Training manual used by Regular Army

[recruiter4thmichigan]

Need some help here. I am trying to figure out what manual was being used by the Regular Army before the start of the War of 61. In Michigan all the Officers were sent to Fort Wayne Detroit for training before they went back to there home towns to train there units. But i cant seem to find what manual was used! was it the Handy Book for US Soldiers, or Hardees, or Scotts ect. Thanks for any help with this matter .

Your Obt Servt
Steve Bucher
4th Michigan

[private kyle]

Re: Training manual used by Regular Army

Steve,
In looking at my copy of Francis A. Lord's They Fought For The Union Chapter 3 which talkes about Manuals and Training Literature there is some good information provided, but I am not sure if it is exactly what you're looking for. To quote the book about such manuals:

Many Unofficial Manuals Used

These manuals were used in great numbers and were of almost infinite variety. Men of all grades and ability wrote manuals. The mere fact that the Secretary of War authorized a particular drill system to be used did not prevent unit commanders from using another system they found superior! By the end of the first year of the war this tendency had given way to a reasonable uniformity but various systems were experimented with from time to time and the result is an astonishingly large number of manuals and books of instructions, both official and unofficial which appeared from 1861 to 1865.

This chapter covers manuals concerning all areas of the military and talks about manuals that were influenced by the French as well.

In the sectioned entitled Infantry Drill Manuals it goes on to state:
Although, there were several systems of drill regulations for the infantry, the most commonly used early in the war were Scott's Tactics (3 volumes) and William J. Hardee's Tactics (2 volumes). Scott's system was reprinted in 1861 with no changes from the first edition of 1835. The infantry company drilled in two ranks and loaded "in twelve times (movements)." Hardee's tactics prescribed a manual of loading in nine "times."

Towards the end of the chapter it gives a list of General Military Works too extensive to list here.

I hope this helps. If you are able to I would get a copy of this book, if you don't already have one, as it makes a good adition to any reenactors collection. If you have any questsion about the above material let me know.

Kyle Yoho
91st OVI, Co. B

[Charles Heath]

Re: Training manual used by Regular Army

Presenting a wealth of information in just one itty bitty linky dinky:

http://home.att.net/~Cap1MD/Drill.htm

In all seriousness, that is one of the more handy CW info sites online, and the following has some fine nuggets, too:

http://www.usregulars.com/

[Huck]

Re: Training manual used by Regular Army

I have wonder this very same question, In the research I have done on this subject, I have found referrences of using Scott (Baxter's) manual of arms with Hardee's Infantry Tactics. From the US regular web site,

"Introduction of the 1861 Tactics.

At the start of the war most Union regiments used some combination of both Scott's and Hardee's (such as Baxter's Instructions for Volunteers), Ellsworth's Zouave Manual, and others) - accepting Hardee's rules for the exercise and manoeuvres of light infantry, but integrating elements of Scott's that were more practical for use with the longer 3-band rifles. J. H. Patterson, then a young officer of the 11th US Infantry, recalled the manuals in use through 1861-1862:

"I remember that the War Department issued to each officer the Ordnance Manual, Wayne’s Sword Exercise, the Army Regulations, and Scott’s Tactics. Scott was soon changed for Hardie (sic), the latter for U. S. Infantry Tactics, a change of title only, Hardie having gone over to the Confederacy."

The U.S. Army revised its Infantry Tactics in 1861 (Hardee having since resigned his commission and gone south to Georgia). Those working on a revised U.S. Infantry Tactics, including Silas Casey, meant to replace the 1855 manual with a version more appropriate for use throughout the U.S. Army by troops typically armed with the longer 3-band muskets and rifled-muskets.

The changes to the tactics 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 the method of stacking arms (Casey's uses the "musket stack", while Hardee's uses the so-called "Kentucky swing"). 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 instead of the rifle's sword bayonet. Since company and battalion evolutions are basically the same between Casey's and Hardee's, the above are the only practical differences in moving from one manual to the other.

While numerous manuals persisted among the militia and volunteer regiments of the Union Army, the War Department attempted to impose some standardization in mid-1862 with the adoption of Brig. Gen. Silas Casey's Infantry Tactics - an update of the 1861 U.S. Infantry Tactics. Procedures for other practical matters were codified in the Revised United States Army Regulations.

Many U.S. regiments adhered to Casey's, while others, continued to refer to Hardee's. Even within the same state, regiments were split on their use of manuals - the 4th Mass. Volunteer Militia used the Hardee manual through its 9 months of service in 1862-63, while the 33rd Mass. Volunteer Militia used Casey's in its 3 years of service from 1862-1865. "


I would say there is no hard and fast rule.


Just food for thought.

[Clsinclair]

Re: Training manual used by Regular Army

I don't know if this is any help but I won a Volumn 11 of Scotts from a seller from Fl on E-Bay. I opened it and it was signed A.B. Watson 8th Michigan. In the back on some blank pages were coastal drawings showing ships and a beach. I found out that A.B. Watson was a Major and had his horse shot out from under him at the Battle for Secessionville or Ft. Lamar in Charleston during June of 1862. I Googled A.B. Watson and found his Scotts Vol. 111 for sale by a Michigan bookstore. I now have it. By doing more research he had a Vol 1 of Hardees. The Vol 111 was signed Amasa B. Watson, Major, 8th Mich. The 8th Michigan was the regiment to breach the walls of Fort Lamar. Major Watson made it to the top of the walls before being driven off. He resigned three months after.

I would guess that the 8th Michigan was using Scotts but I could be wrong.

[DocReynolds]

Re: Training manual used by Regular Army

Judging by readings, and the sixe of the REGULAR Army, it is reasonable to say that HArdees would have been in the Regulars, even in '61. After that, Casey's is being written, and there is ther U.S. Infantry tactics (1863). I have not seen an earlier reference to this work. It varies slightly from Casey's, and is a single volume, not three as witrh Casey's. But this refers to basic drill/tactics. Cav, artillery etc are not even discussed...wonder what they used in '61???

Pete Bedrossian
150th NY

[john duffer]

Re: Training manual used by Regular Army

A quick and dirty history from memory, I apologize in advance for any errors. From 1835 to 1855, Scott's TACTICS is THE manual. Though obviously it would have had a deep impact on the training of regulars and militia, it's rather under represented in the hobby because there aren't any reprints (that I've come across). The bulk of the militia and National Guard manuals of this period follow Scott for most practical purposes. My copy is an 1861 printing and I've recently seen an 1863 so it's still being used early in the war - quite likely in combination with Hardee. In 1855 Hardee's TACTICS comes out, not to replace Scott, but as a supplement for riflemen and light infantry. Even at the time of Casey's effort there was still a line infantry/light infantry mindset. In 1861 Mr Hardee goes south, his C.S. manual is revised for long arms and switches to the Ellsworth "swing" stack along with a few other minor changes. U.S. TACTICS is just a reprint of Hardee 1855 (without his name) and the musket stack added.

Casey is not a new manual per se but rather an attempt to combine Scott and Hardee with a few new ideas added. As Silas himself states:

"The following volumes of Infantry Tactics are based upon the French ordonnances of 1831 and 1845, for the manœuvres of heavy infantry and chasseurs à pied.

Both of these systems have been in use in our service for some years; the former having been translated by Lieutenant-General Scott, and the latter by Lieutenant-Colonel Hardee. My attention, for many years given to the study of the manœuvres of infantry, was more particularly directed to the subject while engaged, in 1854, as President of a Board assembled by the War Department, for the review, correction and emendation of the translation of Lieutenant-Colonel Hardee. Since the introduction into our service of this latter drill, in connection with the tactics of General Scott, I have seen the necessity of a uniform system for the manœuvres of all the infantry arm of service."

The first really "new" manual of the period is Upton's post war which presumably builds on actual late war tactics. Interestly he goes to the Ellsworth stack.

[Charles Heath]

Re: Training manual used by Regular Army

Admiral, if you happen to have a Stackpole reprint of the 1863 USIT (or the real thing), then check out the load-in-ten-times retained as part of the heavy infantry drill. It's a bit of a surprise, but there it is.

[ajroscoe]

Re: Training manual used by Regular Army

Huck Said:
"The changes to the tactics 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 the method of stacking arms (Casey's uses the "musket stack", while Hardee's uses the so-called "Kentucky swing")."

There are few differences at all between Casey's and Hardee's. The stack ARE different, but Hardee's 1855 only has provisions for the stack with rammers (something few of us do because of the crappy quality of repro ramrods). Hardee's revised (a reb manual and outside the purview of the U.S. Regular Army) does have the so-called "Kentucky Swing," but his Federal manual does not, something that is impossible to tell most reenactors. The only acceptable Federal stack is the one described by General Scott in para 410 of his School of the Soldier. This is the same one copied by General Casey word-for-word in his School of the Soldier.

I agree with Charles that a close examination of the 1863 Infantry Tactics Musket Manual is something we should all embark upon. It shows what I personally believe is what most of the Regular Army was working at the start of the war, given the evidence of even New Army regiments being issued Scott's tactics. For the musket, it simplifies many of the movements that are difficult and uncomfortable with Hardee's drill, especially fixing/unfixing the bayonet.

[john duffer]

Re: Training manual used by Regular Army

"The only acceptable Federal stack is the one described by General Scott in para 410 of his School of the Soldier. "

No doubt the most common/likely but I don't think you can make an absolute statement. I've seen a couple 1861 printings of the 1855 Hardee with Ellsworth's stack bundled in, the "swing" was somewhat of a prewar/early war fade made popular by Ellsworth plus the odd fact that Upton makes the switch. If enough photos of stacks could be found the "swing" has the center piece with lockplate to the front (butt parallel with the color line) and Scott's-Gilham's-Casey's has it butt perpendicular to the color line.

Please note I'm not trying to make a case for Federal use of the swing, just saying, as we often find, it's hard to say "only".

[ajroscoe]

Re: Training manual used by Regular Army

John,
Fair enough, using an absolutism was probably not correct. That being said, I think there is so little evidence in support of the swing that it is something that Federal reenactors shouldn't even be worrying about outside of few high, highly select units. But unless you can conclusively cite a unit's use of the swing, it should be assumed that the stack was done via the "poke method."

[Greg Renault]

Re: Training manual used by Regular Army

Steve,
I am somewhat puzzled by your question, as you ask about the manual used by the Regulars, but you refer to Michigan officers schooled at Ft. Wayne, which were Volunteer units.

Most of the previous contributions to this thread pertain to the volunteer units raised by the states. If that's what you want, then I suggest you see if you can find out what the specific unit you are interested in did, as the volunteers of '61 used all sorts of manuals when they started out. For example, Col. Duffield was at Ft. Wayne, and made some interesting adaptations to official tactics (similar to Hardee's CS revisions): http://www.usregulars.com/library.htm

The Regulars were a different story, as they tended to do things "by the book". Unfortunately, I couldn't determine which book they were using back then. I took a look at Mark Johnson's That Brave Body of Men, which focuses on the new Regular units created at the outset of the ACW that served in the western theatre. Johnson described how Henry Carrington trained the officers of the 18th Regt. in tactics nightly, using blocks on a table that they moved to uttered commands. He also describes some drills (which I'll discuss below), but as the evolutions he describes are the same in Scott, Hardee, the USIT, and Casey, this is no help.

I've often wondered exactly what drill the "Old Army" Regulars used just prior to the ACW. We know that prior to 1855 it was Scott--period. But, when Hardee's translation of the French manual for light infantry was adopted by the War Department in 1855, were the new aspects of faster movement (eg, faster pace, doubling files when marching by the flank) generally taken up by the Army, and Scott's slower evolutions dropped? Gilham's 1860 militia manual, which reproduces the movement portions of Hardee's schools of the company and battalion, suggests so (Gilham states that his manual is consistent with contemporary US army practice). Both Scott's and Hardee's manuals were the official ones in effect from 1855 until the US Infantry Tactics came out in 1862 (adopted May 1861, but copyright & published 1862). Even if some units stuck with Scott, what drill did they do when issued the new M1855 or M1861 rifle-muskets? Scott assumes that line units will have smoothbore muskets only, and designates the musket manual of arms for line units, reserving the rifle manual of arms for light infantry (Gilham does the same). But we know that the Regulars drew their equipment from the government arsenals. Johnson describes how Carrington's Regulars received new M1861 Springfields, while Ohio volunteer units that the 18th was brigaded with had a hodgepodge of weapons through 1862. So, if the Regulars had new rifle-muskets, did they drill as line or light infantry?

I suspect that the US Infantry Tactics--Hardee's light infantry tactics with a manual of arms for the musket added (to accommodate all those Volunteer units issued pumpkin-slingers)--may reflect actual Army practice from 1855 on, and likely reflects common practice in the Federal army, both Regulars and Volunteers, circa 1861. But this is my inference, based on the above reasoning. There may be QM Dept invoices somewhere (and the Regulars were well-papered) that record which manuals were issued to the new Regular battalions.

Now, to get to those drills I mentioned.

(1) Johnson describes how one of Carrington's majors was appointed to battalion command one hour before brigade drill, and screwed up the drill. What I found interesting is the description of the drill. The brigade changed front on the 1st battalion: the 1st battalion changed front to the right; the remaining battalions went into columns doubled on the center, moved forward opposite their place in line, then deployed on the right, on the 1st battalion. So, what's my point? According to both Scott and Casey (the only manuals that address a brigade change of front) the battalions are supposed to turn right when opposite their place in line, go into mass, then deploy forward. My point is that Carrington's highly-drilled Regulars creatively substituted another maneuver for the one the manual prescribes. Carrington's subsitution is faster and more elegant than Scott/Casey's--clearly, even Regulars interpreted "the book".

(2) Here is Carrington's description of a "street firing" exercise that the 18th US Infantry performed in October 1861 with blank cartridges in Columbus:

Nearly 1200 men participated in the parade, marching in column, by sections, as the streets were too narrow for a full platoon front. A few skirmishers scattered along the flanks occasionally fired a round as if picking off offenders at windows along the route. Upon reaching State Street, moving southward, firings were delivered in turn by sections east, south, and west through the exposed streets. As soon as the first section fired it moved by the right flank at double time to the rear, and was instantly replaced by another until the whole advancing column had in turn delivered fire from the same standing point, and the original first section, as well as the entire column was at its original halt.

These examples suggest how the tools found in the tactical manuals were creatively employed by some ACW officers.

[Dreadnought1]

Re: Training manual used by Regular Army

Folks,
The link to the US Regulars website doesn't seem to be working (it keeps timing out).
Just busy or is it dead? If it's the latter, anyone got an alternative?
Many thanks!
Cheers,
Frank Strik

[Silas]

Re: Training manual used by Regular Army

If you're looking for manuals online, you might want to look at my links page at http://www.zipcon.net/~silas/links.htm I updated last night and eliminated several links plus restoring some which had been deleted or changed. I left up a couple as a reminder to me to upload some instruction that I've got saved on one of my other computers.

[Dreadnought1]

Re: Training manual used by Regular Army

Mark,
Many thanks indeed! Checking them out now...
Cheers,
Frank Strik