The Staff of Maj. Gen. Philip H. Sheridan

Looking for some help to Identify the men of Sheridan’s staff. So far here is what I have come up with.

Updated thanks to some help from Stefan and JD and my own continued detective work. Thanks.

Sheridan’s Staff – June 1864

Top Row Standing on Porch:

Capt. Joseph O’Keeffe,  Capt. Michael V. Sheridan,  Lt. Col. Frederick Newhall, Unknown, Maj. George “Sandy” Forsyth, Capt. Louis Carpenter, Unknown, Capt. James F. Wade

Standing on Top Step:

Might this be Col. C. R. Smith of the 6th PA Cav? Sheridan had him on his staff.

Bottom Row:

Unknown, Capt. Thomas W. C. Moore, Col. James “Tony” Forsyth, Gen. Sheridan

All officers to the right of Sheridan are unknown at this time. Any help you can provide in identifying any of these officers is greatly appreciated. It is interesting to try and figure out and one can go back and forth on id’s. For example, Sheridan’s brother Michael could be one of two men. If you look at a picture of MVS twenty years later, the second man from the left in top row seems to be the proper id. However, it was said that he looked just like Phil. Looking at General S’s photograph as a lieutenant in the Regular Army in the 1850′s, the third man from left on the top row is a convincing choice.

Stones River: A Wounded Soldier’s Account of the Suffering

I had wanted to share some sources that I have found over the years in honor of the 150th Anniversary of the Civil War. I’ve not been able to keep up with it, but before we get to far away from the Stones River/Murfreesboro time frame, I wanted to share some accounts that I have on that battle which has always been of much interest to me.  Although I live in Virginia and have done all of my writing on Virginia campaigns and battles, I cut my teeth reading about the Western Theater, so I have a latent interest that needs further cultivation.

Gallipolis Journal, January 22, 1863

 

FROM L. D. CARTER.

 

Murfreesboro, Tenn., Jan. 5, 1863.

 

J am compelled to occupy rather a precarious position in writing to you lhat is, on my back. I am in the Hospital at Murfreesboro. Getting along finely. I was wounded on the second day of this month by a cannon ball, or rather a shell bursting on my back and hip, which bruised me badly. I was wounded amidst the hardest of the battle, about five o’clock in the evening and laid on the battlefield till about 10 o’clock that night, unable to move. I waa injured considerably more by the men running over me after I was hurt and aside from all this, the weather was vary cold and raining I thought that I had gone through the flint mill before, but I bad undergone nothing until the present affair, which was the most horrible sight I ever witnessed, or ever expect to.

 

I think I shall be able to join my regiment in the course of two weeks, or at least I want to in order to get satisfaction out of the rebels. I had my horse shot from under me on the 31st December, and then fell into the hands of the rebels, but escaped from them on New Year’s morning. This was before I was hurl. My flesh is not broken only in one place, which is slight, but my bruise is tolerably bad. Capt. Ross was slightly wounded, and a number more of his Company, of whom I will give the names in my next. Our regiment suffered terribly, the loss being one hundred and seventy-five in killed and wounded- – Every house in Murfreesboro and surrounding neighborhood is used for hospital purposes and I believe all are being eared for as well as could be expected. It would be useless for me at present to attempt to give you an idea of the whole proceedings here during the late hard fought battles, but shall try to give you an abstract idea in my next, which will be soon. You can form so idea how the troops suffered here during the whole affair, which lasted seven days. We were short of rations, or hadn’t time to prepare them, without tents, the rain pouring down in torrents, and were freezing the principal part of the time. I shall rite no more at present, as I think it doubtful If you can read what I have already written. I have no ink, and am compelled to use a pencil.

 

Yours,

 

Lorenzo D. Carter

 

Lt. Co. I, 18^th Ohio Volunteer Infantry

Update on My Projects

We are in the final stages of production for my tome on the Battle of Opequon Creek, entitled “The Last Battle of Winchester.” Hal Jesperson has produced an awesome set of 22 maps to accompany the work along with dozens of photographs of participants and places (both modern and contemporary). It won’t be long before it hits the shelves at your favorite bookstore.

Once this project is completed, I will be shifting gears to complete a volume on “Hunter’s Raid on Lynchburg” for the History Press. Have uncovered a lot of new material on this campaign. The narrative will pick up with Hunter’s advance from Staunton and cover engagements and activities at Lexington, Buchanan, Lynchburg, Liberty (Bedford), Hanging Rock (Salem-Roanoke County) and the harrowing retreat through West Virginia. If you are aware of any good sources from participants on the campaign please let me know. Thanks.

Cox’s Brigade at Third Winchester Update

Alfred Young of Pennsylvania has conducted decades of research on casualties in the Army of Northern Virginia in the 1864 Campaigns. His study of the Overland Campaign will soon be published by LSU Press. He was kind enough to share his findings on Third Winchester with me. We have corresponded and spoke on the phone many times over the years and I am very happy that his work is coming out soon. He his a dogged research and a first class gentleman.

As a footnote to Capt. Galle’s account of Third Winchester, Alfred’s research revealed that Cox’s brigade lost 278 men killed, wounded and captured at Winchester. The 4th and 14th North Carolina regiments lost 152 of the brigades total loss. Cox carried no more than 1,000 men into battle that day.

Battle of Wilson’s Creek Missouri – 150th Anniversary – Soldier’s Account of the Kansas Regiments

The Kansas Regiments at Wilson’s Creek.

The Kansas Chief – August 29, 1861

At the risk of repetition, we lay before our readers a portion of a communication to the Missouri Republican relating to the action of the Kansas boys in the recent
battle: The First Missouri Regiment was deployed as skirmishers, until it reached a hill near the enemy’s camp, when it closed up and began the fight in earnest. The firing now became heavy; the cannon opened on both Bides; the balls whistled over our heads, knocking branches from trees, and pounding the rocks beyond us in an unmerciful manner, but hurting no one. The enemy’s musketry, however was better directed and did much havoc with the Missouri boys, who stood it bravely. The First Kansas regiment was now ordered to their support, six companies in front and four as a reserve. Just now the Missouri boys were compelled to fall back, having sustained a galling fire for a half hour, and then the Kansas fellows came in with a yell. After firing a few rounds, Capt. Chenoweth’s, Clayton’s and a part of Capt. McFarland company under Lieut. Malone the Captain having been previously wounded were ordered to charge.

Headed by Col.Deitzler, they drove the enemy from their position, but soon found that their ardor was likely to cost them dear, for they got into the rebel lines so far that they were almost surrounded, a large body showing themselves on either flank and pouring in a fearful fire. They were obliged to fall back, and in doing so Col. Deitzler was severely wounded, and his horse killed. Capt. Chenoweth was slightly wounded in the arm, received a ball in his boot, and had his hat shot off.

Amid the noise and confusion of the constant firing of musketry and roaring of artillery, the order of retreat was not heard by Capt. Clayton, who continued to advance until he came to the brow of the hill, where he discovered a regiment of men whom he supposed from their uniform to be Sigel’s regiment, advancing toward him at right angles. Their Colonel asked the Captain where the enemy were. He replied by pointing in the direction of the retreating rebel forces, and immediately commended aligning his company on the right of the regiment. All at once Capt. Clayton mistrusted that be was in a trap, and looking towards the Colonel he recognized in him an old acquaintance, being no less than Col. Clarkson of Kansas Border Ruffian notoriety, ex-postmaster of Leavenworth City. The Captain then gave the command, “right oblique, march 1″ When he had moved his company a distance of about thirty paces away from the enemy’s line, the Adjutant of the rebel regiment rode rapidly towards him and commanded him to halt. He did so and immediately brought his command to an “about face,” fronting the enemy’s line. The Adjutant asked “what troops are these ?”

“I belong to the First Kansas Regiment,” replied the Captain; “who are yon ?” “I am Adjutant of the Fifth Missouri Volunteers.” “What; Confederate or United States?” “Confederate.” “Then dismount, God damn you; you’re my prisoner,” said the Captain, presenting his pistol. He obeyed, and upon the demand of the Captain delivered over his sword. “Now” said the Captain, “order your men not to fire, or you’re a dead man,” and commenced moving backward with his company, holding the Adjutant between himself and the rebel forces.

The Adjutant ordered his men to open fire, which they did, and the Captain shot the Adjutant with his pistol. At the same moment a sergeant of Captain C’s company thrust his bayonet through the’ body of the Adjutant, pinning him to the ground and leaving his gun sticking in his body. The Captain then ordered his men to run for their lives, which they did, forming again upon the brow of the hill. Meanwhile Maj. Halderman was gallantly leading the reserve of four companies which were now engaged. The Second Kansas regiment had come into action; their brave commander, Colonel Mitchell, was shot severely, and now Lieut. Col. Blair was acting like the true man ha it, is cheering as and directing his men. Maj. Clark with his long hair reminding one of Col. May, was riding up and down the line as cool as if nothing unusual was happening. Capt. Steel, with his brigade, was pouring thunderous volleys into the scoundrels, while Capt Totem’s battery was outdoing itself in its murderous belching. Wherever his guns were turned, solitude was made. Gen. Lyon had fallen, and Maj. Sturgis was now in command.

The grape shot began to rattle about us like hail, and then
we knew that Col. Sigel had lost his battery, and that his guns were turned upon us, for the enemy had hitherto fired no grape. Just now Capt, Chenoweth rode to the right of the Second Kansas, and pointing over the brow of the hill, called for cannon observing that the enemy were approaching .from that direction. There they’ came, fifteen hundred men, in an unbroken line. Two field pieces were brought to the right and opened upon’ them with ‘terrible effect, but still they advanced, evidently thinking that the cannon would prove their prey. Little they knew of the thousand unflinching men who lay in’ the grass before them.
They opened a terrible fire, but received no answer save from the artillery. The bullets whistled, rattled, banged, whirred over our heads, striking the trees and
bushes two or three feet from the ground. If our men had stood up, hardly a man would have been left. At last the order to fire was given, and such a terrific volley as followed was never before heard by any man on that field. It is folly to try to describe it, or to search for a comparison. The enemy broke and fled their
train was seen to be on fire and they in retreat, but we could not hope to hold the field with our small force, for they would not fail to return with overwhelming
numbers. We were therefore ordered to retire. The Second Kansas Regiment was the last off the field; wheeling into column and marching off in prefect order.

We halted about two miles from the battle-field to wait for stragglers and collect our forces, thinking it hardly possible that the enemy would not harass our
rear with his cavalry, of which ho had great numbers. It afterward proved that he was clad to bid us a final adieu. Our whole train was brought away in safety Thus a little army of five thousand men rescued an immense and valuable train from a force more than five times its number. The officers who directed the fight acted with the utmost coolness and bravery. When Col. Deitzler was obliged to retire wounded from the field, ho called Adjutant Nash to his side and directed him to take command of the battalion. He did so for some time, until he could get the attention of Capt. Chenoweth, the ranking captain, when he requested him to take command, he meanwhile assisting in directing the movements of the battalion. Captains Chenoweth, Clayton and McFarland, and Lieutenants Barker, Malone, Tucker, Spicer. Stafford and Spaulding as well as Col. Deitzler, Maj. Halderman and Adjutant Nash, behaved gallantly throughout the battle, and should be honorably mentioned in the official reports.

The 4th South Carolina at Manassas: Critical Delaying Action under Shanks Evans

Without the swift movement of gen. Nathan “Shanks” Evans to confront McDowell’s flanking column on Matthews Hill, Thomas J. Jackson might have never had the opportunity to earn the name “Stonewall” on Henry Hill.

Correspondence of the Richmond Dispatch – August 8, 1861
Fourth South Carolina Regiment.

Camp Pettus, 7 miles North of Manassas,
Aug.5, 1861.

In reading the letters of your numerous correspondents with regard to the late battle at Stone Bridge, I see they nearly all allude to particular regiments, and the prominent parts enacted by each of them in achieving that great victory. Though I have been glad to see the gallantry and prowess of each regiment and legion thus chronicled to the world, I have been surprised to see that the very first regiment and battalion which were engaged in that conflict, and who sustained the whole shock of the enemy, unsupported for two hours, have been scarcely mentioned at all. I allude to the Fourth South Carolina Regiment, under Col. J. B. E Sloan, and the Louisiana Regiment, under Maj. Wheat As I am a member of the ” Fourth,” I speak of what I know. Our regiment, with Major Wheat’s command, and two six-pounders of Latham’s Artillery, had been encamped for four or five days previous to the battle, within a few hundred yards of the Stone Bridge, waiting and watching for the enemy. Before daylight on Sundaymorning, 21st, we were aroused by the firing of our pickets. Being formed in line of battle, our regiment by sunrise was lying upon the ground directly in front of the bridge, and covered by the brow of the sharp hill to the left of the road. Soon after sunrise, the long straight turnpike upon the opposite side of the Run was filled with the columns of the enemy as far as the eye could reach. They came within five hundred yards of us, threw out their skirmishers, and opened a battery upon us, feeling with ball and shell around and over the hill to find our position. Our regiment remained here with no other firing except between our skirmishers and those of the enemy, until about eight o’clock, under the immediate supervision of Gen. Evans, whose headquarters were within one hundred yards of our position.

At about 8 o’clock we received a message that the enemy had crossed the Run in large force about three miles above, and were marching down to flank us on our left. With drawing without the knowledge of the army in our front, and which was composed of eight or ten thousand men, we commenced a double quick to meet the column which had crossed above. After accomplishing a mile or more, we came in sight of their long line of bayonets, glistening in the morning sun. Halting, we formed in a small hollow or ravine, with Maj. Wheat’s battalion on our right and a little advanced from our position. The enemy formed on a commanding hill, four or five hundred yards in front, and opened upon us with a heavy fire of musketry, and grape-shot from the Rhode Island Battery. Both the Louisianians and our regiment returned the fire with spirit, and several of our men were killed and wounded thus early in the day, or before 9 o’clock.

Soon afterwards, we received an order to form under cover of a wood to our right, and somewhat nearer the enemy. Here we remained for some time, in the edge nearest the enemy, keeping up our fire, and having many of our men killed and wounded. The first reinforcement of which we were aware joined us here, and arrived at 9½ or 10 o’clock. It proved to be the 4th Alabama Regiment and some other companies, under command of the lamented Col. Bee.

With this noble regiment, which has been deservedly spoken of for its gallantry, we retired when the fire became too hot to be withstood. We, however, soon rallied, and returned to the fight, remaining in it through-out the day. A large portion of our regiment were in the first charge made upon Sherman’s Battery; and many eye-witnesses will avow that the regimental flag, presented to us a few weeks ago by the patriotic ladies of Leesburg, was the very first planted upon one of those guns. It was done by Major Robert Maxwell, our gallant color-bearer. These pieces were, I believe, taken several times before we finally succeeded in holding them. This much I have thought should be said, in justice to the 4th Regiment and the Louisiana battalion, without in the least intending to detract from any other command. Where all did nobly, comparison would be odious. History will, however, record that we were first in the fray, and, with about 1,000 men, (as four of our companies remained at the bridge as skirmishers and a reserve,) kept 30,000 of the enemy in check for one and a half or two hours.

After the day was ours, and victory had perched upon the new-born banners of the South, our regiment returned to its former camping-ground, now a portion of the battlefield, and, for the first time that day, partook of a soldier’s meal. Our tents and blankets had also been sent off, and, without either, we were exposed that night to a drenching rain, catching what we could of sleep, and dreaming of the thrilling incidents of the day. The loss of our regiment in killed and wounded was 102 men, out of 700 fit for duty. Among the gallant dead was our Adjutant General, Sam, Wilks. of Anderson, South Carolina.–Our army boasts no more chivalric and accomplished gentleman. Himself and horse fell within fifty yards of our encampment, pierced by more than a dozen bullets

S. S.C

Latest Book Review on the Battle of Piedmont

The Battle of Piedmont and Hunter’s Raid on Staunton: The 1864 Shenandoah Campaign
By Scott C. Patchan
(July 2011 Civil War News Book Review)

Reviewer: Jonathan A. Noyalas

Illustrated, photos, notes, appendices, bibliography, index, 192 pp., 2011, History Press, http://www.historypress.net, $21.99 softcover.

Following the crushing blow suffered by Union Gen. Franz Sigel at New Market in the Shenandoah Valley on May 15, 1864, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant determined to change the course of the conflict in the Confederacy’s breadbasket by replacing Sigel with Gen. David Hunter.

Although Hunter is most popularly known for his destruction in the upper Shenandoah in the spring of 1864, few understand what allowed Hunter to perpetrate his destruction — the Battle of Piedmont. Fortunately, Scott Patchan has rectified that problem with this latest volume in the History Press’ Sesquicentennial Series.

Readers familiar with Shenandoah Valley literature know that Patchan, author of several other works related to operations in the Valley, published a volume on this battle in 1996 — The Forgotten Fury: The Battle of Piedmont.

This newest rendition is superior to the earlier volume. This fine book, including 15 maps, an order of battle and detailed casualty lists, is a product of Patchan’s continuing research.

Using an impressive array of both archival and published primary material, he has pieced together a fast-paced narrative about the oft-forgotten but highly significant events of late May and early June 1864 in the Shenandoah.

In the book’s first three chapters, he sets the stage for the June 5, 1864, fight at Piedmont by examining how Hunter reorganized and brought discipline to an army that had little under Sigel.

Patchan also scrutinizes how Confederate war-planners adapted to meet the new challenges Hunter’s force posed after New Market. Additionally, the author provides numerous biographical sketches of the personalities on both sides — affording an opportunity for the reader to understand the character traits and flaws that manifested themselves at Piedmont.

In the following five chapters, Patchan addresses the circumstances of the battle itself, beginning with the strategic decision of Gen. William “Grumble” Jones to block Hunter at Piedmont in an effort to prevent the Union force from getting to the vital rail and supply center of Staunton and ending with the battle’s grisly aftermath. It is in these chapters that the author is at his best as he examines the fight’s tactical flow.

While discussions of tactical minutiae in most battle histories tend to become cumbersome, Patchan writes with a flair that allows the reader to clearly envision troop movements and experience the emotion of troops on both sides as the battle raged.

Following his discussion of the Union victory at Piedmont, Patchan devotes a chapter to the main objective of Hunter’s operation, Staunton. It is in this chapter that Civil War historians interested in the impact of total war will find useful information.

Here the author discusses not only the reaction of Confederate civilians in Staunton to Hunter’s presence, but the reaction of African Americans in that community, who for the first time in the conflict saw their chance to achieve freedom.

Perhaps the book’s most significant chapter is its last. Here the author offers a “retrospective” on how the battle altered the strategic course of the conflict in the Shenandoah Valley and how this battle — because it lacked a “big name” general — has fallen into obscurity and been cast aside as a minor skirmish.

For those interested in the Civil War’s course in the Shenandoah Valley, this highly readable, cogently crafted and meticulously researched work is highly recommended.

It illustrates the toll of war in this war-torn region and shows how the Battle of Piedmont, as the author argues, “served as the catalyst” for more aggressive operations in the Shenandoah.

Jonathan A. Noyalas is assistant professor of history and director of the Center for Civil War History at Lord Fairfax Community College in Middletown, Va., and the author or editor of eight books on Civil War era history.

http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Piedmont-Hunters-Campaign-Staunton/dp/1609491971

The Battle of Manassas: The 8th Georgia Regiment in the battle at Stone Bridge

Below is an account from From the Richmond Dispatch, July 29, 1861 detailing the activities of the 8th Georgia at the 1st Battle of Manassas. It is interesting to read these letters written in the immediate aftermath of the battle. Unlike post-war memoirs and veterans articles, these accounts focus more on what the soldier actually witnessed as opposed to fitting themselves into the stories they have heard over the years.

The following graphic description of scenes on the battle-field, and the gallant conduct of the Eight Georgia Regiment, was written for the Dispatch by a gentleman who participated in the fierce conflict of the 21st of July:
Eighth Georgia Regiment.

On Thursday, the 18th inst., about 2 P. M., this Regiment left Winchester for Manassas, under command of Lieut. Colonel Montgomery Gardner. Colonel Bartow had been for some weeks acting Brigadier General of a Brigade, consisting of the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 21th Georgia Regiments, and a battalion of Kentuckians.

The 8th marched 27 miles over the mountains, fording the Shenandoah, to Piedmont on the Manassas Gap Railroad, arriving there about 12 M., Friday. The march was fatiguing in the extreme. After a delay of a few hours they left for Manassas on the cars, and a slow, tedious ride brought them to this point late Saturdaymorning. They marched three and a half miles to camp in the woods, without tents, and without food. Early next morning they were ordered to the fight, where they arrived after a circuitous, wearisome, and at times double-quick tramp of between ten and twelve miles.

Breathless, tried, faint and footsore, the gallant fellows were eager for the affray.

They were first ordered to support Pendleson’s Virginia Battery, which they did amid a furious storm of grape from the enemy’s.–Inactive as they were, compelled to be under this fire, they stood cool and unflurried.

They were finally ordered to charge Sherman’s Battery. To do this it was necessary to cross an intervening hollow, covered by the enemy’s fire, and establish themselves in a thicket flanking the enemy’s battery. They charged in a manner that elicited the praise of Gen. Johnston.

Gaining the thicket, they opened upon the enemy. The history of warfare probably affords no instance of more desperate fighting than took place now. From three-sides a fierce, concentrated, murderous, unceasing volley poured in upon this devoted and heroic “six hundred” Georgians. The enemy appeared upon the hill by the thousand. Between six and ten regiments were visible. It was a hell of bullet-rain in that fatal grove. The ranks were cut down as grain by a scythe. Whole platoons melted away as if by magic. Cool, unflinching and stubborn, each man fought with gallantry, and a stern determination to win or die. Not one faltered. Col. Bartow’s horse was shot under him. Adjutant Branch fell, mortally wounded. Lieut. Col. Gardner dropped with a shattered leg. The officers moved from rank to rank, from man to man, cheering and encouraging the brave fellows. Some of them took the muskets of the dead and began coolly firing at the enemy.

It was an appalling hour. The shot whistled and tore through trees and bones. The ground became literally paved with the fallen. Yet the remnant stood composed and unquailing, carefully loading, steadily aiming, unerringly firing, and then quietly looking to see the effect of their shots. Mere boys fought like veterans — unexcited, save with that stern “white heat,” flameless exhilaration, that battle gives to brave spirits.

After eight or ten rounds the regiment appeared annihilated. The order was reluctantly given to cease firing and retire. The stubborn fellows gave no heed. It was repeated. Still no obedience. The battle spirit was up. Again it was given. Three volleys had been fired after the first command. At length they retired, walking and fighting. Owing to the density of the growth, a part of the regiment were separated from the colors. The other part formed in an open field behind the thicket. The retreat continued over ground alternately wood and field. At every open spot they would reform, pour a volley into the pursuing enemy and again retire.

From the accounts of the enemy who stopped to give water to the wounded and rifle the dead, it seems that the 8th cut to pieces the 6th Massachusetts, half demolished the Rhode Islanders, and made deadly havoc among the Regulars.

But a horrible mistake occurred at this point. Their own friends taking them for the enemy, poured a fatal fire upon their mutilated ranks.

At length they withdrew from the fight.–Their final rally was with some sixty men of the six hundred they took in. Balaklava tells no more heroic tale than this: “Into the valley of death marched the six hundred.”

As they retired, they passed Gen. Beauregard. He drew aside, fronted, raised his hat, and said, “I salute the 8th Georgia with my hat off.”

Of all the companies of the regiment, the Oglethorpe Light Infantry suffered most.–They were on the extreme right nearest the enemy, and thus were more exposed. Composed of the first young gentlemen of Savannah, their terrible loss will throw a gloom over their whole city.

An organization of five or six years standing, they were the favorite corps of Savannah. Colonel Bartow had long been Captain and was idolized by them, while he had a band of sons in them. It is supposed that his deep grief at the mutilation of his boys caused him to expose his life more recklessly than was necessary. He wished to die with them, if he could not take them back home.

They fought with heroic desperation. All young, all unmarried, all gentlemen, there was not one of the killed who was not an ornament to his community and freighted with brilliant promise.

In sending them to Virginia, Savannah sent her best to represent her, and their loss proves how well that stood up, how well that city was represented upon a field where all were brave.

This company was the first one to offer its services to President Davis under the Confederate act authorizing him to receive independent companies, and had the honor of being the first received. They left home in disobedience to the orders of their Governor, and brought away their arms in defiance of his authority, so eager were they to go where our country needed her best soldiers.

They were one of the two companies that took Fort Pulaski. When there was a riot expected in Savannah, early in the year, they were called out to quell it, with another corps.

Their whole history is one of heroism.–First to seek peril, they have proved in their sad fate how nobly they can endure it.

They will inevitably make their mark during the continuance of this holy war. They have enlisted for the whole war, and not one will turn back who can go forward, until it is ended, or they are completely annihilated.

After the gallant 8th had retired with but a fragment, Col. Bartow, by Gen. Beauregard’s order, brought up the 7th Georgia, exclaiming, in reply to Col. Gartrell, of the 7th, who asked him where they should go–”Give me your flag, and I will tell you.”

Leading them to their stand amid a terrific fire, he posted the regiment fronting the enemy, and exclaimed in those eloquent tones so full of high feeling that his friends ever expected from him–”Gen. Beauregard says you must hold this position, and, Georgians, I appeal to you to hold it”

Regardless of life, gallantly riding amid the hottest fire, cheering the men, inspiring them with his fervent courage, he was shot in the heart, and fell from his horse. They picked him up. With both hands clasped over his breast, he raised his head and with a God-like effort, his eye glittering in its last gleam with a blazing light, he said, with a last heroic flash of his lofty spirit, “They have killed me, but, boys, never give up the field,” –emphasizing the “never” in his peculiar and stirring manner, that all who know him will so feelingly recall.

Thus perished as noble a soul as ever breathed. He will long live in remembrance. He met the fate he most wished — the martyred patriot’s grave. He was a pure patriot, an able statesman, a brilliant lawyer, a chivalric soldier, a spotless gentleman. His imperious scorn of littleness was one of his leading characteristics. His lofty patriotism will consign his name to an immortal page in this country’s history.

Preservation Fiasco at Brandy Station

Here is a link to my buddy Eric Wittenberg’s blog back in the Buckeye State that has everything you need to know about the latest set backs at Brandy Station.

http://civilwarcavalry.com/?p=2590

Stonewall Jackson’s 1862 Valley Campaign by Johanthan A. Noyalas

Stonewall Jackson’s 1862 Valley Campaign

Jonathan is a professor of History at Lord Fairfax College in Middletown, Virginia. I have known him for a number of years as we both sit on the Kernstown Battlefield Association Board of Directors. He is currently working on interpretive plans for Fisher’s Hill and Cedar Creek Battlefields and serves as the chairman of the Shenandoah Valley Foundation’s Interpretation and History Committee.

His latest work on Jackson’s 1862 Valley Campaign is an excellent overview on the campaign that is well written and offers new insight at the same time. This book is recommended for both the novice and the veteran student of the Civil War who wants to brush up on his or her ’62 Valley Knowledge before heading out on a field trip.

Scott: Jonathan, as long as I have known you, you have been on leading edge of the study of memory and the Civil War in the Shenandoah Valley. In writing your book on Jackson’s Valley Campaign, what was the most important aspect of the campaign that you came across that seemed to create a theme in the memory of the campaign?

Jonathan: Generally it is the issue of legacy—how did the campaign not only define generalship, but how did it establish the legacy of the enlisted as well? None of the other studies of Jackson’s campaign deal with this. One of the issues that I grapple with at various points throughout the book is the role that artwork played in defining the legacy of particular individuals. While I illustrate in the book’s final chapter the role of artwork, Guillaume’s and Washington’s paintings of Jackson at Winchester specifically, in cementing the Valley Campaign as Jackson’s defining moment I also examine for instance how artwork, i.e. the Currier and Ives depiction of Shields at Winchester on March 22, played a role in defining an inappropriately heroic legacy for Gen. James Shields.

The issue of legacy was not only important for men such as Jackson and Shields, but for the enlisted as well. Veterans did all that they could in order to keep that legacy alive. For instance Union soldiers who fought at Kernstown established the Winchester Club after the conflict. This postwar organization met every year for decades after the war every March 23 to commemorate their victory over Stonewall Jackson. Even in defeat Union veterans did all they could to paint their loss in the most positive manner. For example Union veterans of Port Republic wrote after the war that they were more proud of their involvement at Port Republic, a losing effort, rather than of their involvement at the Battle of Gettysburg against some of the same troops they confronted at Port Republic one year earlier.

SCP: Were there any particular incidents in these battles that became a particular point of controversy among the veterans in the post war years?

JAN: Yes—there are a number of instances. First and foremost is the reaction of Union soldiers to the credit that Gen. Shields was given for success at the First Battle of Kernstown. Veterans who fought at First Kernstown vigorously defended the reputation of Col. Nathan Kimball in publications such as The National Tribune. Then of course there are issues with Col. George Gordon’s criticism of Gen. Nathaniel P. Banks’ handling of the situation in the aftermath of Front Royal and his subsequent evacuation to Winchester on May 24, 1862. Gordon, a fellow classmate of Stonewall Jackson’s at West Point, did all he could to disparage Banks’ image in the hope of elevating his own.

Controversy of course was not confined only to the Union side. There was controversy among the Confederates as well. For instance Confederate officers lambasting Stonewall Jackson for putting troops into battle piecemeal at Port Republic. There were also issues of Confederate veterans disparaging the character of Gen. Turner Ashby not only for faulty intelligence preceding 1st Kernstown, but for not following up Banks after First Winchester. Confederate enlisted men were particularly vocal in either their criticism or profound support of Ashby’s conduct in both circumstances.

SCP: How do you think that veterans dwelling on points of controversyamong themselves hindered or hurt interpretation of the 1862 Valley Campaign?

JAN: Among all of the postwar writings that have hurt interpretation of the Valley campaign until present years is George Gordon’s From Brook Farm to Cedar Mountain. Gordon’s work was used by G.F.R. Henderson in his biography of Jackson. Henderson used it largely as the sole Federal source in his discussions of Jackson’s Campaign in the Valley in an effort to present an “objective” look at the Campaign. Because Henderson’s two volume biography of Jackson was regarded as the standard for so many years, Gen. Banks’ has always been portrayed as an inept commander. While not nearly close to Stonewall Jackson in military ability, Banks performed considerably well under the circumstances in the aftermath of Front Royal in being outnumbered and having everything micromanaged by Washington, D.C. It has proven difficult for some to take a more sympathetic approach to Banks’ conduct in the Valley. Fortunately William J. Miller got that ball rolling a number of years ago with his fine essay in Gary Gallagher’s volume on the 1862 Valley Campaign, Peter Cozzens hammered that idea in his book on the campaign, and I am trying to reinforce it. Unfortunately old habits die hard, but the sesquicentennial presents the perfect opportunity for Americans to rethink the conflict objectively and academically.

SCP: Jackson excepted, who is your favorite Confederate officer from
this campaign and why?

JAN: Without a doubt it is Gen. Richard Taylor. He was aggressive, decisive, and without his tenacity circumstances could have been different.

SCP: Who is your favorite Union officer and why?

JAN: Gen. Robert Milroy. My admiration for Milroy in the campaign of course stems from my 2006 biography of the general. While some people have a low opinion of Milroy because of his defeat at 2nd Winchester he performed well in the campaign and showed the kind of aggressiveness needed for the Federals to have a chance. Unfortunately Milroy served under Gen. Fremont—the Federal general I despise the most from this campaign.

SCP: Did you come across any new findings in the course of your research that changed how you viewed the campaign or any of the battles?

JAN: I uncovered some nice tidbits regarding issues of legacy/memory as previously discussed. However the one thing that I was able to uncover that has not been made eminently clear in previous studies is the reaction of African Americans to the campaign in the Rockingham region. I was able to flesh that out a bit more and examine how the African Americans of the Harrisonburg area viewed Banks’ troops and then Fremont’s men as agents of freedom, just as had been the case among African Americans. I wouldn’t say that this altered my view of the campaign, it made it more complete. That was my overall approach—I wanted to make certain that every facet of the campaign discussed in the book not only addressed military issues or circumstances of memory, but illustrated the conflict’s impact on the civilian population.

SCP: Anything else you would like to say about your book?

JAN: Sure—I want to reiterate as I did in the opening pages that this book is intended to paint the campaign in as complete a light as possible, while getting rid of some old perspectives, with fresher ones which illuminate not only this campaign’s significance to the war effort or Jackson’s legacy, but how this campaign transitioned the Shenandoah Valley home front to a front line.

SCP: What is next on the agenda for you in terms of books?

JAN: The next item on my agenda is to complete my work on the memory of Sheridan’s 1864 Shenandoah Campaign and the postwar campaign of reconciliation in the Valley sparked by Sheridan’s Veterans in 1883. The tentative title for the work is Phil Sheridan and His Valley Veterans: The Creation of Legacy and Campaign for Reconciliation. I hope to have a completed manuscript at some point over the next year.

SCP: Thanks Jonathan and best wishes in your future endeavors.