The Last Battle of Winchester – The Charge of Colonel James Schoonmaker in his Own Words.

Sheridans_Final_Charge_at_Winchester

Pittsburgh, Pa., March 8th 1898.

Hon. Russell A. Alger

Secretary of War

Washington, D.C.

General: –

At the battle of Opequan Creek between Sheridan and Early, September 19th 1864, I commanded the First Brigade of Averills Cavalry Division. We had moved up from Martinsburg, joining the Second Brigade of our division at Bunker Hill, striking the detachment of Early’s command that had driven us out of Martinsburg the day before and forcing it back on the extreme left of Early’s line of battle. When Sheridan massed his cavalry for the memorable charge my brigade was honored with the right of the line and meeting with less resistance in the charge than the commands in the center and left, when we finally halted, we were considerably in advance of them and directly under fire of the confederate infantry we had forced back into the trenches and earthworks in front of old Fort Milroy, commanding the Moorfield Pike. The position was very exposed and immediate action was necessary. To withdraw was to lose our position, and to remain idle under destructive infantry fire was worse. Quickly as possible I detached my old regiment, the 14th Penn’s Cavalry by way of Moorfield Pike to the west side of the entrenchments, and with balance of brigade on north side I charged both lines, mounted, up the hill over both lines of rifle pits and over earthworks, capturing a large number of the enemy and completely destroying the left defense of his line of battle. We dared not push further, as we were considerably south of Early’s main line, so taking our headquarters flag I waved our possession of earthworks to Custer and Merritt, in valley below, who immediately made their magnificent charge, the Sixth Corps on the left taking up the movement, and in half an hour afterward Sheridan had Early “whirling up the valley”. Sheridan thanked me for our gallantry and prompt action after the battle, but the unfortunate conduct of General Averill at Fishers Hill three days afterward, lost his command the recognition I know was the intention of the General commanding.

I beg to refer to the map accompanying the account of the engagement in the second volume of General Sheridan’s Memoirs. Our last position on right of Martinsburg Pike is the point from which we charged the earthworks shown on hill in our front.

I have the honor General to be,

Yours very respectfully,

J M Schoonmaker

 

This letter was found through the research of Nick Picerno, Chairman of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation at the National Archives and transcribed by the Dean of the 14th Pennsylvania Cavalry, Duncan Campbell of Charllottesville, Virginia.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

New Biography on Grumble Jones

At long last, Brig. Gen William E. “Grumble” Jones has his badly needed biography. James Ballard of Texas, formerly of Southwest Virginia, has stepped in and filled this historical void. I had an opportunity to interview him this past spring.

Here is the transcript:

What is the most revealing issue about Grumble Jones that you found in your research?

I would have to say that the most revealing issue about Grumble Jones was his unwavering support of the Lost Cause. In contrast to his future revered commander, Robert E. Lee and his future protege’, John Singleton Mosby, who both hoped that Virginia would remain with the Union, Jones assumed a hard-lined secessionist position long before the conflict began. In February of 1861, while Virginia was still with the Union, Jones corresponded to CSA President Davis declaring that in the event that Virginia chose to remain with the Union, he would renounce his allegiance to his home state and serve the new Confederacy. I feel that Jones stood with the Southern extremists who welcomed the Civil War.

Tell us about Jones how earned the nickname “the Stonewall Jackson” of East Tennessee.

According to author & source Scott Cole in his 34th Battalion Virginia Cavalry, Jones received this moniker from the Richmond Whig. Aside from the Chickamauga Campaign and a few other exceptions, the Confederacy enjoyed very little success in the entire state of Tennessee. East Tennessee, in particular, was pro-Union from the beginning of the conflict and provided bases of operations for potential Federal offenses against the mineral reserves in bordering Southwest Virginia (the salt-works at Saltville and the lead mines at Wythville). Jones’s overwhelming victories at Rogersville (TN), Jonesville (VA), and Wyerman’s Mill (VA), although minor engagements, alarmed the Federals into taking a defensive posture and shifting their priorities to defending their presence in Knoxville and the Cumberland Gap. Grumble’s triumphs in late 1863 and early 1864 thus served as a diversion to protect the Southwest Virginia mineral reserves much in the same manner as Jackson’s Valley Campaign of 1862 thwarted a Federal advance on Richmond. Upper East Tennessee remained under Confederate control until the fall of 1864 after the Jones Brigade of Southwest Virginia permanently withdrew from the region.

With the above said, Longstreet’s Corps occupied East Tennessee during that same period and contributed even more so to the security of Southwest Virginia. However, Longstreet’s failed Knoxville Campaign and the missed opportunity at Bean Station mark his presence with perhaps an unfair stigma of failure.

There seems to have been a tendency to establish the legendary Stonewall Jackson as a standard to be measured up against. In contrast to the Jones’s success in the region, CS Brigadier General Alfred E. Jackson, a kinsman to the legend, received the contra-distinct moniker of “Mudwall Jackson” for his failure in the Battle of Blue Springs that had secured East Tennessee for the Federals before Jones came on to the scene.

Jones’s reputation for parity with Stonewall Jackson was not limited to his operations in East Tennessee and Southwest Virginia. After the war, a former trooper praised Jones for the execution of his spring of 1863 West Virginia Raid with a parity to Jackson. While that expedition was in progress, Pennsylvania Governor Andrew Greg Curtin erroneously reported to President Lincoln that Stonewall Jackson was the Confederate commander conducting the raid with an exaggerated number of troops. In that campaign, Jones acted as a master of diversion. Heavily outnumbered and deep in enemy territory, Jones accomplished most of his objectives by deceiving the Federals and keeping them pinned down on the defensive.

What are your thoughts about the relationship between Jones and Stuart?

There is much irony in the adversarial relationship between Jones and Stuart, as the two Virginians had much in common. Both were raised in upper-middle-class families in the Appalachian Mountian region of rural western Virginia. Although their paths did not cross at either institution, both had academic ties to nearby Emory & Henry College and were members of the same literary society (later evolved into a social fraternity) before going on to West Point where both graduated in the upper portion of their respective classes. In spite of earning the privilege to choose other branches of the Old Army, both selected the mounted service, considered at their times to be the least desirable. The final eighteen months of Grumble’s service in the US Mounted Rifles overlapped the first eighteen months of Stuart’s tour of duty on the Texas frontier. Although they did not serve at the same garrisons, they probably grew familiar with each other while serving on special assignments such as court-martial duty.

Notwithstanding the similarities, there was a significant contrast between the experiences of Jones and Stuart in the Old Army. Jones’s eight years of service were marked with despair, isolation and personal tragedy. Stuart, on the other hand, enjoyed a tenure of glory, adventure, and romance. Married for less than ten weeks, Jones lost his wife to a drowning incident while in route to his new assignment in Texas. Stuart, conversely, married the daughter of his commanding officer and relished in a blissful marriage (in spite of his father-in-law’s loyalty to the Union) that lasted the remaining nine years of his life. Whether or not the contrast in fate contributed to the Jones’s animosity toward Stuart is up for speculation.

Early in the conflict, Jones went on record as resenting having to serve under Stuart who was nine years his junior in age. When Jones was a captain, Stuart was a colonel. With the same directive at promoted Jones to colonel, Stuart received the promotion to brigadier general. By the time Jones earned the rank of brigadier general, Stuart was already a major general.

There was an obvious personality conflict between the two generals. Stuart, the flamboyant extrovert thrived on the pomp and pageantry of martial displays, particularly demonstrated when he ordered the two grand reviews at Brandy Station. As Stuart’s antithesis, the low-profiled Jones was said to be contemptuous of such displays which he considered to be a waste of time and resources. Stuart was vain; Jones was proud.

The combination of personal animosities scalated from the outset. When the spring of 1862 field elections cost Jones command of the 1st VA Cavalry, he went on record accusing Stuart of unfairly influencing the outcome (how much that factored is not certain). Months later, Stuart unsuccessfully tried to dissuade Robert E. Lee from promoting Jones to brigadier general. For the time immediately following Jones’s promotion, Lee had the luxury of keeping the two generals separated, but when circumstances necessitated their rejoining, both resisted. Jones even offered his resignation in order to avoid returning to Stuart’s command.

It was apparent that Jones and Stuart disliked each other but with that said, Stuart praised Jones on several occasions. Sometimes, however, it was unclear whether Stuart intended to direct his praise toward Jones individually or to his troops. Also, whether or not those acclaims were attempts at reconciliation is up for speculation. During campaigns and in the preparation thereof, both seemed to put their personal differences aside.

The Jones- Stuart dispute came to a head at the conclusion of the Gettysburg Campaign when Jones submitted a “disrespectful letter” to Stuart. The content of that letter may never be known, but it led to Jones’s arrest, a court-martial conviction, and banishment from the Army of Northern Virginia, something both parties desired. To me, the content of that letter would be priceless. It placed Stuart in the rather awkward position of wanting to punish Jones for submitting the letter but while keeping the content confidential.

In spite of his personal disdain, Jones respected Stuart’s abilities as a commander. In a posthumous measure of reconciliation, Jones regarded Stuart’s death as detrimental to the Southern cause as the loss of Stonewall Jackson. With Jackson’s revered reputation as the standard, Jones labeled the late Stuart with the highest possible measure of praise. If nothing else, the Jones-Stuart relationship was complicated and could be a detailed study by itself.

Is Jones a forgotten hero at Brandy Station or does history give him full credit for his role?

There is no question that Jones’s decisive actions early in the engagement at Brandy Station ultimately allowed Stuart’s cavalry division to salvage a draw and avoid a complete disaster. With that said, the Battle of Brandy Station was too large of an engagement for one individual to receive a disproportionate share of credit for the successes or blame for the setbacks. Jones’s brigade was responsible for the security at Beverly’s Ford, and he had properly placed his horse artillery further back at St. James Church. Stuart’s report that the Jones Brigade “had the hardest of the fighting” was correct, but the unit happened to be positioned where the intense action occurred. Unlike Beverly Robertson’s brigade at Kelly’s Ford, Jones and his troops did their job and performed up to expectations. Although it may be somewhat of a reach to say that Jones receives “full” credit, I’m inclined to say that history gives him “proper” credit.

The nickname Grumble. I failed to find any wartime account calling him Grumble. The only thing close was an officer saying notwithstanding his grumbling he should be promoted. What did you find in the origins of that name? It seems to be more popular among modern historians than his fellow Confederates.

I agree that it is highly possible that the moniker of “Grumble” may have been designated by modern historians and not by persons of his time, even in their post-war writings. I have not seen any correspondence or reports from members of either side referring to Jones by that nickname. In his diary reflecting on the Battle of Piedmont, Private Charles H. Lynch of the 18th Connecticut Volunteers recalled that Jones’s nickname was “Billy.”

General Robert Ransom’s inspection report of April 24, 1864, remarked, “Jones ought to be promoted; notwithstanding all of his grumbling, he is a fine officer.” It was Jones’s last official evaluation before his death which would occur six weeks later. It is quite possible that the moniker was created and stood based on that report. If the reference to the moniker was something that was only privately spoken at the time, we have no way of knowing.

What do you think he would have accomplished if he had lived? Would he have made a difference in the Valley?

I have wondered about the scenario if Hunter had given up and retreated before Thoburn’s troops finally stormed the unoccupied gap in Jones’s lines. Jones would have survived and directed the brigades of Imboden and Vaughn to spearhead a pursuit. However, against DuPont’s effective artillery, any counter-offensive would have been a stalemate at best and a suicide mission at worst. I feel it is highly unlikely that Jones would have been able to drive Hunter’s forces beyond the North River. Conversely, the Federals would have maintained a formidable presence in the Valley just as they did following New Market. Hunter would then have had the option to march eastward, and that potential outcome is up to even broader speculation. Also, Staunton would have been exposed to Crooks Army of the Kanawha District approaching from the west. A Southern victory at Piedmont would have resulted in other difficulties.

In many ways, Hunter’s victory at Piedmont backfired as his overall Lynchburg Campaign was a failure. Aside from the attrition in the way Confederate losses, it did nothing to bring the war closer to a conclusion. Occupying Staunton was a temporary measure and torching VMI at Lexington served no purpose other than to arouse Southern resolve to retaliate. I’m of the feeling that the initial measures of Early’s Washington Raid, desperate as they were, were among the South’s finest moments of the war. I doubt that Jones’s presence would have extended the momentum beyond what it managed to accomplish before or after Grant appointed Phil Sheridan to launch his Shenandoah Valley Campaign.

Leave a comment

Filed under Battles, Biographical

A Misrepresentation: Sheridan’s Reaction to Painting of Himself Riding the Battle Line At Cedar Creek

sheridan-cc

When Sheridan saw this now widely publicized painting of himself riding along the line of battle to inspire the men at Cedar Creek and show that he had returned to the army, he reacted vociferously to its inaccuracies.

“Now just look,” said Sheridan, “and see how blank ridiculous that man has made me appear. Here I am represented as riding down the line with a flag in my hand and a whole regiment of cavalry as my escort. Why, blank, blank, blank, I made to appear like a blank fool. Now the truth is I rode down the line with ‘Tony’ Forsyth; that was all there was to it. No flag. No escort.”

Soon after, Sheridan read an article describing his reaction to the artwork. His response:  “I wouldn’t have cared so much about it except that [it] makes me swear so [much]. People will think I am in the habit of swearing. Why, blank, blank, blank, you that isn’t so.”

Note that “Tony Forsyth” was Col. James Forsyth Sheridan’s Chief-of-Staff. The ride along the battle line had been the brainchild of another staff officer, Major George “Sandy” Forsyth (no relation to James)  had been the one who suggested that Sheridan show himself to the men when he returned to the Army at Cedar Creek.

Sheridan’s appearance along the line of battle rejuvenated the rank and file of the Army of the Shenandoah. Lt. Col. Moses Granger of the 122nd Ohio, Sixth Army Corps recalled the scene:

General Sheridan came riding along the line, just in my rear, as I was sitting on a stump, he drew rein, returned our salutes, gave a quick look at the me, and said, ‘You look all right, boys! We’ll whip’em like h–l before night.’ At this hearty cheers broke out, and he rode on passing from the rear to the front of our line through the right-wing of my regiment, and thence westward followed ever by cheers.”

Instantly all thought of merely defeating an attack upon us ended. In its stead was a conviction that we were to attack and defeat them that very afternoon. All were sure that “Little Phil” would make it impossible for the enemy to turn our flank, and easy for us to turn theirs.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Battles, Biographical, Uncategorized

Sheridan at Cedar Creek — Differing Portraits by two Sketch Artists

In reading through my materials on the battle of Cedar Creek I came across a quote from  the journal of Capt. John Gould of the 29th Maine, XIX Army Corps that struck me. He described Sheridan’s physical appearance when he showed up along the battle line of the XIX Corps during the late afternoon counterattack. Gould noted, “He was glad to see us and I tell you we were glad to see him. He was on his little white pony, his slouched hat almost covering his face as usual.”  While a seemingly unimportant statement, his physical description of Sheridan at Cedar Creek differs from the commonly accepted appearance at that battle.

Sheridan’s physical appearance at the battle of Cedar Creek has been captured by special artist James Taylor who was in the Valley at the time of Cedar Creek sketching scenes for Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper.  Taylor pictures Sheridan as wearing a formal a formal kepi in his sketches of Sheridan, not the black slouch type cap that Sheridan was noted for wearing, a vestige of his service in the western Army of the Cumberland. It is interesting to note that fellow sketch artist Alfred Waud who was purportedly at Cedar Creek drew Sheridan wearing a black slouch cap as described by the reliable Gould.

Sheridan's Ride with men - Cropped

My conclusion is that Sheridan changed headgear in order to ensure that the men recognized him in his trademark hat. His staff had urged him to make thecridecalongvthe battle line specifically to show all the troops that Sheridan had returned to rally their spirits for the
pending counterattack.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Suggested Reading on the Valley Campaign: The Battle of Waynesboro

The Battle of Waynesboro

By Richard G. Williams, 2014, The History Press 150th Series

Richard Williams grew up in the Wayne Hill area of Waynesboro in the Shenandoah Valley, site of the last significant battle action during the Civil War. He is quite knowledgeable of the local area and even though the battlefield has been consumed by 20th Century development, Mr. Williams knows the area well enough to enable the reader to get an understanding of the battle. While the book is titled the battle of Waynesboro, it might be more accurate to say it is as much more a general history of Waynesboro in the war with ainformation on local families and homes. When we get to the battle, the narrative starts clicking, and the author does a commendable job in relaying the story of the actual battle of Waynesboro in a clear and concise manor. My main quibble with the book is that I would have liked to have seen him provide more details on the overall campaign to better place the battle in context and at least cover Sheridan’s actions immediately east of the Blue Ridge to Charlottesville. But as the author noted plainly in his introduction it is the ground of the Waynesboro battlefield that “has seeped into my bones and touched my soul.” There is also a perceptible pro-Confederate slant to the narrative, but Mr. Williams also makes it plain to readers that while he attempted to “bridle” his Southern perspective, his heritage has been both a burden and a reward for him.

Shen1864:      Tell readers about your passion for the battle of Waynesboro and how it drove you to write this book:

R. Williams:  Waynesboro is my hometown, as well as that of my father, my grandparents and my great-grandparents. Those roots were a large part of the motivation, along with the fact I serve on the board of our local museum, grew up on the battlefield (actually born on it) and the battle’s sesquicentennial being commemorated in 2015.

Shen1864:     When you started researching the battle, tell us what you learned that surprised you and challenged your prior notions on what occurred at the battle?

R. Williams:  No big surprises really, other than the family history of the Gallaher family which I found quite fascinating—especially with the patriarch of the family evidently being involved in blockade running. The Gallaher’s were one of the most prominent families in 19th century Waynesboro.

Shen1864:    What are your thoughts on Jubal Early’s Generalship overall when you consider he saved Lynchburg on June 17, 1864 and kept significantly larger Federal armies tied up and defeated for the next three months and two days until his defeat at Winchester?

Overall, I believe he was a capable commander as demonstrated by earlier successes. As I point out in the book, he was at a severe disadvantage at Waynesobro for a whole host of reasons—morale, supplies and being outnumbered almost 10 to 1.

Shen1864:   Tell us about your family history and how you struggled to overcome your natural southern bias that you discuss in your intro?

R. Williams:  I have 3 great-great grandfathers who fought for the Confederacy. Two of them were wounded (one was wounded twice). Two of them spent time in yankee prisons. One died as a result of treatment while imprisoned at Camp Morton. Two of them served in the 51st Va which was present at the Battle of Waynesboro. As already noted, I was born and grew up on the battlefield. “Overcoming” the natural bias, in my mind, primarily involves being constantly aware of one’s bias and acknowledging it. Drawing on the diaries and accounts of soldiers from both sides presented, I believe, both perspectives.

Shen1864:      Now that the 150th Anniversary of the Civil War is over, what are your thoughts on it and where do you think Civil War history is going as we head toward the 200th?

R. Williams:  Good question. Unlike others, I don’t think the sesquicentennial was as successful as many of us had hoped for in remembering and commemorating. Officially, I didn’t see as much done as I would have liked to have seen. I thought it was rather subdued. So, overall I was disappointed. That’s not to dismiss the efforts of many fine organizations. But due to the current political climate, the commemorations were not embraced with the enthusiasm they should have been. But some of that is to be expected due to generational factors as well. My father knew several Confederate veterans. Few alive today could make that claim. There was a much closer personal connection at the centennial than there is today.

If you want to know where we’re headed in the next few years, just observe the recent uproar over Confederate imagery and monuments. It is nearly impossible to have a reasonable conversation over disagreements regarding perspectives and the honoring of Confederate ancestors who were, after all, still Americans. I would hope we’d be more mature about many of these topics 50 years from now. I don’t think future historians will look favorably on much of what is going on today.

Shen1864: Do you have plans to write any more books in the future and, if so, what would the topics be?

R. Williams:  I do. I have several subjects I’m considering right now. One would be specifically related to post- Civil War subject matter. The other is a biography. Right now, I’m busy with some magazine articles that will be published over the next 12 months. It’s a nice break in pace.

http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Waynesboro-Civil-War-Sesquicentennial/dp/1626190704/ref=sr_1_1_twi_2_pap?ie=UTF8&qid=1437276968&sr=8-1&keywords=waynesboro+battle+of

Link to Mr. Williams’ Blog:  http://oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com/

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The 6th United States Cavalry in the Civil War: A History and Roster; An Interview with Author Don Caughey.

I recently read Don’s book on the 6th U. S. Cavalry which fought as part of the Army of the Potomac’s Reserve Brigade in the Cavalry Corps. The Regular Army units never get they attention that the state volunteer regiments received. Perhaps it was because they were professional soldiers and many of the soldiers continued in the service long after the war and it was a way of life not just the Civil War experience. Whatever the case, Don has filled a void in the historic literature with his well researched book that helps us delve into the lives of the men of the 6th U. S. Cavalry as they fought through the U.S. Civil War. I have posed a few questions for Don to give him an opportunity to share with readers his insights on the book and his research:

SCP:  The Reserve Brigade contained the Regular Army mounted units in the Army of the Potomac, yet the Cavalry Corps becomes dominated by Volunteer Units. Tell us about the importance of the U. S. Cavalry regiments in the development of the Army of the Potomac’s Cavalry corps that ultimately placed a decisive role in the Shenandoah and Appomattox Campaigns?

DC: The regular regiments played a tremendous role in the development of the Army of the Potomac’s cavalry. Initially, they were a model on which to base the training of volunteer units, frequently with the assistance of detailed regular officers or noncommissioned officers. They served as role models for the volunteer units, sometimes to the chagrin of the volunteers. During the peninsula campaign, one rarely sees a volunteer cavalry unit moving without a regular unit either accompanying them or nearby. For most commanders, the regulars were a security blanket used to ensure things went well. An excellent example is the battle of Kelly’s Ford, on March 17, 1863. Parts of both the 1st and 5th U.S. Cavalry, under Marcus Reno, are sent on the expedition even though they’re not even in the same brigade as the other units involved. To some extent, I think this may have actually hindered the cavalry’s development a bit, because it isn’t really until 1863 that we see commanders with enough confidence to employ volunteers by themselves. On Stoneman’s Raid, for example, the rear guard is formed of the best mounted 100 men from each of the regiments in the Reserve Brigade (which in fairness did include the 6th Pennsylvania) as they turned north to escape. At Brandy Station, Buford moved the brigade across the battlefield to wherever the fighting was heaviest. Indeed, had casualties in June not been so high that the brigade was detailed elsewhere, Buford might not have learned how capable his other two brigades were on July 1st at Gettysburg. From that point forward the volunteers were relied on more and more, which is fortunate, because the regular regiments weren’t able to recoup the heavy losses they suffered in these and subsequent battles. And one can’t discount the value of the leadership the Reserve Brigade provided to the rest of the Cavalry Corps. Regiments were led by captains and lieutenants because their higher ranking officers were away commanding larger formations. Buford, Merritt and Pleasonton came from the 2nd U.S. Cavalry leaders such as David McMurtrie Gregg, J. Irvin Gregg, August Kautz, William P. Sanders and Charles Russell Lowell all commanded brigades and divisions before the end of the war, but started as lieutenants and captains in the 6th U.S. when it was formed.

SCP: What motivated you to write the badly needed history of the 6th U. S. Cavalry?

DC: The short answer is that we saw a need and decided to meet it. The longer version is that it was a number of things for both Jimmy and I. I was teaching in the military science department at the College of William & Mary when I started the project. I wanted to research the regular cavalry regiments, particularly the 2nd where I had served a couple of years before. Much to my initial dismay and later delight, I found that there really wasn’t much published about them. There are only parts of a handful of books total on all six of them, so I saw a need for new research. I initially chose the 6th because it had a clear beginning when it was created at the beginning of the war. What I discovered was that there really wasn’t a Civil War history of the regiment. There was an excellent memoir by an enlisted soldier (Sidney Morris Davis’ Common Soldier, Uncommon War), but it was written many years after the war. It had some wonderful details of life in the regiment, but wasn’t necessarily accurate concerning dates and events. It was also biased and presented a very narrow view of the war. The few chapters of William H. Carter’s larger history of the regiment, From Yorktown to Santiago With The Sixth U.S. Cavalry, had the dates and events right, but lacked a lot of detail. I saw an opportunity to make a contribution. Meanwhile, Jimmy was assigned as the adjutant to one of the regiment’s current squadrons in addition to his flying duties, and had become intrigued by its history. He looked at what was out there and reached the same conclusions I had. He had already completed a tremendous amount of research toward compiling the roster. After bumping into one another in the course of our research, we decided we could produce a better history of the regiment by combining our efforts. I’m very happy with the way it turned out.
SCP: As you were researching and writing this book, what were your biggest surprises or findings that deviated from your original conceptions?

DC: Our biggest find by far were the letters of Louis Henry Carpenter. Carpenter, a Philadelphia blueblood who served as both an enlisted man and an officer in the regiment during the war, was a prodigious correspondent. He averaged better than a letter a week throughout the war home to his family, sometimes with multiple letters to different family members covering the same event. The letters contain such a huge amount of detail that it was a struggle at times to keep them from overpowering the narrative. The second biggest find was the stories tied up in the roster of the regiment’s soldiers. From the entire band from Mount Joy, Pennsylvania enlisted to be the regimental band to the numerous groups of relatives who served together to the wife who enlisted with her husband and continued to serve after he left the army, there are lots of great stories we discovered in the course of our research. The editors at McFarland helped us find a way to include as much information as possible in the book.

I think the biggest surprise was the number of volunteers who flocked to the regular regiments following the battle of Antietam. The 6th received about 500 new soldiers this way, and subsequent research has shown that several thousand made this move. Initial thought was that they were fleeing infantry units for perceived safety in the cavalry and artillery, but a number joined the shorthanded regular infantry units in the Army of the Potomac as well.

SCP: Grumble Jones is one of my favorite Southern cavalrymen. He once reported, “The 6th U. S. Cavalry numbers among the things that were…” Tell us about his run ins with the 6th?

DC: Jones is one of my favorites as well, he was certainly a very colorful fellow. The quote you mentioned came from his report on the Gettysburg campaign. It turned out not to be true, as the regiment served all the way through Appomattox, but was a reasonable assumption at the time. On the third day of the battle of Gettysburg, the regiment was dispatched on a solo mission to Fairfield to intercept a supply train. Instead they encountered Jones’ entire brigade of Confederate cavalry. In a very onesided fight, the outnumbered and understrength regiment lost 232 casualties of 400 men engaged. All five officers commanding squadrons were killed, wounded or captured, and the regimental commander lost an arm and was captured. Yet the regiment was back in the field two days later pursuing Lee’s army, and engaged Jones’ brigade again a week later at Funkstown. That encounter didn’t go well either, but this time the rest of the Reserve Brigade was nearby and the Confederates didn’t win the engagement.

SCP: Did you find any particular details about the time that the remnants of the 6th U. S. served as HQ escorts? Anything that offered insight on personalities and officers?

DC: There were some interesting insights on what they saw happening at headquarters. Letters from this period show a broader observation, though not necessarily understanding, of the corps’ maneuver. An officer is tasked to monitor an intersection to ensure units follow the correct line of march, for example, but isn’t told why. Or an enlisted orderly is given a message to carry to another part of the battle, but has only what he sees or thinks he sees as a frame of reference for what is happening. They offered a much broader look at operations, particularly in early 1864, than one sees in most primary sources. I thought Carpenter’s letter after escorting General Pleasonton to the train to Washington following his relief from command was very interesting, especially given some accounts of his attitude toward subordinates at other times.
SCP: How is the 6th different from other regiments in the Reserve Brigade?

DC:  The 6th was different from the other regiments in several ways. They were new, although they had a solid leavening of veterans. This led to some unique experiences for the regiment. For example, rather than operating with the personnel they had in the field and waiting for trained replacements from the cavalry depot at Carlisle Barracks, they trained all their own troopers. I think they’re an interesting bridge between the other regular regiments and the volunteers. Despite their youth, leaders’ expectations of their performance were just as high. Their performance on the peninsula shows that they were relied on as much or more than the other regiments, though I suspect this was partly because of their relative size. I think the biggest difference, however, was the variety of their service during the war. From the point of the spear on the peninsula to a solo expedition at Fairfield to extended duty at Cavalry Corps headquarters, they saw a bit of everything. One of the really fascinating things to me in my research on the regular cavalry regiments in the east is how different the experiences were for four very similar units.
SCP: Tell us about your next project.

DC: I’m currently working on a regimental history of the 2nd U.S. Cavalry during the war. It’s a bit more complicated than the 6th’s service, and I’ve expanded my efforts to find primary sources to back up the narrative. I feel that whenever possible a historian should use the participants’ views to tell the story, and that can be challenging if convenient sources like letters aren’t readily available. I love the challenge of conducting research, and pulling on historical strings to see where they lead. Unfortunately, my blog suffers at times because I become so wrapped up in research that I forget to post. I plan to eventually write the history of the Reserve Brigade, including the regulars and its volunteer regiments like the 6th Pennsylvania and 1st New York Dragoons, but feel I still need a bit more experience and a lot more research before I will be ready to take on something quite that large.

SCP:  Thanks Don. The 6th Penn Cav.  Isn’t some lawyer in Columbus, Ohio interested in that outfit? Eric somebody…. Mabye you’ve heard of him.  LOL.

I highly recommend that anyone interested in Union cavalry operations during the Civil War get their hands on Don’s book. I am eagerly awaiting his history of the 2nd U. S. Cavalry as well, especially given its more involved role in 1864 combat operations.

Here is a link to his book on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/6th-United-States-Cavalry-Civil/dp/0786468351/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1412990271&sr=1-4&keywords=6th+u.+s.+cavalry

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

The Battle of Lynchburg

The fighting at Lynchburg late in the afternoon of June 17, 1864 pitted infantry from General George Crook’s division against the Confederate cavalry brigades of Col. William Peters, (Grumble Jones former command); Col. William “Mudwall” Jackson and Gen. John Imboden under the overall command of the latter.

The Southern Cavalry deployed just west of Lynchburg near an old Quaker meeting house. Imboden checked the advance of Gen. William Averell’s cavalry who turned the fight over to Crook. He promptly attacked and drove back the Confederate horsemen. The History of the 91st Ohio Infantry provides a descriptive recollection of the first day’s battle at Lynchburg:

“June 17, we arrived within six miles of Lynchburg by 10 A.M. and rested until 3 P.M. We then moved to attack the rebels. The 91st Regiment was in the front line of battle, just to the right of the main pike leading into the city. It support in the second line of battle was the 9th West Virginia ; the 12th Ohio was on the right of the 91stt in the front line. On either side of the pike there were woods to protect the troops in their advance except immediately on the right and directly in front of the 91st, here was an open field through which the 91st was compelled to charge, an in which the rebels had built rail pens.  As the 91st  emerged from the woods into this field, they found themselves upon an elevated part of the field where the rebels played upon them with their artillery. In the middle of this field was a depression, and tat the farther side was another elevation upon which the rebel artillery was placed.

It seemed a terrible ordeal to attempt the passage of this field while the artillery frowned death and those rail pens were filled with angry rebels.  Not withstanding, the 91st charged over this field and through a terrible storm of shot and shell, driving the rebels from their defense, capturing two pieces of artillery, and pressing their entire line back to their inner line of defenses. We had the misfortune in this engagement to lose our commanding officer. Col. Turley was severely wounded while in the discharge of his duty, and lt. Col. Coates succeeded to the command of the regiment.”

The 91st Ohio was well supported in its assault and did not act alone, being joined in the attack by Col. Jacob Campbell’s brigade of Pennsylvanians and West Virginians as well as the troops noted in the history. Although the attack was successful, the opportunity to capture Lynchburg had been lost thanks to the bold delaying actions of Confederate Brig. Gen. John C. McCausland, who had contested Hunter’s advance from the moment he left Staunton, to Lexington, at Buchanan, over the Blue Ridge and on the road to Lynchburg. McCausland bought the time needed for Lt. Gen. Jubal Early to arrive late in town late in the afternoon of June 17, with the vanguard of the Army of Northern Virginia’s vaunted Second Corps. As Imboden’s horsemen retreated in confusion toward Lynchburg pursued by Crook’s infantry, Early led Maj. Gen. Stephen D. Ramseur’s division forward to restore the line. Shaking his fist in the air, “Old Jube” shouted defiantly to the Federals (and derisively toward Imboden’s beaten troopers as well), “No more buttermilk rangers after you now, damn you!?

Early’s arrival saved Lynchburg from Hunter’s grasp. The vital rail and supply center would remain securely in Confederate hands.

For more on the 1864 Valley Campaign read:

Shenandoah Summer       Layout 1

1 Comment

Filed under Battles