirties).
  • When Rosecrans assumed command, he gradually changed that arrangement, first with three somewhat permanent wings.  But even as late as the middle of December 1862, the army still operated with the division and brigade designations from before.
  • For example, Major-General Alexander McCook commanded the Right Wing constituted of the 9th Division (13th, 21st, and 22nd Brigades), 2nd Division (4th, 5th, and 6th brigades), and 11th Division (37th and 35th brigades, plus a brigade brought over from 13th Division, formerly 1st Division of the Army of the Mississippi… a sidebar for later discussion).
  • Just days before battle at Stones River, Rosecrans reverted the division/brigade numbering to a more conventional format – that we are more familiar with, having each wing’s division numbered internally, and likewise each division’s brigades likewise numbered in sequence.

To that last set of points, consider the 41st Ohio, which was in the 19th Brigade, under Colonel William B. Hazen, and in the 4th Division under Brigadier-General John M. Palmer (who’d transferred over from that Army of the Mississippi division, by the way). Just before the big battle, the 41st Ohio’s parent organization changed to Second Brigade, Second Division, Left Wing, Fourteenth Corps.  Just a paper change, you say.  But think about it from the perspective of the officer trying to sort out who is aligned on his left or right flank.  That might be the “old” 22nd Brigade of Brigadier-General Charles Cruft showing up.  Or it might be the “new” Third Brigade, First Division, Left Wing, which used to be Colonel Charles Harker’s 20th Brigade.  You see, there were three possible names for each brigade that might possibly be in play at Stones River.

Now I am placing more emphasis on that factor than probably ought to be.  I know of no cases where confusions derived on the field due to the designation changes.  Usually, as we know from official reports, the reference was to a commander’s brigade by name.  If there was any confusion, it was usually confined to the staff when managing the administrative details.

However, there’s a subtlety here we should be keen to.  Prior to December 1862, a soldier in Hazen’s Brigade carried the name of his unit as the 19th Brigade.  That carried with it a somewhat implied detachment from divisions and corps.  The brigade might be reassigned to another formation on a temporary basis.  That’s why it was numbered in such manner.  But once the designation was changed to reflect an ordinal under a parent division, that changed.  Now Hazen’s Brigade was bound to Second Division… though that division might move between wings or assignments as needed.

Turning forward to the winter encampment, that assignment was further solidified by orders which came down on January 9, 1863.  Specifically, General Orders No. 9 from the War Department… not the Army or Department… but the War Department, mind you:

By direction of the President, the Army of the Cumberland, under the command of Major-General Rosecrans, is divided into three army corps, to be known as the Fourteenth, Twentieth, and Twenty-first.

Maj. Gen. George H. Thomas is assigned to the command of the Fourteenth Army Corps; Maj. Gen. A. McD. McCook to the command of the Twentieth; and Maj. Gen. T.L. Crittenden to the command of the Twenty-first Corps.

The result was this organization, adding a Reserve Corps, by June 30, 1863:

Fourteenth Corps June 30 1863

Now the soldier in the 41st Ohio was part of the Second Brigade, Second Division, Twenty-first Corps.  There is certainly a formality to that.  And more importantly an attachment to a formation.  At some point down the road, people would start talking about corps badges and such.

And yes, the organization was more balanced than that used at Stones River.  You’ll note that as Fourteenth Corps became a subordinate formation, Rosecrans lost one of his many hats, being “only” the army and department head.  Still Thomas had a “big” command with the Fourteenth Corps’ four divisions.  But the overall result was to give Rosecrans a more responsive organization.  We could well drill into particulars, namely with cavalry and other “lightning” formations if you get my drift.  But even at the high level, this looks like a flexible, responsive, and fighting formation.

There’s another subtle part to this which also need be addressed.  Rosecrans issued his own general order effecting the arrangement of the corps.  But that referenced the War Department’s order. And as you read it, yes that was the President’s orders.  From the top.

You see, prior to January 9, if Rosecrans had an issue, hypothetically speaking, with a wing commander, he might figure a way to administratively move him out.  But after January 9, any changes with the corps commanders had to be made with the blessings of those in Washington… top people in Washington.  This reorganization served to bind the subordinate formations, right down to the individual soldier, to a unit.  Likewise we see the “big army” was somewhat bound to the soldier.

Summary Statement: December 31, 1862 – 1st Ohio Light Artillery Regiment

The state of Ohio put about 320,000 men in uniform.  While the majority served as infantry, Ohio provided a substantial number of artillerists for the Federal war effort.  These were organized in four regiments and over thirty independent batteries.  Two of those regiments were heavy artillery, and thus fall out of the scope of survey here.  The three-month 1st Ohio Light Artillery Militia saw active service early in the war. But those batteries were mustered out by July 1861 (though we might trace the origins of the later 1st Ohio Light Artillery to those militia batteries).  Four un-numbered independent batteries were raised, but had mustered out by the fall of 1862.  Such leaves us with just the 1st Ohio Light Artillery Regiment and about twenty independent batteries to consider for the fourth quarter, 1862 summary.

The state’s section begins with the 1st Ohio Light Artillery Regiment.  Many of this regiment was in action at Stones River, supporting the Army of the Cumberland, on December 31, 1862.  Other batteries were with the Army of the Potomac on the Rappahannock.  Each installment, I have to resist the urge to provide more details about the battery and service. And these storied Ohio batteries are tempting.  Some day I’ll have to take up posting battery histories and “forgotten artillerists.”  Until then, let us all urge Phil Spaugy to discuss his Buckeye Artillerists when he gets to blogging:

0067_Snip_Dec62_1_Ohio_1

We see six reports from twelve batteries.  And only two of those reporting were received by the end of 1863… so we must keep that in mind when discussing the particulars.

  • Battery A: At Murfreesboro, Tennessee with two 6-pdr field guns.  Assigned to First Brigade, Second Division, Right Wing, Fourteenth Corps, Army of the Cumberland.  With Captain Wilbur Goodspeed under arrest at the time, Lieutenant Edmond Belding led this battery in action at Stones River.  In the battle, Battery A lost 73 horses, one man killed, and twenty-three captured.  Three of the battery’s guns were captured and one disabled.  The battery’s post-war history mentions receiving 12-pdr howitzers after the battle
  • Battery B: No report.  Was assigned to Second Division, Left Wing, Fourteenth Army Corps, Army of the Cumberland, under Captain William E. Standart.  His battery fired 1,610 rounds during the battle of Stones River.  At one point in the battle, the battery was down to just 86 rounds.  He reported three men killed, 13 wounded, and three captured, and the loss of 21 horses.The battery had a battery wagon disabled, but no guns lost or disabled.
  • Battery C: No location given.  Two 6-pdr field guns and four 3.80-inch James Rifles. This battery supported Third Division, Center Wing, Fourteenth Corps, which was not engaged at Stones River.  Captain Daniel K. Southwick commanded this battery.
  • Battery D: No report.  Most of this battery was captured at Munfordsville, Kentucky on September 17, 1862.  One section, under Lieutenant Nathaniel M. Newell, was assigned to the Cavalry Division, Fourteenth Corps.  Newell’s men were actively employed during the Stones River Campaign.
  • Battery E: No report. Another battery in action at Stones River that December.  Captain Warren P. Edgarton’s Battery E served with the Second Brigade, Second Division, Right Wing, Fourteenth Corps (beside Battery A, mentioned above).   December 31st was not a good day for the battery, with casualties numbering ten killed, seven wounded, and twenty-two captured.  Along with 75 horses, the battery lost six guns and other equipment.  So a blank entry for this battery may not be far off.
  • Battery F: At Decatur, Alabama with two 12-pdr field howitzers and four 3.80-inch James Rifles. This battery supported Second Division, Left Wing, Fourteenth Corps. So they were at Stones River in December 1862, not Decatur (another discrepancy which may be due to the late return receipt  – August 1864). When Captain Daniel T. Cockerill fell wounded, Lieutenant Norval Osburn assumed command in the afternoon of December 30.  The battery fired 1,080 rounds in the battle.
  • Battery G: No report.  Lieutenant Alexander Marshall’s battery assigned to Second Division, Center Wing, Fourteenth Corps, at Stones River.  The battery fired 553 rounds but lost four guns in the battle. In the evening of December 31, 1862, Marshall reported one 12-pdr howitzer and a 6-pdr Wiard, with fifty and eighty rounds, respectively.
  • Battery H: At Falmouth, Virginia with six 3-inch Ordnance Rifles. Lieutenant George Norton commanded this battery in the absence of Captain James F. Huntington.  The battery supported Third Division, Third Corps, Army of the Potomac at Fredericksburg.  In his official report, Norton indicated the battery “expended 650 rounds of ammunition, chiefly percussion shell… and now has 1,300 rounds of ammunition on hand.”  We shall see….
  • Battery I: No report for Captain Hubert Dilger’s battery.  Their six 12-pdr Napoleons were part of Third Division, Eleventh Corps.
  • Battery K: No report.  Commanded by Captain William L. De Beck, this battery supported First Division, Eleventh Corps.  I believe they were armed with 12-pdr Napoleons at this time.
  • Battery L:  At Henry House, Virginia (?).  Six 12-pdr Napoleons. Under Lieutenant Frederick Dorries, this battery supported Second Division, Fifth Corps.
  • Battery M: No location given.  One 12-pdr field howitzer and two 3.67-inch Rifles. At Stones River supporting Second Brigade, Second Division, Center Wing, Fourteenth Corps.  Captain Frederick Schultz commanded this battery. The battery fired 750 rounds and lost one gun in the battle.

Contrast the equipment issued to the batteries with respect to the theater of operation.  Eastern Theater receiving the “top cut” as it were.

For smoothbore ammunition, the batteries reported:

0069_Snip_Dec62_1_Ohio_1

Three “Stones River” batteries and one “Fredericksburg” battery for us to consider:

  • Battery A: 95 shot, 155 case, and 160 canister for their 6-pdr field guns.
  • Battery C: 121 shot, 195 case, and 172 canister for their 6-pdr field guns.
  • Battery L: 312 shot, 12 shell, 39(?) case, and 136 canister for 12-pdr guns.
  • Battery M:  8 shell, 31 case, and 17 canister for their 12-pdr howitzers.

Keep in mind the number of guns reported by each battery.  The sum quantities above fed a total of nine guns between the four batteries.

Hotchkiss patent projectiles for the rifled guns up next:

0069_Snip_Dec62_1_Ohio_2

Just three lines to consider, but the columns tallied deserve some thought.  And keep in mind the full column declaration here – these are Hotchkiss patent projectiles made for a particular, sometimes proprietary, caliber as indicated:

  • Battery C: 102 shot and 379 shell for  6-pdr / 3.80-inch James.
  • Battery H: 754 3-inch bullet shell.
  • Battery M: 45 shot and 100 fuse shell for 12-pdr  / 3.67-inch Wiard.

Battery C’s quantities match the reported weapons, in this case two sections of James rifles.  Battery H, of course, had Ordnance Rifles.  But Battery M?  If the first page of the summary is correct, the battery fired projectiles for Wiard rifles from their bronze, rifled 6-pdrs.  The caliber fits, on paper.  On the other hand, I tend to think this another problem where the “form” did not fit reality.  We see no columns for just plain 3.67-inch Hotchkiss projectiles.  All Hotchkiss in that caliber have the Wiard label.  Yet we know that caliber was not exclusive to Wiard.  In short, I think that column title to be less precise than we might presume.

But wait… more Hotchkiss on the seldom used carry over columns on the next page, along with a lone entry for James Patent projectiles:

0070_Snip_Dec62_1_Ohio_1

Battery C had 61 James-type shells for their James rifles.  Battery M reported 30 canister in 12-pdr / 3.76-inch.

The last entries for rifle projectile covered Schenkl patents:

0070_Snip_Dec62_1_Ohio_2

Battery C again, with 115 Schenkl shells for 6-pdr / 3.80-inch James. Notice how that battery seemed to get the products of several inventors.

Battery H reported 450 shell and 96 canister for their 3-inch rifles.  And since Norton provided a total quantity on hand in his official report, let’s check his numbers:

754 Hotchkiss case + 450 Schenkl shell + 96 Schenkl canister = 1,300 rounds

Just what Norton reported.  I like balanced ledger! A belated, 153 year-old thumbs-up for  Lieutenant Norton’s report.

Now to close out this post, let us turn to the funnies… I mean the small arms:

0070_Snip_Dec62_1_Ohio_3

  • Battery A: Three Navy revolvers and two cavalry sabers.
  • Battery F: Seven Army revolvers and 29 cavalry sabers.
  • Battery H: Twenty Army revolvers and 48 horse artillery sabers.
  • Battery M: Ten Army revolvers and eight horse artillery sabers.

Thus concludes the 1st Ohio Light Artillery, working at the time on the banks of two heavily contested rivers in separate theaters of war.  Next we will look at the independent batteries from Ohio.

 

Summary Statement: December 31, 1862 – Batteries from Iowa, Kentucky, and Kansas

Following the order presented in the summary statements, the next set of volunteer batteries came from Iowa, Kentucky, and Kansas.  Yes, not exactly alphabetical, but we’ll go with the clerk’s ordering.

At the time of the report, in December 1862, Iowa had only three batteries accepted for service (a fourth battery was not mustered until the fall of 1863). All three are listed on the summary with only two showing reports.

There were three volunteer batteries from Kentucky were in Federal service in December 1862, according to Dyer’s Compendium.  And Dyer’s identifies two of those as lettered batteries.  But there are only two entry lines in the summary of that period, and those are listed as numbered, implied independent, batteries.  So we have questions to address for Kentucky’s batteries.

For the summary, Kansas was represented by five entries.  Three are batteries identified by commanders and two are artillery assigned to cavalry. I contend that a full, proper study of the Kansas artillery is a book waiting to be written. Many of the batteries were formed as companies within infantry or cavalry regiments (which, like Texas, was a delineation that was often blurred).  And regimental commanders were very reluctant to release those to formal artillery organizations.

And one more twist to consider with these entries – most were not received in Washington until 1864!  Those preface notes out of the way, here are the entry lines for the batteries and their cannons:

0043_Snip_IA_KY_KS_1

Starting with the Hawkeye State:

  • 1st Iowa Independent Light Battery: The location annotation does not make sense to me.  The battery was with Sherman’s ill-fated expedition to Vicksburg, landing at Chickasaw Bayou.  It reported four 6-pdr field guns and two 12-pdr field howitzers (as they had on hand at Pea Ridge earlier in the year).
  • 2nd Iowa Independent Light Battery: No report.  The 2nd was posted between LaGrange and Germantown, Tennessee at this time, part of the Thirteenth Corps.
  • 3rd Iowa Independent Light Battery: Helena, Arkansas.  The 3rd reported four 6-pdr field guns and two 12-pdr field howitzers. The battery was assigned to the District of Eastern Arkansas, Department of Missouri, but soon to be collected into the Vicksburg campaign.

Now over to the Bluegrass State, and the aforementioned confusions:

  • 1st Kentucky Independent Light Battery:  Located at Gualey Bridge, (West) Virginia with six 10-pdr Parrotts.  This was Captain Seth J. Simmonds’ battery, assigned to the District of the Kanawha.
  • 2nd Kentucky Artillery?:   This entry line has the notation “not in service.”  My guess is this references the 2nd Kentucky Heavy Artillery Regiment that never got organized.

Not listed on the return, but worth noting are the lettered Kentucky Batteries (sometimes identified as with the 1st Kentucky Artillery Regiment, but most often just the letter and state designation):

  • Battery A: This was Captain David C. Stone’s battery, supporting the Center Wing, Fourteenth Corps, Army of the Cumberland and in action at Stones River.
  • Battery B: Also known as Hewett’s Battery, and (to add more confusion) in some reports as the 2nd Kentucky Independent Battery.  Commanded by Lieutenant Alban A. Ellsworth.  Also saw action at Stones River in the Center Wing, Fourteenth Corps.

Allow me to hold off a more detailed discussion of the important service of those two batteries, conspicuously omitted from the summary.

Now Kansas, where more questions follow.  Let me “swag” some proper identifications here:

  • Allen’s Battery:  No report.  I think this references Captain Norman Allen and the 1st Kansas Independent Battery.  The battery saw action at Prairie Grove, as part of the Army of the Frontier, with four 12-pdr howitzers (according to my notes).
  • Blair’s Battery:  Fort Scott, Kansas.  Four 6-pdr field guns and two 12-pdr field howitzers.  This should be Lieutenant Edward A. Smith’s 2nd Battery Kansas Artillery.  The name references Captain Charles W. Blair, the battery’s first commander.
  • Hopkins’ Battery:  Captain Henry Hopkins’ 3rd Kansas Battery.  The battery had three 6-pdr field guns and one 12-pdr field howitzer.  The battery was also at Prairie Grove.
  • [Illegible] Ninth Volunteers:  This appears to reference a section under 2nd Lieutenant Henry H. Opdyke, of the 9th Kansas Cavalry.  The section had two 12-pdr mountain howitzers.  They saw action in the Prairie Grove campaign.
  • 2nd Cavalry:  Fort Smith.  Two 12-pdr mountain howitzers.  Another detachment within a cavalry formation.  This one under Lieutenant Elias S. Stover.

Not mentioned is another artillery section, also of two 12-pdr mountain howitzers, in the 6th Kanasas Cavalry.

So again, we have a lengthy “first page” in the summary, due to setting the context of the numbers.  The summary certainly illuminates the holes in the summary statements… and why I prefer to present “as is” and then circle back for validation.

Moving on to the smoothbore ammunition tallies:

0045_Snip_IA_KY_KS_1

By the batteries:

  • 1st Iowa: 6-pdr field gun – 400 shot, 320 case, and 80 canister; 12-pdr field howitzer – 120 shell, 160 case, and 42 canister.
  • 3rd Iowa: 6-pdr field gun – 410 shot, 325 case, and 85 canister; 12-pdr field howitzer – 129 shell, 86 case, and 36 canister.
  • 2nd Kansas: 6-pdr field gun – 196 shot, 236 case, and 108 canister; 12-pdr field howitzer – 46 shell, 170 case, and 72 canister.  Also reporting a large quantity of mountain howitzer ammunition – 124 case and 34 canister.
  • 9th Kansas Cavalry section: 12-pdr mountain howitzer – 41 shell, 116 case, and 57 canister.
  • 2nd Kansas Cavalry section: 12-pdr mountain howitzer – 80 case and 8 canister.

So we have one more question – why the 2nd Kansas Battery would hold on to mountain howitzer ammunition?  Perhaps, as they were operating alongside some of the cavalry with the smaller howitzers, the ordnance handlers in the 2nd Kansas assumed some oversight in ordnance matters.

The only battery we’ve discussed today with rifled guns was the 1st Kentucky (Simmonds’) Battery with 10-pdr Parrotts.  Accordingly, we look to the Parrott columns on the corresponding pages:

0046_Snip_IA_KY_KS_1

The Kentuckians had 490 shells, 455 shot, and 60 canister of the Parrott make.

The 1st Kentucky also had a quantity of Schenkl rounds for their Parrot rifles:

0046_Snip_IA_KY_KS_2

Yes a lot of work for me to snip that, for one entry – 69 Schenkl 10-pdr shells.

I suspected the small arms section would be interesting, given the varied service. But it is somewhat pedestrian compared to others:

0046_Snip_IA_KY_KS_3

The 1st Iowa reported eight cavalry sabers and fifty foot artillery sabers.  The 1st Kentucky had nine Army revolvers and 26 cavalry Sabers.  Then we have the Kansas troops:

  • 2nd Kansas – 129 Army revolvers and 24 cavalry sabers.
  • 3rd Kansas – 53 Army revolvers and 17 cavalry sabers.
  • 9th Kansas Cavalry section – one cavalry saber.
  • 2nd Kansas Cavalry section – 21 Navy revolvers and one cavalry saber.

I’d half suspected and expected the Kansans to have some odd assortment of long guns.

Summary Statement: December 31, 1862 – Indiana’s Batteries

Time now we look to the Hoosier Artillery as reported for December 1862.  Indiana organized twenty-six light batteries for Federal service during the war, all numbered and not within a regimental system.  Twenty-one of those Indiana batteries had entry lines on the December 1862 summary.  Of those, only seven had a posted date for receipt of returns.  I’ll focus on those seven, but mention the status of the other fourteen for our purposes today.  (And note, there was a 1st Indiana Heavy Artillery Regiment serving mostly with the Department of the Gulf, that falls outside the summaries.)

Of the seven batteries with data for the form, we see all posted late. Three were received in the spring of 1863.  Three more trickled in through the summer and fall.  Then the 2nd Indiana Battery’s was received in April 1864.  All must be considered when reviewing the data presented in the summary.

0043_Snip_IND_1

For the battery-by-battery breakdown, let us “fill in” the location and assignment for batteries without a report… just to round things out (Looking here for any patterns of the omissions).  And, for emphasis, these are all “Independent Light Artillery” batteries from Indiana, designated by sequential numbers:

  • 1st Battery: No report.  The battery was part of the short lived Army of Southeastern Missouri, operating in the Ironton area.
  • 2nd Battery: Springfield, Missouri. Three 6-pdr field guns and four James 3.80-inch rifles.  The battery was in the Army of the Frontier.
  • 3rd Battery: No report. Part of the Central District of Missouri and reported at both Rolla and St. Louis during the quarter.
  • 4th Battery: La Vernge or Lafayette (?), Tennessee.  Two 6-pdr field guns and two James 3.80-inch rifles.  The 4th was in the Right Wing, Army of the Cumberland, specifically, Sheridan’s Third Division.  The battery was in action at Stones River on December 31.  Captain Asahel Bush’s official report mentions the battery had one more cannon on hand – a field howitzer (12-pdr).  One 6-pdr and a James rifle were lost on the field.  And the other 6-pdr disabled. The battery fired 1,160 rounds in the battle.  Losses were six killed, seventeen wounded, and three captured or missing.
  • 5th Battery. No report. Was posted to Second Division (Johnson), Right Wing, Army of the Cumberland, and at Stones River.  Captain Peter Simonson mentioned two 10-pdr Parrotts and two 12-pdr Napoleons in his official report of the battle. The battery fired only 213 rounds in the battle but lost two guns.
  • 6th Battery. No report. The battery was in the multi-armed Thirteenth Corps and with McPherson’s Right Wing in northern Mississippi.
  • 7th Battery. Murfreesboro, Tennessee.  Four 10-pdr Parrotts.  The battery was in Van Cleve’s Third Division, Left Wing, Army of the Cumberland.  Captain George Swallow’s battery fired 406 rounds in the battle at Stones River, lost no guns, suffered four killed and eight wounded, along with losing one horse.
  • 8th Battery. No report.  First Division (Wood), Left Wing, Army of the Cumberland.  Lieutenant George Estep’s battery fired 871 rounds at Stones River.
  • 9th Battery. No report. Captain George Brown’s battery was assigned to Fourth Division, Right Wing, Thirteenth Corps.
  • 10th Battery: No report. Captain Jerome Cox’s battery was also assigned to First Division, Left Wing, Army of the Cumberland and at Stones River.   The battery fired 1,442 rounds during the battle.
  • 11th Battery: No report. Though assigned the Army of the Cumberland, this battery was part of the Nashville garrison.
  • 12th Battery: Fort Negley, Nashville, Tennesseee.  Annotated as “siege.”  Four 4.5-inch siege rifles.
  • 13th Battery: No report. Also annotated as a “siege” battery.  I have no particulars on this battery.  It was posted to Gallatin, outside Nashville, and some reports have it operating as cavalry.
  • 14th Battery:  Jackson, Tennessee.  Three 6-pdr field guns and one 3-inch Ordnance Rifle.  The battery was part of Thirteenth Corps at the time.
  • 15th Battery:  No report.  Had surrendered earlier in the fall at Harpers Ferry.  Was still on parole.
  • 16th Battery: Fort Pennsylvania, DC.  Three 20-pdr Parrotts and four James 3.80-inch rifles.  This battery spent most of the war defending Washington.
  • 17th Battery: No report. The 17th Battery was assigned to the Middle Department and the defenses of Baltimore.
  • 18th Battery: No report. Though assigned to the Center Wing, Army of the Cumberland, this battery was not at Stones River but rather supporting troops pursuing Confederates raiders.
  • 19th Battery:  (Illegible), Kentucky.  Four 12-pdr Napoleons and two 3-inch steel guns.  Also assigned to the Center Wing, the 19th was likewise active in pursuit of Confederate raiders at this time of the war.
  • 20th Battery: No report.  Assigned to the garrison of Henderson, Kentucky.
  • 21st Battery: No report. On duty at various locations in Kentucky.

Sorry for the lengthy interpretation, but a necessary listing for the purposes of these posts.  There are several batteries (particularly the 19th Indiana) that I’d like to discuss further. But for now let me save those for separate posts in the future.

Turning to smoothbore ammunition on hand:

0045_Snip_IND_1

Just three batteries reporting quantities:

  • 2nd Battery:  6-pdr field gun – 8 spherical case and 191 canister.
  • 4th Battery: 6-pdr field gun – 320 shot, 160 case, and 30 canister.
  • 14th Battery: 6-pdr field gun – 328 shot, 296 case, and 68 canister.

Rifled projectiles followed to the right of the smoothbore listings, with Hotchkiss patent types:

0045_Snip_IND_2

Three batteries reporting:

  • 2nd Battery: James 3.80-inch – 54 shot and 176 (?) bullet shell.
  • 14th Battery: 162 of Hotchkiss pattern 3-inch percussion shell.
  • 19th Battery: 3-inch rifle – 98 canister and 86 fuse shell.

Continuing to the columns for James and Parrott projectiles:

0046_Snip_IND_1

Two batteries with quantities on hand:

  • 7th Battery:  155 Parrott 10-pdr case shot.
  • 14th Battery: James patent 3.80-inch – 188 shell, 120 case shot, and 222 canister; and 650 20-pdr Parrott shells.

Clearly a battery posted to defend the nation’s capital got plenty of ammunition!

And next those of Schenkl and Tatham’s:

0046_Snip_IND_2

Two batteries reporting:

  • 14th Battery: 83 3-inch Schenkl shells and 45 3-inch Tatham’s canister.
  • 19th Battery: 28 3-inch Schenkl canister.

Finally, the small arms:

0046_Snip_IND_3

All seven of the “reporting” batteries listed some small arms on hand, some more than others:

  • 2nd Battery: 134 Army revolvers and 49 cavalry sabers.
  • 4th Battery: 24 cavalry sabers.
  • 7th Battery: 2 cavalry sabers.
  • 12th Battery: 14 horse artillery sabers.
  • 14th Battery: 16 cavalry sabers.
  • 16th Battery: 2 Army revolvers.
  • 19th Battery: 15 Army revolvers and 16 horse artillery sabers.

Other than the “everyone gets a revolver” in the 2nd Battery, we might consider this a “meager” allotment of sabers and pistols.

That concludes the lengthy summary of the Indiana batteries.  Keep in mind that a quarter of these batteries were in action at the end of December 1862 at Stones River.  And those batteries expended around 4,000 rounds between December 31 and January 2.  Not to mention the lost guns, equipment, horses, and lives in the battle.  What I am left wanting is a “before” and “after” accounting from those batteries of equipment.  Such would offer a measure, on paper, of the violence seen at stones River.

Summary Statement: December 31, 1862 – Independent Illinois Batteries and “Others”

The 1st Regiment and 2nd Regiment Illinois Artillery offered some quirks in terms of weapons assigned or organizational assignments (particularly with the Thirteenth Corps being an evolving field organization).  In addition to those two regiments, Illinois offered a collection of independent batteries for service. And these batteries offer even more “headaches” from the perspective of administrative tracking.

For brevity, allow me to step around a detailed history of “how this came to be.”  As my line of march today is simply to present what was listed in the summary for December 31, 1862, I will contain conversations about lineage to the essentials.  (Someday… I really want to build an annotated index of artillery formations to aid tracking these… someday.)  For the scope of today’s post, here are the Illinois batteries that fell into that “outside the numbered regiments” category, as of December 1862:

0035_Snip_Dec62_ILL_Other_1

Not a lot of artillery pieces, but batteries we need to identify.  By line, here is the breakdown:

  • Battery A, Third Artillery:  At Germantown, Tennessee (outside Memphis).  Six 6-pdr James 3.80-inch.  Follow the ball on this identification.  This was Captain Thomas F. Vaughn’s battery (sometimes Vaughan, but Vaughn appears on his service card), better known as the Springfield Independent Battery (entry below).  It was assigned to the District of Jackson, Thirteenth Corps in December 1862.  However, I think the location referencing Germantown was valid for the date of the return – July 1863 – when the battery was posted around Memphis.  Other portions of this battery’s summary raise questions, which we will discuss below.
  • Stoke’s [Stokes’] Battery:  No return. This was the Chicago Board of Trade Battery, commanded by Captain James Stokes.  The battery played an important role in the fighting at Stones River. We know from reports the battery had four 6-pdr field guns and two James rifles in the battle.  Stokes supported the Pioneer Brigade on December 31, 1862.  The battery fired 1,450 rounds in the battle.
  • Springfield Battery: With the annotation “Entered as Co. A, 3rd Arty.”  I have no supporting documentation to explain why the battery would be designated as such.  Perhaps the intention was consolidate all the independent batteries in a new regiment, but the idea never got past Vaughn’s.
  • Mercantile Battery:  Properly, the Chicago Mercantile Independent Battery, or Captain Charles G. Cooley’s Independent Battery.  Date of receipt of its report was December 1864 – two years late!  Location of Chicago, Illinois is indicated.  The battery had been in Chicago until early November 1862.  They moved to Memphis that month and participated in Sherman’s expedition to Chickasaw Bayou.  The battery reported four 6-pdr field guns and two 3-inch Ordnance Rifles.
  • Elgin Battery:  Captain George W. Renwick’s Elgin Independent Battery.  Just mustered in the previous month, this battery was posted to the Department of Kentucky in December 1862.  No return posted.
  • Coggswell’s [Cogswell’s] Battery: Captain William Cogswell’s Independent Battery.  Originally Company A, 53rd Illinois Infantry.  Another late-posted return (June 1864) has this battery at Nashville, Tennessee.  That location is likely inferred due to the late report date.  Official records indicate Cogswell’s Battery was at Memphis, and part of the Thirteenth Corps’ Right Wing.   The battery reported four James rifles on hand.
  • Henshaw’s Battery:  Captain Edward Henshaw’s Independent Battery. No return posted.  This battery had just been mustered at the time of report.
  • 10th Illinois Cavalry:  Stores in charge, reported by a major.   The 10th was on duty in Missouri at the time.  On November 7, 1862, a detail of the 10th Illinois surrendered at Clark’s Mill, Missouri.  Among the weapons surrendered were two Woodruff Guns.  In fact, one might say the ineffectiveness of those guns, compared to conventional artillery (in that case lowly 6-pdrs, if I recall).  While no cannons or projectiles were carried in the summary, the 10th Cavalry had some implements on hand (though the return was not received until March 1864… slow mail).

That’s a lot to roll around.  But as you see, not a lot of cannons reported.  That makes the following snips easier to discuss… somewhat easier.  I say that as from the start there are questions with smoothbore ammunition:

0037_Snip_Dec62_ILL_Other_1

The Springfield Battery, which indicated no smoothbores on hand, had 12-pdr howitzer ammunition – 72 shells, 42 case, and 50 canister.  The battery originally formed with a section of 12-pdr howitzers and apparently still had ammunition stocks left.

The Mercantile Battery had 308 shot, 252 case, and 252 canister for its 6-pdr field guns.

Moving to the rifled projectiles, first the Hotchkiss Patent:

0037_Snip_Dec62_ILL_Other_2

Mercantile Battery had, in the 3-inch caliber (again, Hotchkiss) 160 shot, 40 canister, and 190 fuse shells.  Cogswell’s Battery reported 285 Hotchkiss shot for James 3.80-inch rifles. Continuing to the next page, the columns are entries for Hotchkiss (continued), Dyer’s, and James’ Patents:

0038_Snip_Dec62_ILL_Other_1

The Springfield Battery had 180 Hotchkiss canister for James 3.80-inch rifles. The battery also reported 250 James patent 3.80-inch shot, 451 shell, and 30 canister.  Cogswell’s Battery also had James Patent projectiles – 25 shot, 350 shell, and 74 canister.

We see no entries for Parrot or Schenkl projectiles, but entries for Tatham’s pattern canister:

0038_Snip_Dec62_ILL_Other_2

In the 3.80-inch caliber, the Springfield Battery had 36 on hand while Cogswell’s had 79. Lastly the small arms:

0038_Snip_Dec62_ILL_Other_3

  •  Springfield Battery: 10 Horse artillery sabers.
  • Mercantile Battery: 30 Army revolvers and five horse artillery sabers.
  • Cogswell’s Battery: 13 Army revolvers, one Navy revolver, and two cavalry sabers.

One last note on the “others” listed here.  Looking specifically at the equipment reported by the 10th Illinois Cavalry, I find the “major” reported four sights for 6-pdr Wiard guns on hand, along with a few other implements specific to that caliber and make of weapon.  My first inclination is that the 10th Illinois was reporting the implements for Woodruff guns.  The closest weapons on the printed report, in terms of caliber, would be the 2.6-inch, or 6-pdr, Wiard gun.  Likewise, it may have been that in lieu of custom made Woodruff sights and sponges, the 10th was issued those made for the Wiards.

Regardless, that the 10th Illinois Cavalry, way out in remote southwestern Missouri, had to report these items (along with artilleryman’s haversacks, punches, and other artillery-specific equipment) speaks volumes for the tenacity and pure resiliency of those in the Ordnance Department!

Summary Statement: December 31, 1862 – 4th Regiment Artillery, US Regulars

“No step backward” on the look at the summary statement from December 31, 1862.  Some will get my reference.  Others must be told that our focus is the 4th Regiment, US Artillery.

Most batteries of the 4th were posted on the frontier in the years prior to the Civil War.  However, by the end of 1862 the regiment was mostly in Virginia (Administrative note again – Yellow lines are the “rules” for the data lines, and red lines are the “tear lines” where I’ve cut-pasted for presentation):

0026_Snip_Dec62_4thUS_1

Please note the dates the returns were received in Washington.  Most of the 4th Regiment was complete by mid-summer.  There are some “twists” to this block of data, so watch the run down here:

  • Battery A: Warrenton Junction, Virginia. Six 3-inch Ordnance Rifles.  Earlier in the war, Batteries A and C (see below) were consolidated.  The two split in October 1862.  Battery A supported Second Corps, Army of the Potomac.
  • Battery B: Belle Plain, Virginia.  Six 12-pdr Napoleons.  The battery supported First Corps, Army of the Potomac.
  • Battery C: Falmouth, Virginia. Six 12-pdr Napoleons.  Inheriting the equipment of Battery A (above), Battery C also supported Second Corps.
  • Battery D: Suffolk, Virginia. Six 3-inch Ordnance Rifles. Supported Seventh Corps, Department of Virginia.
  • Battery E: No return indicated.  Battery E supported Ninth Corps, and was outside Falmouth.  My references indicate the battery had six 10-pdr Parrotts at the reporting time.
  • Battery F: Location not indicated, but known to be near Falmouth.  Six 12-pdr Napoleons. Part of Twelfth Corps, Army of the Potomac.
  • Battery G: Again, no location, but near Falmouth.  Six 12-pdr Napoleons. Battery G was in the Artillery Reserve, Army of the Potomac.
  • Battery I: Location not indicated, but this battery was also with the Army of the Cumberland, though part of the Center Wing not engaged at Stones River.  Two 6-pdr field guns and two 10-pdr Parrotts.
  • Battery K: At Falmouth, this battery had six 12-pdr Napoleons. The battery was part of Third Corps, Army of the Potomac.
  • Battery L: At Suffolk with two 12-pdr howitzers and four 10-pdr Parrotts.  Battery L was part of the Seventh Corps.
  • Battery M: No return indicated.  As mentioned above, was consolidated with Battery H.  After the battle of Stones River, Battery M retained four 3-inch rifles and gained two 24-pdr field howitzers.

And that brings us to line 60.  What to make of the writing in the “Letter of company” column:

0026_Snip_Dec62_4thUS_2

What is clear – On July 21, 1863 the Ordnance Department received a return from a command at Fort Washington, Maryland.  That command was reporting “stores in charge,” or at least from the way I read it.  Several sources place a detachments of the 4th US Regulars at the post during the reporting period. But the annotation appears, to my eyes, as “colored.”  However, keep in mind that as of December 31, 1862 there were no US Colored Troops – at least being called that by name.

UPDATEA sharp eyed reader offered another possibility, which I must agree is more likely.  The word may be “Colonel” thus indicating the regimental headquarters or such.

So I don’t know how to interpret the company line other than relating that line 60 included various tools and equipment at Fort Washington under the charge of the 4th Regiment.  So before we get all excited about what may or may not be indicated in the company column, we see no cannon or projectiles (or even any carriages or implements) reported by this detachment.  Only some small arms, which we’ll see later in the summary.

Questions of line 60 aside, let us look at the smoothbore projectiles reported for the 4th Regiment:

0028_Snip_Dec62_4thUS_1

No surprises given the distribution of smoothbore weapons:

  • Battery B:  216 shot, 92 shells, 216 case, and 92 canister for the 12-pdr.
  • Battery C: 96 shot, 96 shell, 234 case, and 192 canister in 12-pdr Napoleon.
  • Battery F: 252 shot, 76 shell, 252 case, and 76 canister – 12-pdr Napoleon.
  • Battery G: 86 shot, 33 shell, 103 case, and 40 canister – 12-pdr Napoleon.
  • Battery I: 261 shot, 148 case, and 42 canister for the 6-pdr field gun.
  • Battery K: 288 shot, 96 shell, 288 case, and 96 canister – 12-pdr Napoleon.
  • Battery L: 140 shell, 154 case, and 32 canister for the 12-pdr howitzers.

As for Hotchkiss pattern projectiles:

0028_Snip_Dec62_4thUS_2

Again, given the guns assigned there are no surprises.  The batteries with Ordnance Rifles had Hotchkiss pattern projectiles:

  • Battery A: 3-inch projectiles – 120 canister, 50 percussion shell, 305 fuse shells, and 725 “bullet shell” (which I interpret as case).
  • Battery D: 3-inch projectiles – 83 canister, 271 fuse shells, and 846 “bullet shell” for the 3-inch rifles.

None of the batteries reported Dyer’s or James Pattern projectiles.  As for Parrott and Schenkel Pattern:

0029_Snip_Dec62_4thUS_1

Batteries I and L had the Parrott rifles:

  • Battery I: 126 Parrott 10-pdr shell, 129 Parrott 10-pdr case shot, 47 Parrott 10-pdr canister, and 33 Schenkel 10-pdr shot.
  • Battery L: 480 Parrott 10-pdr shell, 240 Parrott 10-pdr case, and 46 (or 96?) Parrott 10-pdr canister.

No other Schenkel pattern projectiles were reported on the page. Small arms reported:

0029_Snip_Dec62_4thUS_2

There were no muskets in the 4th Artillery:

  • Battery A: 15 .44-caliber revolvers and 25 horse artillery sabers.
  • Battery B: 37 .37-caliber revolvers and 24 horse artillery sabers.
  • Battery C: 15 .37-caliber revolvers and 21 horse artillery sabers.
  • Battery D: 9 .37-caliber revolvers and 141 horse artillery sabers!
  • Battery F: 19 .37-caliber revolvers, 10 horse artillery sabers, and one foot artillery saber.
  • Battery G: 7 .37-caliber revolvers and 94 horse artillery sabers.
  • Battery I: Four percussion “Dragoon” pistols and 45 cavalry sabers.
  • Battery K: 21 .44-caliber revolvers, 106 .37-caliber revolvers, and 15 horse artillery sabers.
  • Battery L: 14 .44-caliber revolvers and 118 horse artillery sabers.
  • And Line 60 – 3 .44-caliber revolvers and 29(?) horse artillery sabers.

We need to examine Battery I’s small arms in more detail.  More so as a footnote.  The column header is “Percussion,” with “Dragoon” written in.  Note that the other column headers to the right are “Revolver,” with either .44 size or .37 size written in.  So, it could be these were four percussion pistols of the Model 1855 or similar type.   Or were those Colt’s Dragoon Revolvers?  I would lean towards the latter.

Lastly, as mentioned above, we have the entries for line 60 here.  A handful of pistols and a few stands of sabers.  Yet, as the bureaucracy required, every one of them are counted here on the form.