Brian Downey had a great entry on Delos B. Sackett over at Behind Antietam on the Web on Tuesday. As always, Brian's post added that little something extra that makes the reader remember the post and the person.
As I was reading the entry, I noticed that Sackett was an Assistant Instructor of Cavalry Tactics at West Point from 1850-1855. I was curious about which future cavalry leaders he might have influenced, so I pulled out the trusty Cullum files and checked to see who went through the academy during this period who later became a cavalry officer.
The list includes six cavalry leaders who reached brevet Major General. Eugene A. Carr, Kenner Garrard and David S. Stanley for those interested in the western theater; August Kautz, David McM. Gregg and William W. Averell for those eastern theater afficionados among us. Among other significant leaders listed at this time (the classes were mandatory) was one Philip H. Sheridan.
It's of course impossible to gauge Sackett's influence on which branch the cadets under his tutelage chose during the period that he was at West Point, but I thought it interesting.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Civil War Regiments
As I was blog-surfing recently, I noticed a link on Ted Savas’ new blog, A Publisher’s Perspective. The link said “Civil War Regiments.” Given my interest in the cavalry, I was naturally intrigued and clicked the link.
To my surprise and delight, it was not a link to regimental histories. Instead it links one to a website where back issues of the now-defunct “Civil War Regiments: A Journal of the American Civil War.” As described on the website:
“Civil War Regiments (CWR) was a quarterly publication created in late 1991 to fill a conspicuous gap in Civil War literature. Although several excellent publications are available, only CWR offered exclusively military coverage of the war (all theaters, all branches, Federal and Confederate) in a lengthy, documented and non-partisan format. Each issue is a book, not a stapled magazine. Each book includes original articles on all aspects of the war, including strategy, tactics, logistics, unit histories, leadership and command issues, and much more. Each book includes original maps and numerous photos and illustrations.
"CWR offers lengthy essays of substance. Reach beyond the glossy photos, short articles and cut-and-paste history. CWR is fresh, original scholarship on topics you will not see covered elsewhere, coupled with the best maps and book reviews in the business. Each book is printed on acid-free 50-lb. paper, and the covers are laminated gloss color stock for long, durable use, with a printed spine for easy library shelf reference.
"Unfortunately, when the underlying book business was sold in 2001, CWR was left without a home and publication ended with Volume Seven, No. 1. These collector's issues are selling out fast, several issues are already sold out, and many more are in short supply.”
Among the various titles on the back issues site are issues on Gettysburg, the Red River Campaign, Chickamauga & Chattanooga, and others. The articles’ authors include many experts in their respective fields, as well as some I was unfamiliar with. The journal looks like an excellent product, and one or more back issues will likely be of interest to readers of this blog. I highly recommend a visit.
To my surprise and delight, it was not a link to regimental histories. Instead it links one to a website where back issues of the now-defunct “Civil War Regiments: A Journal of the American Civil War.” As described on the website:
“Civil War Regiments (CWR) was a quarterly publication created in late 1991 to fill a conspicuous gap in Civil War literature. Although several excellent publications are available, only CWR offered exclusively military coverage of the war (all theaters, all branches, Federal and Confederate) in a lengthy, documented and non-partisan format. Each issue is a book, not a stapled magazine. Each book includes original articles on all aspects of the war, including strategy, tactics, logistics, unit histories, leadership and command issues, and much more. Each book includes original maps and numerous photos and illustrations.
"CWR offers lengthy essays of substance. Reach beyond the glossy photos, short articles and cut-and-paste history. CWR is fresh, original scholarship on topics you will not see covered elsewhere, coupled with the best maps and book reviews in the business. Each book is printed on acid-free 50-lb. paper, and the covers are laminated gloss color stock for long, durable use, with a printed spine for easy library shelf reference.
"Unfortunately, when the underlying book business was sold in 2001, CWR was left without a home and publication ended with Volume Seven, No. 1. These collector's issues are selling out fast, several issues are already sold out, and many more are in short supply.”
Among the various titles on the back issues site are issues on Gettysburg, the Red River Campaign, Chickamauga & Chattanooga, and others. The articles’ authors include many experts in their respective fields, as well as some I was unfamiliar with. The journal looks like an excellent product, and one or more back issues will likely be of interest to readers of this blog. I highly recommend a visit.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Harpers Ferry Update
Okay, I'm back after the long weekend relaxed, recharged and ready to get back to work. The projects continue to bubble up (something we referred to as mission-creep in my former line of work), but I thought I'd revisit one of the ongoing ones that has expanded far beyond the short term status where it originated.
The study of the escape of the cavalry from Harpers Ferry continues. Each time I think I'm nearly finished, more material pops up. Brian Downey was kind enough to send along Allan Tischler's book on the expedition, which I'm still working my way through. It is a very well-researched book, but the way it's laid out makes it very difficult to work through. Virtually every version of the story is examined, with various errors and cases of plagiarism identified in each. Unfortunately, the method of examination doesn't lead to a coherent narrative of what did happen, making the work more of a critical bibliography than a history. A very good reference book, in any case. Thanks again, Brian.
Don Enderton was also kind enough to forward copies of his father's personally published The Private Journal of Abraham J. Warner, which should provide some interesting insights and information as well. This is a primary source that I hadn't been able to locate anywhere else, so Don's generosity is greatly appreciated. I'm really looking forward to reading it.
So much research, so little time....
The study of the escape of the cavalry from Harpers Ferry continues. Each time I think I'm nearly finished, more material pops up. Brian Downey was kind enough to send along Allan Tischler's book on the expedition, which I'm still working my way through. It is a very well-researched book, but the way it's laid out makes it very difficult to work through. Virtually every version of the story is examined, with various errors and cases of plagiarism identified in each. Unfortunately, the method of examination doesn't lead to a coherent narrative of what did happen, making the work more of a critical bibliography than a history. A very good reference book, in any case. Thanks again, Brian.
Don Enderton was also kind enough to forward copies of his father's personally published The Private Journal of Abraham J. Warner, which should provide some interesting insights and information as well. This is a primary source that I hadn't been able to locate anywhere else, so Don's generosity is greatly appreciated. I'm really looking forward to reading it.
So much research, so little time....
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Bates letters - July 10, 1862
Editor's note: In which we discover Bates' feelings for a certain New York Times correspondent's coverage of the battles of Malvern Hill and White Oak Swamp. He also provides an account of the battle of Gaines Mill. I'll be checking over the weekend on his allegations of flight by the 6th Pennsylvania Cavalry, as I don't recall reading of it before. All of the parentheticals save the occasional (sic) were included in the original text.
Harrisons Landing Va.
July 10th 1862
Dear Parents,
I have not written to you for a few days back because I thought you would get all the news in the papers, but if all the papers give the same description of our late fights here, don’t believe anything you read about us. I enclose a few pieces of the “New York Times” July 8th, as sample of the way they will make a mountain of a mole-hill. It seems the correspondent was only with one division, and trusted to guesswork for the details of the rest of the Army. He says, “The great mass of the Army were not apprised until (sic) midnight of Friday of the intention of Genl McClellan to change his base from the York to the James rivers.” Here is mistake No. 1. True the intrenchments (sic) were not evacuated but the “great mass of the Army” were ready for a move long before, but I don’t think the Genl took the trouble to inform the Army what his plans of movement were. He then goes on to say “It commenced to move at 4 Oclock just before the sun” when it was raining in the morning and the sun didn’t appear till late in the forenoon. He speaks of the awful destruction of the Government stores and thinks three millions will hardly cover the loss. I think I could pay for all the property destroyed with one million and have many left after.
He then, after describing the battles of Allans farm, and Savage Station, gets the hype about the wounded left at Savage’s. Now nearly all were removed from there and I doubt secesh got as many hundred as he says thousands. The next piece of absurdity is the description of the battle of Nelsons farm, he seems to think Genl Richardson was commander in chief and had the whole battle to himself nearly. But McClellan himself formed the line of battle and was on the field at “Nelson’s Farm,” or White Oak Swamp, more properly, until he had to go to Haxall’s Landing and look after affairs there leaving Genl Sumner in command at White Oak. The battle of Malvern Hills was fought on the same day, (Monday) and was not the tremendous affair described, on the whole, none of the descriptions are correct, and I think the special correspondent got his news from hearsay, perhaps from the Lieut. Charles Draper, who brought reinforcements to Heintzelman “through a murderous fire,” preferring to keep at a safe distance during the fight, a course followed by a great many of our gallant volunteers who were more interested in looking for the Gunboats or for a pontoon-bridge than in looking for their regiments from this time. I was not on the field where “fights were won” until the battle of “Malvern Hills,” but this was Monday instead of Tuesday, and didn’t commence untill half past four in the afternoon. Instead of the rebs marching up by divisions they stuck to the woods like some of our own volunteers and fighting was all done by artillery. Our Captain picked enough stragglers to form two full regiments and asked permission to take them to the front and give them some fighting to do. He acted as Brigadier General of them himself and supported a battery in good style but didn’t get a chance to do any fighting. The whole squadron were kept busy picking up stragglers or recruiting for McIntyre’s Brigade, as we called it.
I slept soundly on Tuesday on Malvern Hills and wasn’t troubled with the rain which the correspondent says came down in his description of camp on James river.
In conclusion his summary of killed, wounded and missing is one of the biggest lies ever published. I thought at first our loss would be from 12 to 15,000 but now I am positive it is not over 12,000 in all.
While I am in the humor I will write what I know about the affair commencing with Thursday afternoon when I wrote my last letter in Camp Lincoln. I believe I had hardly got the letter in the post-office when the firing commenced on the right. This was McCall’s Division in action, and they stood their ground so well that they were driven out of their camps, and would have been driven off the peninsula but for Porter’s Division which retook the lost ground and held it. That evening Genl McClellan sent word to Porter “to make a stubborn resistance and fall back to the Chickahominy next day.” The answer received was this ---
“I can keep the enemy in check and spare part of my force if you want.” Upon this McClellan rode over to Porter’s and I suppose explained to him what he wanted done. At any rate all the waggons (sic) and property with Porter’s and McCall’s Divisions were immediately sent to the west side of the Chickahominy leaving only troops the other side. Ambulances were also sent for the wounded but most of them stopped to cook breakfast for the drivers and feed the horses so they were late in getting up to the battlefield and about three hundred wounded were left in consequence. The firing commenced at daylight Friday, but I went to sleep after breakfast, being up all night, and when I woke up about 10 Oclock it was as quiet as you please. We packed up everything, and at two Oclock headquarters was moved to Savages Station. Our squadron however was employed in collecting stragglers and sending them back to their regiments for the action had commenced again, and hundreds of runaways were coming across the Chickahominy with stories of their regiments being “cut to pieces.” About one Oclock Porter sent for reinforcements saying he had only a “handful of regulars left.”
“Send the regulars into it and I will let you have reinforcements in two hours,” was the reply. Accordingly the regulars (Sykes brigade) were put to work, and they drove a force that had driven four brigades of our troops, in spite of all the secesh could do; the Fifth New York was also in this brigade. They are men. About five Oclock reinforcements came up and relieved the regulars, and then the secesh took their turn at driving. A battery of ours supported by the 5th Cavalry 7 companies 1st Cavalry 4 companies regulars, and the gallant Colonel Rush’s regiment of Pennsylvania lancers came in danger of being taken when Genl Cooke commanding the cavalry ordered a Charge. The 5th started followed by the 1st, but the Gallant Colonel Rush’s Lancers charged the wrong way and broke a brigade of Infantry in their flight in most ludicrous style. Some of them never stopped running until they got across the Chickahominy. The 5th however saved the battery but failed to do much execution among the secesh. Our troops now commenced to retreat in a hurry, and but for the timely arrival of Meagher’s brigade with some other troops the grand army would have been put to flight. They however checked the enemy until night and withdrew to the west side of the Chickahominy. An assault was also made on the right of our intrenchments (sic) at sundown but it was no use knocking.
In the evening Genl Porter had a talk with Little Mac again, at the beginning of which Mac grasped Porter by the hand and asked him “Well what do you think of your ‘handful of regulars’ now.” (truth)
Send me some postage stamping. I am well.
Affect.
Charles E. Bates
Harrisons Landing Va.
July 10th 1862
Dear Parents,
I have not written to you for a few days back because I thought you would get all the news in the papers, but if all the papers give the same description of our late fights here, don’t believe anything you read about us. I enclose a few pieces of the “New York Times” July 8th, as sample of the way they will make a mountain of a mole-hill. It seems the correspondent was only with one division, and trusted to guesswork for the details of the rest of the Army. He says, “The great mass of the Army were not apprised until (sic) midnight of Friday of the intention of Genl McClellan to change his base from the York to the James rivers.” Here is mistake No. 1. True the intrenchments (sic) were not evacuated but the “great mass of the Army” were ready for a move long before, but I don’t think the Genl took the trouble to inform the Army what his plans of movement were. He then goes on to say “It commenced to move at 4 Oclock just before the sun” when it was raining in the morning and the sun didn’t appear till late in the forenoon. He speaks of the awful destruction of the Government stores and thinks three millions will hardly cover the loss. I think I could pay for all the property destroyed with one million and have many left after.
He then, after describing the battles of Allans farm, and Savage Station, gets the hype about the wounded left at Savage’s. Now nearly all were removed from there and I doubt secesh got as many hundred as he says thousands. The next piece of absurdity is the description of the battle of Nelsons farm, he seems to think Genl Richardson was commander in chief and had the whole battle to himself nearly. But McClellan himself formed the line of battle and was on the field at “Nelson’s Farm,” or White Oak Swamp, more properly, until he had to go to Haxall’s Landing and look after affairs there leaving Genl Sumner in command at White Oak. The battle of Malvern Hills was fought on the same day, (Monday) and was not the tremendous affair described, on the whole, none of the descriptions are correct, and I think the special correspondent got his news from hearsay, perhaps from the Lieut. Charles Draper, who brought reinforcements to Heintzelman “through a murderous fire,” preferring to keep at a safe distance during the fight, a course followed by a great many of our gallant volunteers who were more interested in looking for the Gunboats or for a pontoon-bridge than in looking for their regiments from this time. I was not on the field where “fights were won” until the battle of “Malvern Hills,” but this was Monday instead of Tuesday, and didn’t commence untill half past four in the afternoon. Instead of the rebs marching up by divisions they stuck to the woods like some of our own volunteers and fighting was all done by artillery. Our Captain picked enough stragglers to form two full regiments and asked permission to take them to the front and give them some fighting to do. He acted as Brigadier General of them himself and supported a battery in good style but didn’t get a chance to do any fighting. The whole squadron were kept busy picking up stragglers or recruiting for McIntyre’s Brigade, as we called it.
I slept soundly on Tuesday on Malvern Hills and wasn’t troubled with the rain which the correspondent says came down in his description of camp on James river.
In conclusion his summary of killed, wounded and missing is one of the biggest lies ever published. I thought at first our loss would be from 12 to 15,000 but now I am positive it is not over 12,000 in all.
While I am in the humor I will write what I know about the affair commencing with Thursday afternoon when I wrote my last letter in Camp Lincoln. I believe I had hardly got the letter in the post-office when the firing commenced on the right. This was McCall’s Division in action, and they stood their ground so well that they were driven out of their camps, and would have been driven off the peninsula but for Porter’s Division which retook the lost ground and held it. That evening Genl McClellan sent word to Porter “to make a stubborn resistance and fall back to the Chickahominy next day.” The answer received was this ---
“I can keep the enemy in check and spare part of my force if you want.” Upon this McClellan rode over to Porter’s and I suppose explained to him what he wanted done. At any rate all the waggons (sic) and property with Porter’s and McCall’s Divisions were immediately sent to the west side of the Chickahominy leaving only troops the other side. Ambulances were also sent for the wounded but most of them stopped to cook breakfast for the drivers and feed the horses so they were late in getting up to the battlefield and about three hundred wounded were left in consequence. The firing commenced at daylight Friday, but I went to sleep after breakfast, being up all night, and when I woke up about 10 Oclock it was as quiet as you please. We packed up everything, and at two Oclock headquarters was moved to Savages Station. Our squadron however was employed in collecting stragglers and sending them back to their regiments for the action had commenced again, and hundreds of runaways were coming across the Chickahominy with stories of their regiments being “cut to pieces.” About one Oclock Porter sent for reinforcements saying he had only a “handful of regulars left.”
“Send the regulars into it and I will let you have reinforcements in two hours,” was the reply. Accordingly the regulars (Sykes brigade) were put to work, and they drove a force that had driven four brigades of our troops, in spite of all the secesh could do; the Fifth New York was also in this brigade. They are men. About five Oclock reinforcements came up and relieved the regulars, and then the secesh took their turn at driving. A battery of ours supported by the 5th Cavalry 7 companies 1st Cavalry 4 companies regulars, and the gallant Colonel Rush’s regiment of Pennsylvania lancers came in danger of being taken when Genl Cooke commanding the cavalry ordered a Charge. The 5th started followed by the 1st, but the Gallant Colonel Rush’s Lancers charged the wrong way and broke a brigade of Infantry in their flight in most ludicrous style. Some of them never stopped running until they got across the Chickahominy. The 5th however saved the battery but failed to do much execution among the secesh. Our troops now commenced to retreat in a hurry, and but for the timely arrival of Meagher’s brigade with some other troops the grand army would have been put to flight. They however checked the enemy until night and withdrew to the west side of the Chickahominy. An assault was also made on the right of our intrenchments (sic) at sundown but it was no use knocking.
In the evening Genl Porter had a talk with Little Mac again, at the beginning of which Mac grasped Porter by the hand and asked him “Well what do you think of your ‘handful of regulars’ now.” (truth)
Send me some postage stamping. I am well.
Affect.
Charles E. Bates
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
New additions
Some of you may have noticed a few new additions on the blogroll to the left of my homepage. I've done a bit of editing lately, and there will be more to come over the holidays as a few of the listed blogs appear to have petered out. There are two new additions that have proven very interesting to me so far.
The first is publisher Ted Savas' A Publisher's Perspective. This is of course not a Civil War specific site, but his first view posts have been very interesting and his publishing house has brought us several great Civil War books in recent years.
The second is Wig-Wags, a blog by Rene Tyree, who is currently a graduate student and started a blog to help her keep her research organized. Although only a few posts old, her entries to date have been both interesting and well thought out.
Welcome to the blogosphere, both of you.
The first is publisher Ted Savas' A Publisher's Perspective. This is of course not a Civil War specific site, but his first view posts have been very interesting and his publishing house has brought us several great Civil War books in recent years.
The second is Wig-Wags, a blog by Rene Tyree, who is currently a graduate student and started a blog to help her keep her research organized. Although only a few posts old, her entries to date have been both interesting and well thought out.
Welcome to the blogosphere, both of you.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Light Marching Order
I’ve seen cavalry moving in “light marching order” mentioned many times in the course of my research, but not too many descriptions of what this actually entailed. I think the following excerpt by James Larson of the 4th US Cavalry does so rather well.
“Hence the order from the brigade commander was always to move in “light marching order,” which meant that no trooper should carry anything on his horse except what was actually necessary. This order the men of the 4th U.S. Cavalry always carried out more strictly than was really intended by Minty. When stripped for such a march it would be difficult to find an overcoat or extra blanket or clothing of any kind in the regiment. Each man carried only the clothing he wore and, as protection against the rain, only his poncho, which was strapped on the pommel of his saddle. Under the saddle were either two saddle blankets or a saddle blanket and a bed blanket, which served as bed for the trooper whenever time and the condition of the weather would allow him to spread a bad at all, but as no tents or anything to make shelter with was carried, the making of beds depended entirely upon the weather.
“For use in the mess for cooking, a couple of light frying pans were carried in turns by the members, and perhaps also a couple of half gallon tin cups for cooking chickens, ham or coffee, and each man had his little tin cup and knife and fork in the saddle. In the “nose bag” we carried our extra provisions, such as coffee, sugar, salt and whatever we had of bread and meat, so that we were to some extent independent of the pack-mules. We could never rely on them being on hand when wanted. Sometimes we did not see them for several days.
“That was our style in “light marching order” and the style we marched in most of the time during the war. It was very pleasant in fine dry weather, but our condition in rainy and bad weather can easily be imagined. Making the load for our horses lighter was done so as to facilitate our movements, so that we could march quickly without worrying the horses too much.” (Sergeant Larson, 4th Cav., pg 167)
In context, Larson is describing maneuvers trying to bring Confederate raiding parties under Forrest to bay after the battle of Stones River, so this order might be a bit lighter than some others.
“Hence the order from the brigade commander was always to move in “light marching order,” which meant that no trooper should carry anything on his horse except what was actually necessary. This order the men of the 4th U.S. Cavalry always carried out more strictly than was really intended by Minty. When stripped for such a march it would be difficult to find an overcoat or extra blanket or clothing of any kind in the regiment. Each man carried only the clothing he wore and, as protection against the rain, only his poncho, which was strapped on the pommel of his saddle. Under the saddle were either two saddle blankets or a saddle blanket and a bed blanket, which served as bed for the trooper whenever time and the condition of the weather would allow him to spread a bad at all, but as no tents or anything to make shelter with was carried, the making of beds depended entirely upon the weather.
“For use in the mess for cooking, a couple of light frying pans were carried in turns by the members, and perhaps also a couple of half gallon tin cups for cooking chickens, ham or coffee, and each man had his little tin cup and knife and fork in the saddle. In the “nose bag” we carried our extra provisions, such as coffee, sugar, salt and whatever we had of bread and meat, so that we were to some extent independent of the pack-mules. We could never rely on them being on hand when wanted. Sometimes we did not see them for several days.
“That was our style in “light marching order” and the style we marched in most of the time during the war. It was very pleasant in fine dry weather, but our condition in rainy and bad weather can easily be imagined. Making the load for our horses lighter was done so as to facilitate our movements, so that we could march quickly without worrying the horses too much.” (Sergeant Larson, 4th Cav., pg 167)
In context, Larson is describing maneuvers trying to bring Confederate raiding parties under Forrest to bay after the battle of Stones River, so this order might be a bit lighter than some others.
Original Spin
In fairness to the 6th Cavalry, I went back over the weekend and found the report on the Fairfield engagement in the regimental muster rolls for July 3, 1863. The entry was made by acting adjutant 2nd Lieutenant L. Henry Carpenter and acting regimental commander Stephen S. Balk, the senior remaining officers with the regiment following the engagements at Fairfield and Funkstown. Incidentally, Eric Wittenberg posted an excellent biographical entry on him over on Rantings of a Civil War Historian a couple of weeks ago.
"3rd. The 6th Cavalry were Ordered by Genl Merritt to Move on the Road leading to Fairfield, while the remainder of the Brigade moved on the Road leading to Gettysburg, passing near Tanytown (sic) --- The Regiment under Comd of Maj. Starr marched through Fairfield and Encountered the Enemy a mile beyond consisting of Genl Beverly Robison (Robertson) and Jones Brigades of Rebel Cavalry, and at least a Battery of Inf. guns (field pieces) (ed. author's parentheses). After fighting obstinately fighting more than a half-hour during most of which time the Regiment steadily drove a superior. --- The Enemy succeeded in bringing up reinforcements in overwhelming numbers, and was Enabled to flank us on the right and left. --- This compelling the Regiment to retreat. The Enemy were repulsed however with one third greater loss than our own. = Loss. Commissioned officers. Killed 1st Lieut balder, Co F, 6th Cavalry. Wounded major Starr, Lieut Wood Chaffee Tucker --- Asst Surgeon Notson. Missing in action. Captain Cram, 1st Lt Paulding, 2nd Lt Bould --- Also Asst Surg Forwood. Of the latter, Lt Bould was enabled to escape the hands of the Enemy and capt Cram was paroled. --- Enlisted men Killed & Missing 231. Returned to Emmittsburg."
I found it interesting that there was no mention made of the wagon train that caused the regiment to be sent to Fairfield, though whether this was because Lieutenants Carpenter and Balk didn't know of it or intentionally omitted it due to limited writing space we can't know.
"3rd. The 6th Cavalry were Ordered by Genl Merritt to Move on the Road leading to Fairfield, while the remainder of the Brigade moved on the Road leading to Gettysburg, passing near Tanytown (sic) --- The Regiment under Comd of Maj. Starr marched through Fairfield and Encountered the Enemy a mile beyond consisting of Genl Beverly Robison (Robertson) and Jones Brigades of Rebel Cavalry, and at least a Battery of Inf. guns (field pieces) (ed. author's parentheses). After fighting obstinately fighting more than a half-hour during most of which time the Regiment steadily drove a superior. --- The Enemy succeeded in bringing up reinforcements in overwhelming numbers, and was Enabled to flank us on the right and left. --- This compelling the Regiment to retreat. The Enemy were repulsed however with one third greater loss than our own. = Loss. Commissioned officers. Killed 1st Lieut balder, Co F, 6th Cavalry. Wounded major Starr, Lieut Wood Chaffee Tucker --- Asst Surgeon Notson. Missing in action. Captain Cram, 1st Lt Paulding, 2nd Lt Bould --- Also Asst Surg Forwood. Of the latter, Lt Bould was enabled to escape the hands of the Enemy and capt Cram was paroled. --- Enlisted men Killed & Missing 231. Returned to Emmittsburg."
I found it interesting that there was no mention made of the wagon train that caused the regiment to be sent to Fairfield, though whether this was because Lieutenants Carpenter and Balk didn't know of it or intentionally omitted it due to limited writing space we can't know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
