Sidearms and cannoneers

[RedCordCO]

I've been keeping up with the 'knapsacks for artillery' thread and have a question of my own to pose. I hope it can be answered by this august group and resolve a small debate that is in my mind. It was prompted by a comment about reenactors of artillery being more inclined to carry 'pistolas' than knapsacks.

Were cannoneers in the Federal artillery [I'm not talking state groups, but the Regular Army] permitted to carry sidearms? Specifically, the historical precedent for the carrying of such arms by artillery privates.
I've heard that NCOs and drivers are permitted them but what of the privates manning the piece?
It sometimes seems that privates at some events are better armed than would seem possible. Then again, the 'personal possession' tack comes into play. Obviously, pistols on enlisteds seems more prevalent at mainstream events than more authentic events. Often the weapons are wielded by those with faint to non-existent safety restrictions or even a modicum of training. There are some good reenactors but most seem only wanting to make a 'flash' for themselves and not with a cannon.

I'd be most interested to see what you folks have to say about this.

Rob Burchardt
4th TX Regt. Light Artillery/ Artillery Company of NM

[ejn]

Re: Sidearms and cannoneers

From the History of the Ninth Mass Battery. (Volunteer, not regular.)

There are only two references to revolvers in the book. One is while they are in camp in Massachusetts (August 1862); a few revolvers were issued. Most likely to the NCOs. The second was a reference to a salute which was fired from revolvers to honor a dead soldier.

Maybe the most telling is the equipment they turned in on May 30, 1865. The 9th turned in saddles, bridles, sabres, belts, and blankets. Notice revolvers are not in the list.

Ed

[ejn]

Re: Sidearms and cannoneers

Now, The Artillerist's Manual has a mixed message.

Page 355; "Artillery cannot defend itself when hard pressed, and should always be sustained by either infantry or cavalry. The proposition made to arm the cannoneers with small-arms, such as revolvers, short rifles, etc., is calculated to do more harm than good. ... Let the rifles, therefore, be given to the infantry, and the sabres and revolvers to the cavalry; ..."

But under Railroad Transportation is this passage:

Page 382; "The Men. - The men, with their knapsacks and side-arms, are divided ... Firearms should never be laid on the seats or stood in corners, except when leaving the cars at the principal stopping places and stations."

I think the passage on page 355 is more telling.

Ed

[Johan Steele]

Re: Sidearms and cannoneers

There was thread a while back (maybe on the old site) dealing w/ the question of whether or not the Arty might have used Carbines. Keep in mind the 3" Ordnance Rifle or 12 Lbs Napolean was their weapon... and at close range FAR more intimidating than an 1860 Colt in the hands of a randy private. Infantry was almost always assigned to protect the battery... and again a Springfield is more intimidating than that revolver... especially when that infantry is supporting 4-6 Cannon.

As far as I've read some NCO's carried pistols to dispatch wounded battery horses.

I'm sorry I just don't see a private in the Arty preferring a .36 or .44 pistol over canister (double or triple shotted if the battery is in real trouble). If the enemy came close enough for that pistol to be effective and too few men to man the guns... well I think a skedaddle would be a better choice than 6 shots from a pistol. The idea of being pinned to the ground by some irate bayonet wielding CS troops might be a good motivator to make the 100 yard dash to a position of better observation. Some might well have carried a private purchase pistol at the start but after some serious campaigning... I think for the most part into the ditch or back home they went.

[James Brenner]

Re: Sidearms and cannoneers

It's too bad that I don't have my references handy and that this reply is more from memory than actual citation, but ... In a previous life, I taught military history at the Field Artillery School at Ft. Sill, OK. While there, I had access to a lot of obscure references. One of them was a draft memoir that Brigadier General Tidball wrote in 1905. Tidball was a battery commander in Battery A, 2d US Artillery during the WBTS. He devoted a chapter to smallarms and the artilleryman. Tidball felt strongly about the only government issued artillery smallarm - the light artillery saber - and dismissed it as worthless. If I remember correctly, he commented that it had no value as a weapon and the cannoneers soon relegated them to the battery wagons where they were either turned in or declared "lost in action". For the few privately purchased revolvers that stayed in the battery and weren't discarded, they (with the remaining sabers) were used as badges of rank to denote the NCOs. In fact, I seem to recall a couple of photos that show just that. For battery defense, Tidball said, as so many else have said, that a cannon loaded with canister, was the artilleryman's defense. Tidball also stressed the fact that batterys were not commited by themselves; there was always an infantry regiment in support. I think, too, that his final comment, was that a good riding crop was more useful in keeping the horses quiet on the picket line than anything else. There was an article in The Artilleryman magazine from about 1984 that pretty much said this, too.

[K Bartsch]

Re: Sidearms and cannoneers

Rob,

By now you should be getting the distinct impression that firearms for mounted artillery cannoneers in Federal service were clearly the rare exception rather than rule. I repectfully suggest that individual firearms among Confederate field artillery was even more rare.

This site and these forums have always been about promoting authentic impressions with an eye towards the typical or "PEC" (plain,everday,common) --actually I prefer "NUG" (normally, usually, generally :wink_smil ).

With all that said, the sight of a mainstream gun detachment with privates serving their piece all kitted-out with pistols is just plain inauthentic and should be discouraged. As has been mentioned, there are folks who don't see it that way and insist on strapping on their revolvers "just cuz."

Finally, I know of no photographic image of field artillery cannoneers wearing revolvers, north or south. There may be one out there, but I've never seen it. I suggest if the practice was even trending towards common even in the wars early years, there would be photos.

Cordially,

[RobWiseman]

Re: Sidearms and cannoneers

I believe that Ed's quote from the Artillerist's Manual, which I believe is Gibbon's (correct me if I'm wrong) has it best. The piece IS the artillerist's weapon.

I have always been told that the NCO's and drivers would carry sidearms simply to euthenize wounded horses that may get caught up in the rigging while manuevering.

Besides carrying a lot of gear while trying to operate a gun is just damned dangerous. There are too many things that can go wrong, to risk your safety for the hobby. I started in the artillery and no one carried any sidearms except the officers and that was still very rare.

Rob Wiseman

[bonniegreenflag]

Re: Sidearms and cannoneers

My battery has a documented instance of "taking a shot" at a group of federal cavalry camped in a grove of trees, although it is not indicated with what. They didn't hit anything, so it may have been pistols.

[KentuckyReb]

Re: Sidearms and cannoneers

Don't have my copy of Hardtack & Coffee handy at the moment...writing this on my Dad's computer over at his house. But I do recall John Billings (a 9th Massachusetts cannon-cocker) discussing revolvers, I believe when he was talking about some of the 'notions' that men availed themselves of early on, like water filter straws, armor, etc. He says that private purchase revolvers were thick as hair on a dog's hiney among the fresh fish, however he goes on in the same paragraph to say that 'pistols' were probably cheaper in Virginia during the War than in any other part of the country because the boys were getting rid of them right and left, either because they were a nuisance to pack around or because the colonels of most outfits proscribed them. IIRC, issue revolvers to enlisted men were not mentioned at all, which is rather significant. Billings was an artilleryman himself and makes no mention of enlisted redlegs being issued revolvers or carrying them in contrast to their colleagues in the infantry. I suppose it may have just been an omission on his part, but he makes a pretty detailed description of most other parts of an artilleryman's life, particularly those aspects of it that differed appreciably from the other branches. 'We got pistols but they didn't' seems like something he would've said.

[ejn]

Re: Sidearms and cannoneers

John Billings was a member of the 10th Mass Battery. Charles Reed, who illustrated the book, was a member of the 9th Battery Mass. Vols.

Ed

Don't have my copy of Hardtack & Coffee handy at the moment...writing this on my Dad's computer over at his house. But I do recall John Billings (a 9th Massachusetts cannon-cocker) discussing revolvers, I believe when he was talking about some of the 'notions' that men availed themselves of early on, like water filter straws, armor, etc. He says that private purchase revolvers were thick as hair on a dog's hiney among the fresh fish, however he goes on in the same paragraph to say that 'pistols' were probably cheaper in Virginia during the War than in any other part of the country because the boys were getting rid of them right and left, either because they were a nuisance to pack around or because the colonels of most outfits proscribed them. IIRC, issue revolvers to enlisted men were not mentioned at all, which is rather significant. Billings was an artilleryman himself and makes no mention of enlisted redlegs being issued revolvers or carrying them in contrast to their colleagues in the infantry. I suppose it may have just been an omission on his part, but he makes a pretty detailed description of most other parts of an artilleryman's life, particularly those aspects of it that differed appreciably from the other branches. 'We got pistols but they didn't' seems like something he would've said.

[ejn]

Re: Sidearms and cannoneers

From A Treatise on the Tactical Use of the Three Arms: Infantry, Artillery, and Cavalry by Francis J. Lippitt, Ex-Colonel 2nd Infantry, California Vols. (1865)

At the battle of Hanau, in 1813, Drouot's eighty guns were charged by the Allied cavalry. Having no supports, he placed his gunners in front of them with their carbines. This checked the cavalry, who were then covered with grape, which drove them back to their lines. Ought not our gunners also to have carbines slung on their backs for such emergencies. Against infantry, our guns would need no other support. The carbines could be used to reply to the enemy's skirmishers; and the example just cited shows that, thus equipped, artillerymen may sometimes successfully defend their pieces even against cavalry.

This passage surely illustrates that cannoneers were not given carbines. There is no referal to side-arms being used or being replaced by carbines.

Ed

[KentuckyReb]

Re: Sidearms and cannoneers

My fault. I thought they were in the same outfit.

[meatcan]

Re: Sidearms and cannoneers

I've got two sources of infor regarding cannoneers carrying knapsacks and sidearms. First is the journal of my great-great-grandfather, William Wallace Robertson (nice name . . . wonder were his parents were from) who served in the 11th New York Battery. He refers to his revolver twice, once when he receives it as a gift from the boys in the shop when he enlists, and again in about the middle of 1863 when he sends it home. He also refers to his knapsack, but only once: in 1864 when its stollen. And he was pissed!

Secondly, our unit has in its possession a box of documents from the original battery, including a report of all items turned in to the Army in 1865 at its mustering out. It includes about 60 revolvers turned in, enough for the NCO's. The list also inlcudes things like the dress hats and sabers too (cav sabers 100%). So we know they had'em, but in limited numbers, but we don't if they carried them or not.

Mike Robertson, 1st MI Atl., Batt. B

[RelicRoomGuy]

Re: Sidearms and cannoneers

At Brandy Station, memoirs of Louis Sherfessee, Hart's Battery:

"As well as I can remember, about half and hour afterwards, a regiment of Yankees charged our Battery, and after giving them canister (sic) until they got too close, and we could not work our guns, we received them with sabres, pistols, bend-spikes and sponge staffs".

Hart's Battery was closely associated with the cavalry of the ANV and perhaps had a different weapon mix than the usual - and Sherfessee doesn't mention pistols elsewhere, except in an early war incident in which an officer acquires a sentry's musket, begins to "chew out" the sentry for reliquishing his weapon and is silenced when the sentry pulls a (private purchase) revolver and demands his musket back!

[K Bartsch]

Re: Sidearms and cannoneers

At Brandy Station, memoirs of Louis Sherfessee, Hart's Battery:

"As well as I can remember, about half and hour afterwards, a regiment of Yankees charged our Battery, and after giving them canister (sic) until they got too close, and we could not work our guns, we received them with sabres, pistols, bend-spikes and sponge staffs".

Hart's Battery was closely associated with the cavalry of the ANV and perhaps had a different weapon mix than the usual - and Sherfessee doesn't mention pistols elsewhere, except in an early war incident in which an officer acquires a sentry's musket, begins to "chew out" the sentry for reliquishing his weapon and is silenced when the sentry pulls a (private purchase) revolver and demands his musket back!

It is a great monograph Joe. Thanks for turning me on to it last winter . You're absolutely right, Hart's was a hard fighting bunch of horse artilllery. To me, the quote above doesn't directly imply ALL had pistols at Brandy Station. It could be interpreted as cannoneers swinging hand-spikes (not bend-spikes) and sponge-rammers, while the NCO's fired their pistols. There would have been sabers to cleave Yankee heads since Hart's was flying artillery in Stuarts's (later Hampton's corps) and as such the entire battery was mounted and nobody walked.

cheers,