View Full Version : The Devil went down to Georgia
Tonight on "The History Channel", they are showing Sherman's March....9:00 pm and again at 11:00 pm (EDT).
Looks like it might be an informative show.
This was taken from THC's web site, about the show.
Known affectionately as "Uncle Billy" by Union soldiers, but reviled in the South as a brutal war criminal, General William Tecumseh Sherman is one of the truly enigmatic and complex figures in the American pantheon. His legacy was built during a five-week campaign of terror and destruction that would become known as "total war". Sherman ordered his troops to burn crops, kill livestock, destroy railroads, pilfer food supplies and to make sure the South's civilian infrastructure was shattered. Although the concept had been around for centuries, this is the first time in modern warfare that total war was used to such an extensive degree. First Savannah was captured, and then he marched from Georgia through South Carolina and burned the capital to the ground. On the heels of Sherman's destructive onslaughts, the Confederacy officially conceded victory to the Union on April 9, 1865.
:munchin
He kind'a looped up through this next of the woods.
Fayetteville and the destruction of the Fayetteville Arsenal, then Averasboro and Bentonville. Hit a whole bunch of little towns while coming through here.
Ya' have to give him credit. Departing Atlanta with 70,000 battle hardened troops and popping up on the coast was a neat hat trick.
Pete
I'll be watching.
The Reaper
04-22-2007, 13:05
He kind'a looped up through this next of the woods.
Fayetteville and the destruction of the Fayetteville Arsenal, then Averasboro and Bentonville. Hit a whole bunch of little towns while coming through here.
Ya' have to give him credit. Departing Atlanta with 70,000 battle hardened troops and popping up on the coast was a neat hat trick.
Pete
I'll be watching.
He was helped in this by Hood's bizarre decision to leave Sherrman alone and attack Nashville during this rampage.
This would have been much less certain if Joe Johnston had remained in command at (and after) Atlanta, and Forrest and Wheeler struck at Sherman's outlying forces.
TR
x-factor
04-22-2007, 14:00
He was helped in this by Hood's bizarre decision to leave Sherrman alone and attack Nashville during this rampage.
This would have been luch less certain if Joe Johnston had remained in command at (and after) Atlanta, and Forrest and Wheeler struck at Sherman's outlying forces.
TR
Do you ever read counterfactual histories? You might get a kick out of some of the what if arguments.
http://www.amazon.com/What-If-Foremost-MILITARY-Historians/dp/0425176428/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_k2a_1_txt/002-2662497-3137617
Great I only have the overseas History Channel. I get to watch Digging for the Truth reruns
From what I have read about Sherman's Lay Wast to everything March. His purpose was punishment pure and simple. Never official, but with a wink and nod from Grant he was let loose. The Union had plausible denial in issuing those orders because he was pretty much a self sufficient Army. Just like Colonel Walter E. Kurtz, he was a real Colonel by the way;)
incommin
04-22-2007, 17:07
I'll be watching....looking for Miss Scarlet and Rhett Butler!
Jim
The Reaper
04-22-2007, 22:23
Frankly, this seemed pretty one-sided and less than historically accurate to me.
Theft, looting, arson, rape and murder are being excused as lawful "foraging" against well-to-do slave holders by the North, and military resistance against the looters is a war crime against the South. I understand that taking required food and livestock are foraging, but the personal effects of fellow citizens?
Sherman uses Confederate prisoners to clear minefields, but again, it is excused.
He issues "lawful orders" to kill prisoners as a reprisal?
Pretty bad description of Averasboro and Bentonville.
Hollyweird. Atrotious acting as well.
I though Ken Burns' series was much more balanced and thought provoking.
Hood was a brave man, but was chasing his tail up in Tennessee at this time, on his way to breaking his Army at Nashville. He was a damn fool by this point in the war, shot to pieces and stoned on Laudanum.
TR
Frankly, this seemed pretty one-sided and less than historically accurate to me.
TR
But Sir,
You, as well as everyone else knows......the victors ALWAYS write the history books. ;)
I thought it was pretty good. Sure it wasn't as well done as Burns' series, but the show did tell a few items that weren't as well known, ie., Sherman's troops consuming 300 tons of food per DAY, Jackson cutting the pontoon bridge over the creek leaving the families of the slaves behind, and of course using the Johnny's to clear out the mines, and as the reprisal's for the Bummer's being killed, and just how well liked/loved Sherman was amongst his troops during and after the war, and of how He (Sherman) repaid them in kind.
All in all, I'd give the show a 4.5 out of 10.
I think it was on par for a typical History Channel low buget shoot.
The NC battles were the largest on the march and got very little air time.
They used a lot of info from the one officer on his staff. Another good read that covers this period is Love and Valor, Intimate Civil War Letters Between Captain Jacob and Emeline Ritner. He was and officer in the 25th Iowa, 15th Army Corps - Army of the Tennessee.
I saw nothing new and it was a slow two hours for me.
Pete
incommin
04-23-2007, 05:23
And I never saw Miss Scarlet!
Jim
kachingchingpow
04-23-2007, 07:58
Interesting stuff. I hope it comes back on. My hunting club lies along the left flank of the left wing (the northern most advance), in the Ogeechee River/Sandersville area.
The Reaper
04-23-2007, 08:07
Here is the story the show should have closed with.
Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston opposed Sherman in the battles outside Atlanta (until replaced by Hood), and as noted in the Carolina campaign before surrendering to Sherman in Durham, NC.
In the years after the war, Johnston would not tolerate fellow Confederates speaking ill of Sherman.
When Sherman died in 1891, Johnston was a pallbearer at his funeral. It was raining and the weather was miserable. Other attendees told the 84 year-old Johnston that he should get out of the weather or at least put on his hat. Johnston replied "If I were in his place and he standing here in mine he would not put on his hat." He caught pneumonia and died several weeks later.
Now that would have told a real story of the respect for Sherman, the admiration of his foes, and the spirit of reunification.
TR
And I never saw Miss Scarlet!
Jim
She was helpin' "birthin" a baby, and wasn't available. :D
Peregrino
04-23-2007, 11:18
A passable discussion of the strategic reasons behind Sherman's March and, for those willing to read between the lines, its success in shortening the war. Otherwise I think Pete and TR hit the nail on the head - a typical History Channel (lite) production with reenactors and populist history. Now - what would have happened if Lee had succeeded at Gettysburg and done something similar through Pennsylvania and New York? :munchin Peregrino
Now - what would have happened if Lee had succeeded at Gettysburg and done something similar through Pennsylvania and New York? :munchin Peregrino
NASCAR, not Baseball, would be our National Passtime.
There was nothing stnading in the way of Lee and Washington DC, had he won at Gettysburg. The Johnny's would have laid waste to Eastern Pennsylvania and Maryland.
The Reaper
04-23-2007, 11:38
NASCAR, not Baseball, would be our National Passtime.
There was nothing stnading in the way of Lee and Washington DC, had he won at Gettysburg. The Johnny's would have laid waste to Eastern Pennsylvania and Maryland.
By the time of the battle at Gettysburg, DC was well defended.
The rest of the North, as with the area of Pennsylvania Lee covered prior to the battle, was not.
Defeat the Federal Army, pull a Sherman type march through Eastern PA to Philly, south through Delaware and Maryland, and pull up into a blockade of DC before suing for a quick peace permitting free association or secession.
This was Longstreet's proposal to Lee rather than the battle at Gettysburg. Get behind the Federal forces, between them and DC, and fight a series of defensive battle of attrition while trading space for time. Note that on the political side, this was four months before the Presidential elections, and in late June/early July, Lincoln's chances did not look very good. At that time, the people of the North wetre tired of the war, the economic cost, the loss of civil liberties, toll of casulaties, and the inability of a series of Federal commanders to achieve victory in the East. Were it not for the Federal victories at Gettysburg and Atlanta, Lincoln may very well have lost to McClellan, who would have likely sued for peace.
In retrospect, that would have been a much better COA for the ANV, preserving sufficient combat strength to have allowed for at least limited offensive operations afterwards, rather than the defensive only capability Lee was left with after the slaughter at Gettysburg.
And had Joe Johnston remained in command of the Army of Tennessee, Sherman's march to the sea, with the 40 rounds per man he opted to carry, might have turned out far differently, as Johnston was a masterful defensive tactician.
Ifs and buts, but lessons learned nevertheless.
TR
....Sherman's march to the sea, with the 40 rounds per man he opted to carry, might have turned out far differently...
When they mention 40 Rds it was the "Basic Load" for an Infantry Soldier. It was what could be carried in the cartridge box. Four bundles of 10 Rds each with 12 caps. Two in the lower trays and twenty unwraped rounds in the top trays. As bundles were unwraped the caps were placed in the cap box.
Due to what the men were carrying and the time of year the Officers would not have wanted to issue any more ammo to the troops. The paper wraped bundles would have to be placed in pockets, bedrolls or, Horror of Horrors, the haversack. Water would have ruined the ammo - until it could be dryed out.
Sherman cut down on his trains by getting rid of just about all comfort items. IIRC a Regiment had one wagon for all the officers packs and the Regimental HQ. Another for the ambulance.
Sherman departed with 20 days rations and a standard "on the march" food issue to the troops would be 3 days. So he had 17-20 days worth of rations in the trains. Depends on when the marching rations were issued.
Pete
Airbornelawyer
04-23-2007, 12:29
He issues "lawful orders" to kill prisoners as a reprisal?
Until after World War II (presumably the 1949 conventions, but I'm not sure), I believe reprisal executions were illegal, but deterrent executions were permissible. It's a fine line, but it did exist in the law of land warfare. IIRC it was an issue in the trials of several German officers. It came down to arguing over whether the motive was revenge or to deter future attacks.
It would not be a lawful order today, and one can argue over the morality of it and various other actions under the rubric of "total war", but it does appear that it would have been a lawful order at the time, at least to the extent that lieutenant in question had the right to question whether it was lawful. From Articles 27 and 28 of General Order #100 of 1867:
27. The law of war can no more wholly dispense with retaliation than can the law of nations, of which it is a branch. Yet civilized nations acknowledge retaliation as the sternest feature of war. A reckless enemy often leaves to his opponent no other means of securing himself against the repetition of barbarous outrage.
28. Retaliation will therefore never be resorted to as a measure of mere revenge, but only as a means of protective retribution, and moreover cautiously and unavoidably--that is to say, retaliation shall only be resorted to after careful inquiry into the real occurrence and the character of the misdeeds that may demand retribution.
I may be wrong, I thought read it, for US troops, 40 rds in the cartridge box, and 20 rds in the haversack.
Gen. Ripley USA Ordinance, thought any more, the boys would just waste ammunition.
The Reaper
04-23-2007, 13:00
When they mention 40 Rds it was the "Basic Load" for an Infantry Soldier. It was what could be carried in the cartridge box. Four bundles of 10 Rds each with 12 caps. Two in the lower trays and twenty unwraped rounds in the top trays. As bundles were unwraped the caps were placed in the cap box.
Due to what the men were carrying and the time of year the Officers would not have wanted to issue any more ammo to the troops. The paper wraped bundles would have to be placed in pockets, bedrolls or, Horror of Horrors, the haversack. Water would have ruined the ammo - until it could be dryed out.
Sherman cut down on his trains by getting rid of just about all comfort items. IIRC a Regiment had one wagon for all the officers packs and the Regimental HQ. Another for the ambulance.
Sherman departed with 20 days rations and a standard "on the march" food issue to the troops would be 3 days. So he had 17-20 days worth of rations in the trains. Depends on when the marching rations were issued.
Pete
Understood, but IIRC, he had little additional small arms ammo in his trains. Certainly not enough for several sharp skirmishes in a brief period without units running low.
Roger on the light support of trains and ambulances.
It surprised me that with all of the foraging and 20 days of Class I to start with, Sherman's forces ran out in less than the 36 days it took them to reach Savannah. I understand that the pickings were slim near the end, as anyone who has ever spent much time outside Savannah can attest to, but would have expected that they should have been largely able to subsist off the land/inhabitants, and save the bulk of the hard rations.
As far as orders go, there appears to me to have been a serious disconnedct between Special Order 120 and what actually occurred.
"... IV. The army will forage liberally on the country during the march. To this end, each brigade commander will organize a good and sufficient foraging party, under the command of one or more discreet officers, who will gather, near the route traveled, corn or forage of any kind, meat of any kind, vegetables, corn-meal, or whatever is needed by the command, aiming at all times to keep in the wagons at least ten day's provisions for the command and three days' forage. Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass, but during a halt or a camp they may be permitted to gather turnips, potatoes, and other vegetables, and to drive in stock of their camp. To regular foraging parties must be instructed the gathering of provisions and forage at any distance from the road traveled.
V. To army corps commanders alone is entrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, &c., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.
VI. As for horses, mules, wagons, &c., belonging to the inhabitants, the cavalry and artillery may appropriate freely and without limit, discriminating, however, between the rich, who are usually hostile, and the poor or industrious, usually neutral or friendly. Foraging parties may also take mules or horses to replace the jaded animals of their trains, or to serve as pack-mules for the regiments or bridges. In all foraging, of whatever kind, the parties engaged will refrain from abusive or threatening language, and may, where the officer in command thinks proper, give written certificates of the facts, but no receipts, and they will endeavor to leave with each family a reasonable portion for their maintenance.
VII. Negroes who are able-bodied and can be of service to the several columns may be taken along, but each army commander will bear in mind that the question of supplies is a very important one and that his first duty is to see to them who bear arms. ...
– William T. Sherman, Military Division of the Mississippi Special Field Order 120, November 9, 1864."
Lack of discipline among the bummers and their leadership, perhaps?
TR
"....We made a few hard days' marches, but generally took our time and lived off the fat of the land. We found plenty of forage and provisions. We lived on yams and fresh pork, chickens, honey, molasses, peanuts, &c. We had only one baggage wagon to the regiment. But we brought all the officers' valises, and a wedge tent for each four officers, and we have only slept out of doors two or three times during the march. We had more accommodations than we ever had before on a march.........We ate all the hogs, and kept and drove off the cattle. We got hundreds o f good horses and mules and Negroes, and did an immense amount of mischief generally. We destroyed the railroad and all its branches from Macon to this point........."
Captain Ritner, 25th Iowa
In camp near Savannah
December 16, 1864
From the Book Love and Valor, Edited by Charles F Larimer
This was Longstreet's proposal to Lee rather than the battle at Gettysburg. Get behind the Federal forces, between them and DC, and fight a series of defensive battle of attrition while trading space for time
He should of listened. Longstreet was outnumbered by the ones who wanted to take the offensive. The chances of Lincoln getting reelected before Gettysburg, and that little speech he gave afterwords. Were slim to none. Wasn't his opponent running on the ticket, just give the south to the Confederacy, End the war there is nothing in the south we need anyway. The political situation at that time is just as interesting as the War itself.
Understood, but IIRC, he had little additional small arms ammo in his trains. Certainly not enough for several sharp skirmishes in a brief period without units running low.....TR
I'd have to do some digging to get the amount he took off with but a few asides on ammo.
The Infantry Soldier was trained to fire three aimed shoots per minute with a muzzle loading Rifle/Musket. Even with 40 rds in the cartridge box and another 20 stashed somewhere a regiment would be just about out of ammo within 20 minutes.
At 60 rounds each, an understrength regiment with 500 Corporals and Privates would require 30,000 rounds. At 1,000 rounds per case that would be 30 cases. Each case, .58 cal, weighed in at just about 98 Lbs for a total of about 2,940 pounds +/- . 1 1/2 tons of ammo.
It was very hard to move large quantities of ammo forward. It was easier to pull a regiment from the line and replace it with another as the former went back a ways to an ammo wagon.
This "rate of fire time" does not include the time it took to clean the Rifle/Musket of the Black Powder fouling.:D That was just a splash of water down the barrel, slosh it a bit, repeat, fire a cap or two and continue firing.
But the cleaning does not take into account the fact that the soldiers only had one canteen and had to march to where they were fighting. Within an hour entire Brigades from both sides could be out of water. Minor little side battles erupted between water parties, scouts and moving bodies of troops from the other side. It was not unusual to send out a water party and not see them until after the battle, if at all.
Supply and Logistics
Pete
Edited to add: XV Corps "40 ROUNDS"
Pete, wasn't there something such as, every tenth round was "a cleaning" round? I also read somewhere, that officers would order smaller bullets to compensate for BP fouling if they could get them.
The other interesting aspect was training, prior to Gettysburg there was not much training in regards to load in "9 times". The was something like over 25,000 Muskets recovered that was unable to be fired because the soldier loaded it improperly. I memory is right one musket had 9 charges in it. (9 powder and 9ball). After Gettysburg, the Army was suppose to improve training in shooting and loading.
The other aspect was different calibers and type of loads available. .69 smoothies where very common for the North at the beginning. The Docent at the Ft. Lewis Museum is/was very knowledgeable about Civil War firearms. I attended a class he gave if you get up that way, it is worth the visit. I have a 1818 Springfield in .69 caliber, that was rifled for the Civil War.
Hope I am not to far off.
I'd have to check my source again but off the top of my head.
There was a Zinc cleaner round bundled with the other nine at some point in time but not universal. Much hated by the troops, kicked like a mule and didn't work that great.
Round size. Right at the start of the war there were a wide variety of weapons and calibers. The main ones were the .69 cal. Rifle/Muskets and .69 cal.Muskets (Buck & Ball shooters), and then the .58 cal (.5775") Springfield and the .577 cal. Enfield. You could load a .577 in a .58 but not the other way around.
The US quickly dropped the larger round and all .58 (.577) Boxed ammo would fit the Springfield or the Enfield. The Arsenals continued to shrink the rounds are the war progressed. Down to .575, and then .570 and some as small as .565 by the end of the war.
Main Federal Arsenals during the war Allegheny (Penn), Benicia (CA), Columbus (OH), Champlain (VT), Fort Monroe (limited, VA), Frankford (Penn), Harper's Ferry (destroyed 04/18/1861), Indianapolis (IN), Kennebec (Maine), Levenworth (KS), New York (NY), Rock Island (IL), Springfield (Mass), Washington, (DC), Vancouver, (Wash. Terr.), Watertown (near Boston) and Watervliet (West Troy, NY). This does not include the state arsenals.
The exact timeline of the shrinking rounds varied with the Arsenal.
Source - Round Ball to Rimfire, Part one by Dean S Thomas, Copywrite 1997
Pete
..The other interesting aspect was training, prior to Gettysburg there was not much training in regards to load in "9 times". The was something like over 25,000 Muskets recovered that was unable to be fired because the soldier loaded it improperly....
Load in Nine Times is in School of the Soldier in all of the drill manuals for the Civil War. The Soldiers were all trained using this technique as well as the other individual tasks before moving to Company drill and then Battalion drill.
All of the manuals of the time were based on Scott's (Three ranks and muskets). In 1855 Hardee published the 1855 drill manuel (School of the Soldier and Company, 2 ranks) based on the 1855 Rifle. As the war started a number of Militia Manuals, Baxter's, were published to fill the gap. They were mostly based on Scott's but included Hardee's and Gilham's (sp?). The war saw the return to the Musket and Rifle/Musket and away from the rifle. The Springfield and Enfield are Rifle/Muskets.
All in all the manuals were quite similar with only minor variations on placement of the butt of the weapon for loading, the ready position and a few other odd things.
A study of weapons picked up on the battlefield would have to include where they were found on the battlefield and what units fought in that area. What the different units carried, a number of Federal units at Gettysburg still had .69 cal Muskets. After the units were IDed you would have to check the training/length of service of the soldiers. A number of large Heavy Artillery units were converted to Infantry in the last couple of years of the war. While they had been "In Service" for a number of years they had seen no action and died in great numbers in their first engagement.
Trivia - They even had blank rounds and some great practice battles were fought using them.
Pete
So for the most part the individual soldier was trained on Load in Nine Times.
Load:D
During the Civil War Drill was to practice moving large bodies of troops around on the battlefield and put them where the commander wants them. The focus was to maintain the unit organization and "Front", the direction the battle line faces.
The Battle Line consisted of the Corporals and Privates. When the unit was firing the Officers and Sergeants were to the rear of the battle line to control it.
The battle line had a front rank and a rear rank, file partners and comrades in arms/battle - a grouping of two files to form a set of four. When a unit first formed it would count by twos - one, two, one, two, one, two - to ID the files and sets of four. To march by the flanks and other evolutions of battalion drill the individual soldier had to remember his place in that set of four.
The bulk of a soldiers day was spent in Drill. Company and Battalion drill in the morning and maybe Brigade drill in the afternoon. Drill was as much for the officers as it was for the men. Above Company Drill the individual private was still doing his basic drill, it just took longer because of the greater number of troops, officers and units the General had to move about.
Poorly drilled units did not last long on the battlefield, the generals knew it and great pains were taken to insure soldiers were well drilled. But as with all things, more than once a poorly drilled Regiment screwed up something on the battlefield and caused a skedaddle or three.:D
Pete
Monsoon65
04-24-2007, 17:24
Here is the story the show should have closed with.
Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston opposed Sherman in the battles outside Atlanta (until replaced by Hood), and as noted in the Carolina campaign before surrendering to Sherman in Durham, NC.
In the years after the war, Johnston would not tolerate fellow Confederates speaking ill of Sherman.
When Sherman died in 1891, Johnston was a pallbearer at his funeral. It was raining and the weather was miserable. Other attendees told the 84 year-old Johnston that he should get out of the weather or at least put on his hat. Johnston replied "If I were in his place and he standing here in mine he would not put on his hat." He caught pneumonia and died several weeks later.
Now that would have told a real story of the respect for Sherman, the admiration of his foes, and the spirit of reunification.
TR
I agree. I saw this on the History Channel and was telling my Dad about Johnston and Sherman, but they never mentioned anything about it, or that Sherman was one of the first to say, "Hey, the war is over, now is the time to heal and move forward."
A study of weapons picked up on the battlefield would have to include where they were found on the battlefield and what units fought in that area.
My Uncle had a few Bullets he found on his Fredricksburg Farm with the tips drilled out. Apparently in the heat of Battle soldiers would shove bullets down their Barrels without first dumping the powder. It must of happened a lot from the amount of drilled Bullets he had. They used a ram rod with a screw on the end of it to later pull them out. Also blown out or damaged Barrels were found with three or four Bullets stuck in them. Next time I go home to NY ill dig a few out and take some pics.
I also once heard or read. The Union was so over supplied at times that they would shoot extra Ram Rods out of their Rifles toward the Enemy, for kicks.
One more, anyone know if it's true that all Confederate graves were removed/relocated from FT Bragg when it first became a Federal Post? Seems it was against the law to have Rebels buried on Federal property. Can't remember seeing any CSA graves on Bragg only Union. Long Range, you heard this story before.
The Reaper
04-24-2007, 19:10
One more, anyone know if it's true that all Confederate graves were removed/relocated from FT Bragg when it first became a Federal Post? Seems it was against the law to have Rebels buried on Federal property. Can't remember seeing any CSA graves on Bragg only Union. Long Range, you heard this story before.
I do not believe this is true, though families may have requested them moved off of the installation when the property was purchased.
I am pretty sure that there are Confederate soldiers buried on Bragg and Benning.
TR
My Uncle had a few Bullets he found on his Fredricksburg Farm with the tips drilled out. Apparently in the heat of Battle soldiers would shove bullets down their Barrels without first dumping the powder. It must of happened a lot from the amount of drilled Bullets he had. They used a ram rod with a screw on the end of it to later pull them out. Also blown out or damaged Barrels were found with three or four Bullets stuck in them. Next time I go home to NY ill dig a few out and take some pics.
I also once heard or read. The Union was so over supplied at times that they would shoot extra Ram Rods out of their Rifles toward the Enemy, for kicks.....
Oh man, where to start.
Being muzzle loaders, once a Rifle or Rifle/Musket was loaded there was only two ways to "unload" it 1 - Fire it or 2 - Pull the round and dump the powder.
After a battle there would be thousands of soldiers standing around with loaded weapons. To have a regimental commander of 500-700 privates and corporals just point their weapons that-a-way and "BANG" would have had massive amounts of lead flying every whichway. Not good if it went in the direction of the Division Commander.
The standard practice was to form up the unit and move down the two ranks checking and unloading weapons with a screw/bullet puller. In most cases when one is found others will be also found in some sort of line.
Usable weapons found on the battlefield would be gathered up and turned over to Ordnance Officials for sorting, checking and maybe reissue. Some units were known to "resupply" with newer weapons when they had control of the battlefield. Again screwed bullets would generally be found in a central loaction.
The soldiers were trained in loading in Nine Times as stated in a privious post. 1 Load 2 Handle cartridge 3 Tear cartridge 4 Charge Cartridge 5 Draw rammer 6 Ram cartridge 7 Return Rammer 8 Prime and 9 Shoulder arms.
The cartridge is constructed of two paper tubes that hold the round at the bottom followed by 65 grs of black powder. The end of the larger piece of paper was twisted/folded into a tail. At step 2 the cartridge was extracted from the cartridge box, the tail flipped up with the thumb and placed between the teeth. At 3 the tail was torn open exposing the powder and the cartridge was then moved to the front of the opening of the muzzle. at 4 the round was flipped back towards the firer dumping the powder, the tube was struck against the side of the barrel exposing the base of the expanding ball and the ball (expanding) was pinched out, free of paper into the muzzle.
Very few items would cause a weapon to missfire. Number one was a fouled cone (nipple) where it was improperly cleaned or fouling built up during a longer battle. A fast cleaning with water during the fight could clog the cone area and after the barrel was swabbed out one or two caps would be fired to check/dry out the cone area. Number two was no powder but that was rare just due to how the weapons were loaded. Most weapons with multiple rounds were found with powder and bullet leading to the fouled cone issue. A soldier, once he realized he had a missfire, would either fix it immediately or drop it and pick up another one. That is the one main reason to finding these missfired weapons.
Rammers and over supplied? Rifles, Rifle/Muskets and Muskets were all issued with a rammer. It was part of the weapon. It was issued to the soldier as one whole thing and he was responsible for it. The company commander held the big hand recipt for all the company equipment and was responsible for it to the regiment. Without the rammer the weapon was useless. There was no box of rammers just hanging out waiting to be fired for amusement.
This is not to say soldiers didn't pick up a rammer here or there and few a few sometimes. Even firing a rammer without the bullet can be interesting. It is very unstable, generally comes out bent, wobbels and twists every which way and does not go very far. If you get one that goes one hundred yards call me.
I have a .58 cal Rifle/Musket that I like to shoot every now and again. Get down to the Rod & Gun Club and I'll make up some rounds and we'll do Load in Nine Times.
Pete
Not an expert here but I do some odd reading now and again.
I see this thread kinda' taking off on an angle.
I'd like to clarify my posts a bit.
The Civil War has had hundreds of people publish works on it. Tons and tons of material has come into print. Add in that the war had hundreds of thousands of soldiers fighting in many parts of the country.
The best place to find information is in the primary sources, Official Records, Supply Returns, Pictures, letters and newspapers of the time. Books by veterans many years after the war have to be ballanced against the other primary sources.
Many people have taken one passage in one place about something and tried to make it sound as if everybody did it. Did everybody do it, was it common or did just a few people do it here and there? To find out takes a lot of reading through many sources. Even with that debate rages over trivial items, most of those involve the drill manuals.
You would hardly think since it was written in a book that there would be any debate but you have to remember all drill was based on Scott's work from the early 1800s. This was based on a three rank battle line with Muskets. Hardee's 1855 was based on the Rifle and ranks were dropped to two. Everything was covered in great detail except a couple of things that were "Common Knowledge". Those items are not common knowledge today and the debate rages between nit-pickers.
Add in that battle line tactics changed right after the war including many of the lessons learned from the Civil War, but also touching back on Scott's but in more open order. That really threw the wrench into the works of modern historians - "Why go back to Scott's? Or was it really there all the time we just can't find it?" This again drives the nit-pickers crazy.
So -never say never about anything in the Civil War, there were far too many soldiers to say that. But was it common for the everyday soldier of either side to do that? To find that out you need to go back to the primary souces. A Commander's General Order might just be to stop or prevent a problem he see's coming.
Are you reading fact, fiction or a blend of the two? If it's a blend what is the truth.
Pete
Who can be a nit-picker on one or two things.
Airbornelawyer
04-25-2007, 10:14
One more, anyone know if it's true that all Confederate graves were removed/relocated from FT Bragg when it first became a Federal Post? Seems it was against the law to have Rebels buried on Federal property. Can't remember seeing any CSA graves on Bragg only Union. Long Range, you heard this story before.
I do not believe this is true, though families may have requested them moved off of the installation when the property was purchased.
I am pretty sure that there are Confederate soldiers buried on Bragg and Benning.
TR
A 2002 survey of cemeteries on Fort Bragg, Camp Mackall and Pope AFB: http://www.bragg.army.mil/culturalresources/pdfs/Cemetery%20Project%204th%20Edition%20Nov%2002.pdf
To the best of my recollection, the only cemeteries on what became Fort Benning were some small family, slave and sharecropper ones. There are a few fenced-off plots on various parts of post.
Team Sergeant
04-25-2007, 15:37
A 2002 survey of cemeteries on Fort Bragg, Camp Mackall and Pope AFB: http://www.bragg.army.mil/culturalresources/pdfs/Cemetery%20Project%204th%20Edition%20Nov%2002.pdf
To the best of my recollection, the only cemeteries on what became Fort Benning were some small family, slave and sharecropper ones. There are a few fenced-off plots on various parts of post.
I'll have you know I found one in the 1980's, a civil war grave site on Ft Bragg, that was previously unmarked.;) We called it in and it's now a marked and fenced site.
Team Sergeant
Number two was no powder but that was rare just due to how the weapons were loaded.
Thats what always had me question the number of pulled or screwed Bullets he found. How could a Soldier put a Bullet down the Barrel without powder. Weren't the Bullets and Powder one single package, cartridge? The Powder and Bullet were placed into the Barrel pretty much at the same time when loading?
On the Ram Rods being fired. It was just something interesting I read. The two books were titled The Blue, The Gray. They covered the every day life of the foot Soldiers. It was a long time ago when I read them. But I remember them being two of the most interesting books on the Civil War I read.
For the two years before I joined the Army I did the reenactor thing (23rd Alabama if I remember correctly) Very interesting/expensive hobby, even more interesting group of people those reenactors. Everything right down to the eyeglasses you wore. Had to be with the times. Some of the Commanders took their role very seriously. Still have all the Gear and Uniform.
Thats what always had me question the number of pulled or screwed Bullets he found. How could a Soldier put a Bullet down the Barrel without powder. Weren't the Bullets and Powder one single package, cartridge? The Powder and Bullet were placed into the Barrel pretty much at the same time when loading?
A far as misloading, I always imagines how scared some of the soldiers were. My understanding at Antietam, fresh/green battalion where hastily thrown into battle with out the soldier having been properly drilled in the loading procedures. Veterans falling off the line of battle would fall in with the green recruits and give quick loading lessons. The bullet could be placed downwards.
Drill was the major training not so much shooting and loading. At the on set of the war, the South had the advantage more of the men had prior military service and rural boys already knew how to shoot. City boys in the North and immagrants did not have those skills.
Monsoon65
04-25-2007, 20:46
The Civil War has had hundreds of people publish works on it. Tons and tons of material has come into print.....
A really good book I stumbled across is "Confederates in the Attic" by Tony Horwitz. He tours around the South, interviewing people about the obsession everyone has with the Civil War.
At one point, he interviews Shelby Foote. He tells him that if he were writing his volumes of Civil War history now, with what's now available out there, they'd be completely different.
If you're looking for a good read about the Civil War and how people see it in the present day, I recommend this book.
... The bullet could be placed downwards......
Again possible - but not probable. The Regs called for the bullet end of the paper tube to be tied shut with a piece of string. The bullet was placed in the tube with it's nose against the tied area. Then the powder was poured into the tube and it folded shut.
Due to the way the rounds were folded in the bundle of ten and the bundle placed into the box of 1,000 rds the tied area was pushed almost flat. When bringing the round to the mouth to tear open the end the easiest place to bite was the long tail, as it was designed.
So - bite off the tail or chew off the nose. Once the powder is poured the round comes out of the tube base first. To load it nose first you would have to turn it around with your fingers.
The way it was designed almost forces a soldier to do it the right way.
The Civil War period was towards the end of 150 years of formal musket use in a battle line. IIRC the first pattern Brown Bess was introduced sometime around 1710-1720 and I consider that period the start of formal musket employment in a battle line. Of course matchlocks and such had been in use many years before that.
Again, anyone interested in the transition to rifled ammunition and the Arsenal system in the US during the 1850s and 1860s would enjoy the book Round Ball to Rim Fire, A History of Civil War Small Arms Ammunition by Dean S Thomas. While a great bit of the book is on muzzle loaders he also covers pistol and repeater ammunition.
Any Civil War book collection for Beginers should also include the three books Arms and Equipment of the Union, Arms and Equiment of the Confederacy and Illlustrated Atlas of the Civil War, all by Tally Hall Press. A great collection of photographs of original equipment.
Great start on Southern first person accounts are Reminiscences of a Private by Frank M Mixson and Company Aytch, or a Side Show of the Big Show by Sam Watkins. A great account of the war from the northern view is Love and Valor, Intimate Civil War Letters Between Captain Jacob and Emiline Ritner, Edited By Charles F Larimer, Sigourney Press. Many, many more are out there.
The Classics are Hardtack and Coffee, The Unwritten Story of Army Life by John D Billings and The Life of Billy Yank, The Common Soldier of the Union by Bell Irvin Wiley.
Take the above books and follow the links to the Official Records in another thread and all of you will have plenty of reading for the coming winter.:lifter
Pete
Confederates in the Attic? Not on my top shelf.
Pete, I agree, the load in 9 times is pretty "fools" proof.
I think it is more a question on how much training a recruit received to instill basic skills that should be instinctive during the heat of battle along with how scared a soldier was. I often ponder how it would have been like, to be shoulder to shoulder in line of battle with the enemy 50 -100 yards away all the time both sides pouring lead into each other.
Green troops, until they were "bloodied", were generally considered unknown/or non-reliable. After Gettysburg the criticism against Gen. Meade was that with his fresh troops he did not pursue Gen. Lee. Gen. Meade felt his green troops were no real match for Gen. Lee's veterans regardless of how they(ANV) fared after Gettysburg. Gen. Meade thought it would lead to heavy US casualties without victory for the North, a price he felt the US could ill afford.
Forgive me for any errors, I have been remiss in my readings the last couple of years.
Your Obedient Servant
H.
The Classics are Hardtack and Coffee, The Unwritten Story of Army Life by John D Billings and The Life of Billy Yank
Those are the names, I was trying to remember, thanks