Conference smurf::civil_war

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    	(re-written and re-inserted)
	
    	Information & c. Wanted for some research I am doing:
                                 
    	Any reference to the 11th Mass. Inf regarding; modern references
    	in books you read, any old photo's, letters, documents, personal items
    	that can be viewed, copied, purchased.
    	
    	Any of these may also involve members of the 1st & 16th Inf. that
    	where transfered into the 11th Inf. when their term expired in their 
	perspective regts. They were then placed into the 11th Inf. upon 
	re-enlisting.
    
    	If anyone comes across the following please keep me in mind. You can 
    	contact me off line.

	REMACP::RICHARDSON / 237-6488

    	-John
    
    
    
                                             

    If this request is in the wrong file, Mr. Moderator please move it.
    Thanks.
    
    Would anyone have a listing of the men in the 28th Massachusetts Irish
    Brigade?
    
    Please send to:
    
    Pat Dunnigan @OGO
    BUFFER::Dunnigan
    
    Thanks
    Pat
    

    
    
    Re 21.11
    
    I'll be calling every company I can find in the yellow pages that
    deals with cartography but maybe someone here might know.
    
    I'm looking for a nice map of the South Mountain area battlefield.
    The ideal would be roughly 2' by 1.5' and have some arrows 
    indicating troop movements, some units names, etc, of the Battle
    of South Mountain, September 14, 1862.
    
    Anyone ever run across such a map?
    
    Scott      DACT6::CHASE

    My daughter got very interested in the 54th MA Inf. recently (from
    watching "Glory"), and was trying to get some details about people. 
    None of my sources, including "Battles And Leaders" had very much, and
    I don't happen to have a regimental history of the 54th.
    
    Does anyone know who of the officers and senior NCOs survived the
    attack on Fort Wagner?
    
    It appears from an engraving I have that "Glory" potrayed Col. Shaw
    very accurately in appearance.  Was his friend the major also
    historical, or was he added for dramatic effect?
    
    MikeR
    

    I am "translating" a POW diary and need help in deciphering the
    handwriting.  The cover sheet is as follows:
    
    	Diary of Henry P. Starr
    	Co. A 22nd NY Cavalry
    	Rochester, NY
    	Now Prisoner War
    	Columbia, SC
    	Dec 11th /64
    	Captured May 8th /64
    		Near Chaslaville	<-- This can't be right, but that's
    				Va.         what it looks like.
    
    In addition to the diary, written by my father-in-laws uncle there is a
    listing of expenses for food, writing materials, etc. and a list of
    fellow officers who were paroled with him in March of 1865 from Camp
    Asylum, City of Columbia, SC.
    
    Any help will be much appreciated.

    I am involved with Cub Scouting and each year we do a uniform
    inspection of our "Pack" (~60 boys ages 7-10). During this meeting
    we like to have some type of educational demonstration about uniforms. 
    
    Would anyone involved in a re-enactment group in eastern Mass be willing 
    to come to this meeting in their Civil War uniform and spend 20 minutes 
    talking to the boys about the attire and about life in the military 
    during the war?
    
    You'd be offering them a unique educational and fun experience. I'm
    sure the boys would love it.  We'd be glad to make a donation to your 
    organization in return for your time, although we couldn't offer very much. 
    
    This group is located in Holliston, MA and the meeting is set for 
    Wednesday, Nov 16 at 7:30.
    
    Please reply or call me at DTN 297-2653 if you are interested in being 
    a Civil War history professor for a night. Also, any referrals to 
    individuals outside this NOTES file would be greatly appreciated.
    
    Thank you,
    
    Mike Horrigan
      

I just have a quick question.  If this is the wrong topic, feel free
to move it.


In _Killer_Angels_ and the movie "Gettsyburg" it is mentioned that Buford
had previously held at Thoroughfare Gap for six hours against Longstreet,
but help (Pope, I believe) never came.   

I was wondering what battle that might have been a part of?

I've been reading Shelby Foote's Civil War narrative, and it is not mentioned
in there.  Logically it would seem that it might have been in 1862,
when (if I remember correctly) Lee sent his Army on an 'end-around' the
Union army, and Longstreet came through the Gap.


Any help greatly appreciated,
frank

Please E-mail at CAM::WAY

    RE .7:
    
    	If Pope was involved, it had to be the Second Manasas Bull Junction
    Run campaign (choose your preferred terminology :^} ).  Such a cavalry
    skirmish might not get mentioned in a survey history of the war.  You
    might look in _Battles and Leaders_ if you have access to it.
    
    	That campaign is also the only likely time pre-Gettysburg when
    Union cavalry would be trying to hold Thoroughfare Gap against
    Longstreet, though something might have happened in the lead-in to
    Fredricksburg.
    
    MikeR
    

>    
>    	If Pope was involved, it had to be the Second Manasas Bull Junction
>    Run campaign (choose your preferred terminology :^} ).  Such a cavalry
>    skirmish might not get mentioned in a survey history of the war.  You
>    might look in _Battles and Leaders_ if you have access to it.

I hesitated to name it, because I wasn't sure what you would call it.

I recall one sentence in Foote's tome saying that Longstreet ran into a
brigade, but eventually got through the Gap.

    
>    	That campaign is also the only likely time pre-Gettysburg when
>    Union cavalry would be trying to hold Thoroughfare Gap against
>    Longstreet, though something might have happened in the lead-in to
>    Fredricksburg.
    
That's kind of what I was thinking.

I've got to get to the library and do some more reading, I think.....


thanks,
frank    

    RE last few:
    
    	No luck yet on nailing this down.  Neither "Battles and Leaders"
    nor the Official Records have yet let me get Buford, Longstreet, and a
    Confederate effort to force Thoroughfare Gap in the same place at the
    same time, at least in late August, 1862, which was the Second Manassas
    campaign.  However, that is not at all definitive, since it takes a
    fair bit of cross-checking to determine who fought whom when, unless
    some kind historian has already summarized it.  :^)  I'll let you know
    if I can get anywhere - haven't checked my atlas yet, or reviewed
    Catton or Lee's Lieutenants, or finished with the O.R.
    
    MikeR
    

    RE .10, et al:
    
    	Things are getting fuzzier.  It seems that during the 2nd Manassas
    campaign, Longstreet came up to Thoroughfare Gap about noon on August
    28th, and found it held against him.  The holding force, however,
    included at least Rickett's division of infantry from McDowell's corps
    (maybe another division, too, and maybe some cavalry).  Longstreet
    probed at the Gap (there is a report in O.R. by Toombs (I think) which
    I skimmed quickly), and looked for a way around.  Sometime late on the
    28th or early on the 29th, Rickett's division was withdrawn, and
    Longstreet came through unopposed on the morning of the 29th.
    
    	This is pieced together from Catton's centennial history, "Lee's
    Lieutenants", Lee's memoirs, and a couple of dips into O.R. reports.  I
    haven't found anything yet to correspond to "Killer Angels" line about
    holding off Longstreet for six hours with cavalry, appealing to Pope
    for help that never came.  So I'm not sure what incident Shaara was
    referring to.  (I'll keep looking; he may have had the "Pope" part
    wrong.)
    
    MikeR
    

>    included at least Rickett's division of infantry from McDowell's corps
>    (maybe another division, too, and maybe some cavalry).  Longstreet
>    probed at the Gap (there is a report in O.R. by Toombs (I think) which
>    I skimmed quickly), and looked for a way around.  Sometime late on the
>    28th or early on the 29th, Rickett's division was withdrawn, and
>    Longstreet came through unopposed on the morning of the 29th.

This corresponds to what I re-visited last night in Foote's work.  The
division was one of McDowell's that he left there.  According to Foote
it was more of a stroke of luck than any genius on McDowell's part.

    
>    haven't found anything yet to correspond to "Killer Angels" line about
>    holding off Longstreet for six hours with cavalry, appealing to Pope
>    for help that never came.  So I'm not sure what incident Shaara was
>    referring to.  (I'll keep looking; he may have had the "Pope" part
>    wrong.)
    
I've re-read the parts in _The_Killer_Angels_ and don't find a reference
to Pope.  I cannot remember where I might have heard that, but I'll keep
looking....


frank    

    RE .12:
    
    	I looked it up in "Killer Angels", and did find the reference to
    Pope.  Buford thinks to himself something like then it was Pope, now
    it's Meade.  However, the "Pope" part could be a mistake.
    
    	Rickett's division was blocking the gap by Pope's order - one among
    a stream of them, which had marched his folks all over N. Va.  Pope
    then ordered McDowell to bring everybody to Gainesville, to try and bag
    Jackson, which caused McD. to pull Rickett away from the Gap.  It may
    well have been luck that McD. blocked the Gap before Longstreet got
    there; _Pope_ sure didn't know where Lee's army was!
    
    MikeR
    

>    	I looked it up in "Killer Angels", and did find the reference to
>    Pope.  Buford thinks to himself something like then it was Pope, now
>    it's Meade.  However, the "Pope" part could be a mistake.

Darn it!

Either my brain is going (always a possibility in this place) or else
I was just looking too hard for it.

You're more than correct, it was there plain as day.....

    
>    there; _Pope_ sure didn't know where Lee's army was!

Definitely.
    
frank    

    
    	"Unto This Hour",a novel by Tom Wicker,gives quite a detailed
    	account of 2nd Manassas/Bull Run,including the episode at
    	Thoroughfare Gap between Longstreet and Rickett.
    	 I read this novel recently and it has given me a real interest
    	in the CW,which I had no interest in before.I am now reading
    	"Battle Cry of Freedom" by ?? McPherson.Interesting book.
    
    				Alex.
    

    Looking for information on General Armistead, the Virginia general who 
    made it to the Stone Wall during Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg, only
    to die mere feet away from his best friend, the Union general Hancock.
    
    Does anyone know of a biography of General Armistead?
    
    

    RE .16:
    
    	I don't know if there is a biography of Armistead (there probably
    is), but look up "Lee's Lieutenants" by Douglas S. Freeman.  Armistead
    is discussed there, and the bibliography may give you the title of a
    biography.  For a short bio, you might also try a book called "Generals
    in Gray" (I think) which profiles CSA commanders.
    
    	Armistead may be talked about in "Hancock The Superb" (whose author
    I don't remember) for obvious reasons...
    
    MikeR
    

Hi all,

I have another quick question and a quick scan of the conference hasn't
turned up a likely place to find the information....

I'm aware that the "Manual of Arms" during the Civil War was slightly different
than it is today. 

I was wondering if someone could describe to me what "Carry Arms"
was during the time of the Civil War.  I know it's not in today's Manual
of Arms.


Thanks,
frank

    RE .18:
    
    	If you're really interested in Civil War drill, including the
    manual of arms, you should get yourself a copy of Hardee's book on
    infantry tactics - it was the work most company officers used to learn
    what they were supposed to do!  Reprints are available, because
    reenactors use it a lot.
    
    	Anyway, "Carry Arms" was a position with the weapon (rifle, musket,
    shotgun, whatever) held vertically in the right hand, so that it lies
    along the right side of the body with the barrel projecting up in front
    of the right shoulder.  The weapon is NOT held by the base of the
    stock, as is the case in the modern "Right Shoulder Arms", nor does it
    slope, nor is it resting on the ground.  If I remember correctly, the 
    trigger is to the front at Carry Arms.  The position looks very awkward, 
    and like it would take a lot of effort to hold the weapon; it is actually 
    pretty easy - I got to try it once.  "Carry Arms" was a standard marching 
    position.  With the very tight formations used during the Civil War, you 
    were less likely to clobber someone than at Shoulder Arms, and it was 
    actually easier to hold for long periods.
    
    MikeR
    

Hi Mike,

I thought you might end up answering me....8^)

I'm familiar with the position you've described, in that I've seen it.
I didn't know that carry arms was the name of it.  Thanks.


frank

    RE .19:
    
    	It seems as if a correction is in order.  I went back and checked
    Hardee (as in "Hardee's Rifle and Light Infantry Tactics"), and found:
    
    	1) The position I described in .19 is called "Shoulder Arms", by
    Hardee.  It is distinct from "Right Shoulder Shift Arms", which is
    closer to the modern "Right Shoulder Arms" (but not exactly the same). 
    Why it's called "Shoulder Arms", I don't know, since the weapon isn't
    on the shoulder, but that's the command.
    
    	As a further note, von Steuben's drill manual from the
    Revolutionary War (1779 edition), does not have a position called
    "Carry Arms", calls the position I described "Shoulder Arms" too,
    except that in his manual the weapon ("firelock" ;^} ) is carried on
    the _left_ side in that position.
    
    	2) Hardee has no "Carry Arms".  The modern manual of arms has a
    command called "Port Arms", where the rifle is held diagonally across
    the body, and "port" in this context is an old word for "carry".  So I
    don't know what's going on.  Hardee (and von Steuben) have no position
    even close to the modern "Port Arms", except "Charge Bayonet"!  It may
    be that some group is using "Carry Arms" to avoid confusing "Shoulder
    Arms" and "Right Shoulder Shift Arms", or that somebody has a
    different/later drill manual where the precursor to "Port Arms" was
    "Carry Arms", or...  (I thought I had heard someone call the position I
    described "carry arms", but either I was wrong or they were.)
    
    	Hardee has a position called "Support Arms", where the weapon is
    held on the left side by pulling the left arm across the chest, barrel
    vertical and just in front of the left shoulder - no hand touches the
    weapon.  Maybe _that_ is called "Carry Arms" by someone.
    
    MikeR
    

    RE .19, .21:
    
    	Further research clears up the mystery.  The term "carry" in the
    original question appears in Joshua Chamberlain's book, "The Passing of
    the Armies", describing the salute he had the AoP render to the
    surrendering ANV.  Checking a biography of Chamberlain revealed a
    description of the position, and both sources comment on it being a
    less formal salute than "Present Arms".
    
    	Back to Hardee, under the section on rendering honors: the term
    "carry" is used to refer to the position of "shoulder arms" in a
    saluting context.  So, .19 was correct, after all.  "Carry Arms" is not
    a _command_, but the term "at carry" was used to describe the position
    of "shoulder arms" in a saluting context (interchangeably with "at
    shoulder", BTW).
    
    	So, if you hear anyone give an order to "Carry Arms", they're
    incorrect, but if they say a soldier or group should do something with
    their arms "at carry", or "at the carry", they are using correct
    terminology.
    
    MikeR
    

	Mike,
	
	In .19 you refer to the position 'carry arms' as a typical marching
	position.  Then in following descriptions you state from Chamberlain's
	use of it as a 'salute' position.  

	I think the position you describe in .19 is correct .... trigger facing
	forward, weapon in right arm.  However, the salute portion would be a
	horizontal positioning of the left arm across the chest approximately
	shoulder high.  This is the position that Chamberlain's men took at
	the ANV's final surrender and stacking of arms.

	Regards,

		Chuck

    RE .23:
    
    	Do you have a solid source for Chamberlain's men doing the left arm
    cross?  I ask because I found some murkiness.
    
    	Hardee does indeed refer to the salute you describe, as the way in
    which a sergeant carrying a rifle instead of a sword salutes; however,
    in a couple of other places in the same section, Hardee describes what
    seems to be merely going to "Shoulder Arms" (with that term used) as a
    "less formal" salute - i.e. one used in saluting folks who don't rate
    "Present Arms".  I always like to be careful in believing exact
    descriptions of the manual of arms by civilians who weren't there (like
    Chamberlain's biographer) unless they tally with some eyewitness
    account or informed military source.  What you describe is entirely
    possible (and the Confederates might have returned the same position),
    but I hadn't yet found a source I would consider definitive.  (I'd love
    to get a copy of Chamberlain's "Last Salute", and see if _he_ gives
    details...)
    
    	All help appreciated!
    
    MikeR