The "Correct" Shoulder Arms

[James A. Page]

Gentlemen,

Please forgive this post, but I couldn’t find anything on this subject using the search function. Moderators: if this is not the correct folder, sorry. Please move to one that is more appropriate.

While trying to familiarize myself with ACW-era infantry drill I became puzzled when I read the position of the soldier as it relates to the manual of arms. My question relates to the position of “shoulder arms” as commonly used by Civil War reenactors and living historians versus what the original manuals seem to proscribe. My basic question is this: are we doing it wrong?

My question really stems from trying to learn more about McClellan’s bayonet exercises as published under the title McClellan’s Bayonet Exercises for the Army (1852). In this manual, it describes how to move from “shoulder arms” to the position of “middle guard”. As described in this manual, the position of “shoulder arms” is actually on the left side of the body, with the musket’s stock inclined slightly against the shoulder, the butt held by the left hand and the arm slightly bent; clearly not the position in common usage by most reenactors and living historians today. McClellan’s also goes on to describe “Sergeant’s shoulder” which is exactly the position commonly used by living historians as “shoulder arms” and most familiar to most of us. This led me to do more research on the subject.

Resources--During my research, I reviewed only original copies of all available “primary source” manuals (not reprints, reissues or extracts designed for use by reenactors). These resources included: Scott’s Tactics (1845), Cooper’s Tactics (1845), McClellan’s (1852), Hardee’s Tactics (1855), Gilham’s Tactics (1860), U.S. Infantry Tactics (1861 and 1863 editions) and Casey’s Tactics (1862).

Scott Tactics--Scott’s Tactics was translated by Scott from the French ordnances pertaining to infantry drill and adopted for use by the U.S. Army and various state militias in the early 1830s with a few modifications (eliminating the third rank in line of battle, among other things). Scott’s manual describes the position of “shoulder arms” in this manner: “(First motion.) Turn the piece with right hand, the barrel out, raise and support it against the left shoulder with the right hand, drop the left under the butt, the right hand resting on, without grasping, the handle. (Second motion.) Drop quickly the right hand into its position.” This description is exactly the same position of “shoulder arms” as described in McClellan’s manual.

Cooper and Gilham’s Tactics--It seems that between 1835 and 1861 a number of other officers (notably Cooper and later Gilham), catering to a market among volunteer and militia units, attempted to interpret, simplify or condense Scott’s original manual while consolidating several service manuals into one volume. However, all of these manuals reinforce Scott’s original manual and indicate that the proper position of the soldier at “shoulder arms” as already described in Scott’s.

Hardee’s and Casey’s--Not until Hardee’s manual comes along in the mid-1850s does the position of “shoulder arms” change to the position with which most of us are familiar. However, Hardee’s original manual, adapted from the French Chasseur a Pied ordnances, was intended specifically for soldiers armed as light infantry and armed with the two-banded rifle or rifled-musket; not the longer, three banded muskets associated with “heavy infantry.” The 1861 U.S. Infantry Tactics manual goes even further by dividing its manual of arms chapter into two sections; one for light infantry and one for heavy infantry. The main difference between the two is the position known as “shoulder arms”. Relating to heavy infantry, or those soldiers armed with the three-banded musket, the 1861 manual, essentially a renamed and expanded copy of Hardee’s, reinforces the earlier manuals (Scott’s, Cooper’s and Gilham’s) and specifically directs the “shoulder arms” position as originally described in Scott’s.

Based on my research, only Hardee’s Rifle and Light Infantry Tactics (1855 and the light infantry section in the 1861 manual) and Casey’s Tactics direct the use of shoulder on the right side as that most of us have accepted as the correct position.

What’s my point, you ask? Simply this: are we doing the manual of arms incorrectly? Of the eight period drill manuals consulted, six prescribed the method used in Scott’s, while only Hardee’s and Casey’s mandated the more familiar position as used by most reenacting units.

Is there some safety consideration that I have missed that required adoption of the light infantry version of shoulder arms or was the adoption “shoulder arms” as described in Hardee’s Rifle and Light Infantry Tactics simply because it was the only manual readily available or known during reenacting’s infancy? Is this something we can/should correct in our impressions? What do you guys think?

James A. Page
Unaffiliated

[dusty27]

Re: The "Correct" Shoulder Arms

James,

I've been in this hobby 10 years and have always used Gilham's manual, which is the drill manual for the SWB. We have done shoulder arms on the left side as described in the manual.

Not sure why a reprint versus an original would matter in your research.

You answer your own question really when you say that 6 of the 8 manuals reference shoulder arms on the left. If you are drilling by one of those manuals and doing shoulder arms on the right, you are doing it wrong.

[Wild Rover]

Re: The "Correct" Shoulder Arms

Review Hardee's Revised Manual. It describes the Shoulder as being only on the right side, and stops the split between heavy and light infantry.

I will have to say a good many troops we originally drilled in Hardee's original, no matter what weapons they carried, take for instance Fulton's account of the training the 5th Alabama Battalion received.

Gilham's was in use as well, and was quite common early in the War. VMI however had switched to Hardee's because they were not able to get additional copies of Gilham's after the War started.

Probably will start a flame war, but I have to say, as the War progressed I am sure the drill did as well. In reviewing original manuals at the War College, you can see who used what, and also the modifications they wrote into the manuals.

Interestly enough, there is not one Gilham's manual in the whole collection.

We do Gilham's early War, and then change over to Hardee's Revised if we cannot find documentation otherwise on the unit we portray.

There is no 100% answer as to which is correct for all things, but it makes sense to learn both and adapt to the time period you do.

I know that some people will say that it is better to use one, but heck, we use at least 3-4 doing US and CS, if you toss Chandler's in as well, and I know we are as well drilled as the next.

Uniforms evolved, grand tactics evolved, weapons evolved, why not drill? I like Gilham's personally, better than Hardee's Revised due to the nature of the manual. But it is not correct to use something just because you like it...if so I would wear my Overshirt to all events.

Pards,

[James A. Page]

Re: The "Correct" Shoulder Arms

Thanks for the input Dusty. My point was that 90% of reenacting units are using the position as described in Hardees and that it might require a major culture "shift" to move in another direction. Attend any major event and you'll notice how universally accepted it is by the reenactor community--hardcore, progressive and main streamers alike.

Regarding the use of original manuals. As a professional historical researcher and historian for the U.S. Army, the use of primary source materials are always best when conducting research. Over the years, reprints are often edited for content, spelling, clarity, editors notes with their interpretations of particular passages, and occasionally entire passages are omitted. Any of these modifications can lead to a clouding of the historical record and potentially propagate misperceptions. There is no substitute for examining an original artifact--regardless if it is an uniform item or document. Its the same thing as looking at a modern reproduction uniform coat and declaring it as an exact copy of an extant original; maybe it is.......but maybe it isn't.

James A. Page
Unaffiliated

[Wild Rover]

Re: The "Correct" Shoulder Arms

James,
Read my above post and then look over 99% of the extant photos showing soldier at shoulder arms.....they all have the shoulder on the right.


Sorry, but doing Heavy Infantry drill is good for early war, but it is an archaic drill, and was phased out.

If you really want to know what they were doing in 1864, look at Upton's 1867 manual.....manuals are more reflective than ground breaking.

Pards,

[natchezborn]

Re: The "Correct" Shoulder Arms

I think it depends...

Like Dusty said, if you are using one manuel to learn drill, then that is the correct way.

When I first started drilling 10 years ago, we learned everything from Hardee's. That was what the unit I was in chosse to follow. Since that time I have been exposed to other manuals of arms. Is one more correct than the other? I think it depends on which unit you are portraying.

Of course this is my humble opinion and I have been wrong... from time to time.

[dusty27]

Re: The "Correct" Shoulder Arms

James,

With regard to original vs. reprints, I assumed too much maybe. Our source for Gilham's has copied an original from his collection of manuals, so no ommissions are made. I suppose it is possible that liberties are taken elsewhere.

I guess bottom line, like I alluded to earlier, it depends on which manual your are drilling by as to what is correct or not.

[Wild Rover]

Great Article

James,
Read this-


Manual of Arms for Infantry: A Re-examination Part I
By Geoff Walden & Dom Dal Bello


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Chapter I - Hardee's Revisions for Confederates


by Geoff Walden
Introduction
Most Civil War infantry reenactors use Hardee's Rifle and Light Infantry Tactics for drilling in the Schools of the Soldier and Company, and with good reasons. Period sources abound with mention of Hardee's "Tactics," and we have had several different reprints of this work available for use since the 1970s. (See note 1)

But are we correct in using Hardee's work, and if so, are we using the right version of Hardee's infantry drill? This series of articles will examine those questions in detail, from both the Confederate and Federal viewpoints. Chapter I will detail some changes Hardee made for Confederate editions of his manual, and Chapter II will present a broad look at Federal infantry drill manuals (not just Hardee's). In conclusion we will make some recommendations for changing the manual of arms used by reenactors.

Hardee and his "Tactics"

The early 1850s were a time for change in military circles around the world. Weapons technology had advanced by leaps and bounds; where the Mexican War had been fought mostly with flintlock smoothbore muskets, the Crimean War, and by the Model 1841 "Mississippi" rifle in the Mexican War, let the United States to adopt a 33-inch barrel rifle in 1855 (a 40-inch barrel rifle-musket was adopted concurrently).

To go along with this new rifle, Secretary of War Jefferson Davis wanted a revised system of infantry tactics. The current system had been written by Winfield Scott in the 1830s, based on French tactics dating ultimately from the 18th century, and had survived virtually un-changed. Scott's tactics emphasized masses of men concentrated on the march and on the battlefield, to reap the greatest benefit from their relatively inaccurate firepower. By the 1850s, these movements were slow and outdated. The manual of arms was particularly cumbersome: it took 12 separate steps to load the flintlock musket, which was normally carried in an awkward position, held by the butt, nearly vertical at the left side. (See note 2) A soldier wishing to move at any pace faster than common time (90 paces per minute) had a difficult time controlling his musket at this "Shouldered Arms" position. Partly because of this, common time was the norm in Scott's drill. However, masses of troops moving at common time found themselves at a severe disadvantage under rifle fire. Revisions were necessary to bring U.S. infantry tactics in line with the long-range capabilities of the rifle.

Davis knew of the extensive studies being conducted in Europe in both weapon and tactics, and he appointed a number of officer committees to observe these and recommend changes to the U.S. systems. To revise U.S. infantry tactics, Davis chose Bvt. Lt. Col. William Joseph Hardee, Second Dragoons. Davis chose well: Hardee had studied at Saumur, the French cavalry school (and the home of the modern French armored forces) in 1841, where he learned the value of skirmishers, rapidity of movement, and hit-and-run tactics by light forces gained from the French experiences in Algeria in the 1830s. To this, he added personal experience in such warfare on the Texas frontier in 1849-1851. He was widely read in tactics, and he was familiar with the possibilities of the shorter and longer range M1855 rifle. Finally, he had gained an excellent reputation during the Mexican War. (See note 3)

Hardee drew extensively on his knowledge of the French military to accomplish his task. He knew Davis wanted to thoroughly modernize the U.S. infantry into a faster, lighter force, capable of taking advantage of the new rifle. His task was made simpler by the 1845 publication of a French manual that did just that for the French infantry. (See note 4) Hardee's manual was finished in 1854; it was tested, approved, then published in June 1855.

This then, was Hardee's "Tactics:" a modernization of American infantry drill at the company and battalion level, aimed at incorporating several important features of light infantry tactics into the normal field functioning of infantry. The most important tactical improvements, which took into account the long-range capabilities of the rifle, were an increased tempo where quick time (110 steps per minute) was the norm, and double quick time (165 steps per minute) was common, along with simplified instructions to deploy a column into line at the double quick, without first halting. To be sure, many of these innovations could be found in other manuals of the 1850s, but Hardee's became the official manual for the U.S. Army. (See note 5)

Davis, Hardee, and others in official Army circles seemed to assume the M1855 rifle would become the dominant arm in the U.S. Service, and the manual of arms in Hardee's "Tactics" was naturally written for the 2-band rifle with sword bayonet. However, the rifle never was issued in the numbers envisioned. The militia, and indeed most of the army, were left with 42-inch barrel muskets or 40-inch barrel rifle-muskets, both having socket bayonets. Not only did Hardee's "Tactics" produce difficulty for militia units trying to learn the new evolutions, his manual of arms proved awkward, and even sometimes impractical for the longer muskets (e.g., in fixing bayonets and stacking arms). This manual of arms was essentially the same as the old Sergeants' Manual in Scott's, but without Scott's primary manual for 3-banders.

Although Hardee himself recommended that militia units not try to adopt his manual right away, evidence indicates that a number of progressive militia officers did just that in the late 1850s and early 1860s. As a development from this, and "improved" manual of arms, based on Hardee's "Tactics," but suited to the 3-bander musket and rifle-musket, began to emerge. (See note 6) And, coincidentally, so did the War Between the States.

Confederate Versions Of Hardee's "Tactics"

Hardee's manual was a natural for the infant Confederate forces. Although many Southern officers and men were militia veterans, and doubtless were quite familiar with Scott's older style drill, many others were just as familiar with Hardee's. Hardee was known throughout the army, and he was, after all, a Confederate officer. (See note 7) Quite a number of drill manuals were published in the new Confederacy, some using older militia style musket drill, but Hardee's "Tactics" quickly became the manual of choice. Editions were printed in Richmond, Nashville, New Orleans, Mobile, Memphis, Raleigh, Charleston, Jackson, Little Rock, and Houston. When most soldiers spoke of drill learned in their camp of instruction, Hardee's name eventually came out. (See note 8)

This profusion of Hardee's "Tactics" produced two problems for Hardee: he received no royalties from these "bootleg" editions; and most of these were simple reprints or abridgements of the 1855 version, and did not contain his own "improvements and changes ... recently made, adapting the manual to the use of the arms generally in the hands of the troops of the Confederate States." (See note 9) The first of these problems was never satisfactorily solved. Hardee and his Mobile publisher were thwarted in their attempts to secure a copyright until 1864, by which time the rush to put out "bootleg" editions was over. The second problem, however, provides the subject matter for the cord of this discussion: Hardee's "improvements and changes" to his manual of arms.

Immediately after resigning from the U.S. Army, Hardee went to work for the Georgia state forces, forming an infantry regiment in Savannah (the "First Regiment Georgia Regulars," commanded by Col. C.J. Williams, not to be confused with the "First Georgia Infantry Volunteers," commanded by A.R. Lawton and H.W. Mercer). (See note 10) After accepting a commission as a Confederate Colonel, Hardee was posted to Fort Morgan, in Mobile, Alabama.

While in Mobile in the spring of 1861, Hardee entered into partnership with Mobile publisher S.H. Goetzel & Co. to produce an edition of his "Tactics" that included a revised manual of arms for the 3-band weapons commonly found in the Confederate army. Goetzel advertised this edition as "Hardee's Correct, Complete, Perfect, and Revised and Improved Infantry and Rifle Tactics," (see figure 1). Note that the adjective "Light" has been removed from "Infantry," making this manual applicable to all infantry, no matter how armed or organized. Hardee himself was quoted as calling this edition the "only COMPLETE, CORRECT and REVISED EDITION" (See note 11).

Hardee meant this manual to replace his 1855 edition, for use throughout the Confederate army by troops armed with 3-band muskets and rifle-muskets. The changes actually were slight. The same basic shoulder movements were retained, as well as the "light infantry" concepts of skirmishers, double quick time, etc. However, those parts of his 1855 manual of arms that had been written specifically for the 2-bander were adjusted to suit the 3-bander.

The main differences lie in the position of the musket during loading, fixing and unfixing the bayonet, and stacking arms. Each of these movements was revised to take into account the greater length of the musket and rifle-musket over the rifle, and the socket bayonet in lieu of the rifle's sword bayonet. The following paragraphs emphasize the differences from the standard 1855 edition (page and paragraph sources are keyed to Hardee's Rifle and Infantry Tactics, S.H. Goetzel & Co., Mobile, various editions, 1861-1863; emphasis has been added).

1. Loading
The command remains "Load in Nine Times, LOAD."
First Motion (from Shoulder Arms) - With the right hand bring the musket erect before the center of the body, the rammer to the front; at the same time grasp the musket with the left hand half-way between the rear sight and the lower band, the thumb extended along the barrel and against the body, the hand as high as the elbow (para. 143, page 33 - this is the same as the first motion for Present Arms).

Second Motion - Carry the musket to the left side with the left hand, turning it so the barrel is to the front. Set the butt on the ground beside the left foot, and incline the musket to the right and front, so that it is resting along the left thigh with the muzzle six inches in front of the center of the body. At the end of this motion, the right hand grasps the musket just below the upper band, and the left hand is extended to grasp the musket about the middle band.

Third Motion - Hold the musket with the left hand at the muzzle, and carry the right hand to the cartridge box (para. 156, page 3.)

The remaining commands and motions are identical to those in the standard 1855 Hardee's manual and reprints, with the exception of moving to the position of Prime, which is necessarily slightly different due to the musket initially being positioned at the left side.


Considering Davis was the SoW when HArdee's original was adopted, would it not make sense that he did the same for the Revised Edition as CSA President?

Pards,

[john duffer]

Re: The "Correct" Shoulder Arms

Note that in Scott's 1830 ABSTRACT OF INFANTRY TACTICS under the "EXERCISES AND MANOEUVRES FOR LIGHT-INFANTRY AND RIFLEMEN" section he goes to the right shoulder with As light-infantry; Shoulder- ARMS. He says all battalions should be trained to act as light troops and it seems obvious (to me) that the speed of movement dictated arms position rather than type of weapon. I agree with Mr Anders that the bulk of CW troops acted as light infantry.

[Dignann]

Re: The "Correct" Shoulder Arms

James,

Personally, I don't believe that one manual is more correct than another. The Confederacy failed to dictate any one manual as a standard, which left the door open for commanders to make that decision. At what level (army, corps, brigade) that decision was made can vary if the documentation can be found. Through my own research, I have found Gilham and Hardee's Revised in use by infantry officers throughout the war, 1861-1865.

We do know that the Union Army did adopt certain manuals. Secretary of War Stanton officially approved Casey's work in August 1862. Therefore, it would seem that the majority of U.S. infantry commands would have adhered to it. Having said that though, I own an original copy of Gilham that was carried by an officer of the 102nd Penn. in late 1863-early 1864.

As Dusty has explained, our organization discovered 3-4 sources that reveal Gilham in use by the regiments of the Stonewall Brigade. We have not found any references to the use of any other manuals. Therefore, our group chose to adhere to a manual that we do know was used by that brigade during the war. Whether reenactment groups are using the right manual or not, personally I feel that it depends on the unit being portrayed, as Mike has already stated. Research into a specific organization may reveal which manual it adopted.

FYI, an accurate reprinting of Hardee's Revised will be available sometime in October - the volumes are at the binder - and I believe it will be carried by at least one AC approved vendor.

Eric

[Wild Rover]

Re: The "Correct" Shoulder Arms

Eric,
I have the NC Manual, is it the same one?

Thanks,

[Dignann]

Re: The "Correct" Shoulder Arms

Chris,

It is not a reprint of the N.C. manual but is an exact repint of the two-volume S.H. Goetzel & Co. edition complete with foldouts and hardcover binding.

Eric

[markj]

Re: The "Correct" Shoulder Arms

James,
Read my above post and then look over 99% of the extant photos showing soldier at shoulder arms.....they all have the shoulder on the right.


Sorry, but doing Heavy Infantry drill is good for early war, but it is an archaic drill, and was phased out.

If you really want to know what they were doing in 1864, look at Upton's 1867 manual.....manuals are more reflective than ground breaking.

Pards,

Well, when it comes to Emory Upton's revised tactics, "it all depends on what you're talking about." Here's a note from my recent article in "The Watchdog" discussing "Reverse-ARMS" and "Rest on-ARMS":

"4. Emory Upton’s “official” methods for reversing and resting on arms, as well as for the funeral honors during which they were rendered, can be found in A New System of Infantry Tactics, Double and Single Rank. Adapted to American Topography and Improved Firearms. New York: Appleton and Company, 1867, p. 314-315, 359-360. Illustrative plates for both movements are included but only show how troops should appear upon completing the final motions.
Upton’s instructions for reversing and resting on arms are not specifically discussed in this article but one can argue that they are, in fact, of “wartime vintage.” Although Upton’s system was not formally adopted until 1 August 1867, he likely began working on it as early as Spring 1864. By February 1866 Upton had compiled a completed manuscript and within months was demonstrating his new tactics at West Point. The 29 September 1866 United States Army and Navy Journal reported he was already “instructing the Corps of Cadets in his system and on Friday of last week [21 September] gave an exhibition drill of his tactics before the [Army] Board appointed to examine various systems [proposed to replace Casey’s Tactics].” The Journal went on to approvingly note that, “The principles of [Upton’s] system are remarkably simple, and when once thoroughly understood there is but little chance of blundering.” Also see Michie, Peter S. The Life and Letters of Emory Upton. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1885, p. 189-193 and Ambrose, Stephen E. Upton and the Army. Baton Rouge LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1964, p. 60-61."

Since I wrote the above, I have found reports in the "United States Army and Navy Journal" indicating Upton was teaching the Corps of Cadets in elements of his new system at least as early as July 1866.

However, there was another work that apparently has been overlooked. To wit: Colonel G. M. Baker's tactical manual developed for the National Guard, State of New York, which was published around April 1866:

"Baker, G. M. (Colonel, Seventy-fourth Regiment, N. G. S. N. Y.). Manual of Arms[,] Bayonet Exercise and General Instructions for Officers and Soldiers of the National Guard[,] State of New York. Buffalo NY: J. M. Johnson Steam Press, 1866, p. 33. George M. Baker is definitely known to have seen active duty as an officer in Company D, Twenty-first NYVI between May 1861 and September 1862, when he resigned. He returned to active service during the period June - August 1863 as Captain of Company D, Seventy-fourth Regiment, NGSNY when, under the command of Colonel Watson A. Fox, it was federalized for service during the Gettysburg Campaign and the New York Draft Riots. Baker himself assumed the colonelcy of the Seventy-fourth Regiment, NGSNY in November 1865 and served in that capacity until March 1870. Official Records, I. 27. Part II. Reports, Serial No. 44. p. 270-277 and personal communications with Ben Maryniak, Buffalo, New York Civil War Round Table, 9 and 10 November 2003."

The reason Baker's work is so interesting is because

a) he wrote it for the largest state militia in existence (over 50,000 strong in 1866)

b) Baker and a sizeable percentage of enlisted and officer NGSNY members, had seen varying lengths of wartime service (e.g., MGEN Alexander Shaler, 1st NGSNY Division commander, was in the 7th NYSM, the 65th NYVI, and several other important assignments--he was later awarded the MoH for his actions at Marye's Heights in May 1863). They knew what worked...and what didn't in Casey's manual.

c) Baker drew heavily from Casey but tweaked it a bit by addressing various gaps in it; his "fixes" were undoubtedly drawn from practical wartime experience.

d) the NGSNY generally used Casey throughout the war; however a number of NGSNY units began experimenting with "Morris' Tactics" beginning around 1865-1866. Morris', if memory serves (I'm at work right now), was essentially a simplified version of Casey, dispensing with much of the "fancy schmancy" stuff. For its part, Upton was officially adopted for use by the NGSNY on 23 August 1867, three weeks after the War Department did so.

I should add if you really want to get some interesting insight into "what the troops were doing," then military journals like the "Army and Navy Journal" as well as the "United States Service Magazine" provide excellent food for thought. Indeed, I am now assembling a number of articles based on my comprehensive reviews of these underutilized periodicals. What is clear is that commanders out in the field did on occasion devise their own local "fixes" for vexing errors, omissions, or contradictions in the manuals they used. And in a number of cases they shared this info with the aforementioned periodicals. To me, this indicates that officers (particularly Federal ones) were not nearly as hide-bound, and a lot more creative, than we often think.

Thoughts?

Mark Jaeger

[Wild Rover]

Re: The "Correct" Shoulder Arms

Chris,

It is not a reprint of the N.C. manual but is an exact repint of the two-volume S.H. Goetzel & Co. edition complete with foldouts and hardcover binding.

Eric

I will take 2 sets.

Pards,

[Greg Renault]

Re: The "Correct" Shoulder Arms

James,

This matter was raised earlier this year on another forum, in a thread titled "Manual of arms; rifle musket vs, rifle" See http://www.cwreenactors.com/dcforum/Howto/1757.html

As you will see from my posts to that thread, both positions of shoulder arms are correct. The MoA for the musket has shoulder arms on the left, the MoA for the rifle (and later, rifle-musket) is on the right.

Both the manual of arms for musket, and that for rifle, were in use during the ACW. Several manuals of tactics (Scott, Gilham, US Infantry Tactics, Lee) feature both. Maclellan's manual on bayonet excercise is referring to the musket manual of arms, and likely that found in Scott's Tactics, as that is where the "Sergeant's carry" (ie, per rifle MoA) comes from.

So the question is not so much "which manual?", but "which manual of arms?" was followed. My hypothesis so far is that the MoA follows the type of longarm; that units equipped with muskets used that MoA, while those equipped with rifles used the rifle MoA.

But what about the 3-band rifle-musket? While either MoA may be used with the rifle-musket, I believe that MoA usage followed the shift in weaponry during the course of the war. That is, just as rifled longarms replaced smoothbores, so the MoA for the rifle replaced that for the musket. By 1862 the musket MoA has dissappeared from the official US tactical manual (Casey's), and Hardee has revised his rifle MoA to include the rifle-musket.

So, as far as the manuals go, the musket MoA is extinct by 1862. Behavior is another thing altogether, though it seems clear that any US officer using the musket MoA after 1862 would be doing so as a clear departure from the rifle MoA sanctioned in the official (Casey's) manual. As John Duffer points out,"the bulk of CW troops acted as light infantry." The reason most of those pictures mentioned by Chris Anders show shoulder arms on the right, is that most of the pictures are of Federals. The CS case is less clear, though personally I find Walden/Dal Bello's argument more convincing than Dusty Chapman's.

My advice: if you can document your unit's practice at the time being portrayed, great. If not, but you know what your unit was equipped with (or most likely equipped with) during the event portrayed, use the MoA appropriate MoA for the weapon.