Forming the Company - Odd Man on the Left or Right?

[dgriego]

Re: Forming the company - odd man on the left or right?

I agree with you that the "man on the left" is not necessarily a corporal. Since the reduction to four corporals in a company from Scott to Hardee, and one corporal possibly being detailed to the color guard (or any number of fatigue or guard details), this would leave three (or less) corporals to the company. The man on the left would not be a corporal in that case, however, a private would be detailed to fill that post, and perform those duties. For all intents and purposes, he would be a corporal in maneuvers without holding the rank.

I did a search on the word "corporal", and found it 19 times in Casey's SoS\SoC:
2 times in the table of contents.
6 times describing the posts of the corporals in the company.
6 times describing the color guard.
4 times relating to the Instruction of corporals.
1 time describing the general calls on the drum.

It occurs 38 times in Casey's SoB
37 times describing the duties of the color guard.
1 time as warning to all the officers and NCOs that if the men are not well-instructed in the position of the soldier, and the proper length and cadence of the step, their marching will be unsteady.

The actual word "corporal" is never used in the descriptions of maneuvers. In those descriptions, it is always some variation of "the man on the left".

But, saying the corporal may not necessarily be the man on the left, is like saying the 2nd sergeant may not necessarily be the left guide. The title\rank is not the same as the posting in the company. There are any number of reasons for this fact, but it is stated in the manual:

"Absent officers and sergeants will be replaced—officers by sergeants, and sergeants by corporals."

So, it is not a large stretch to think that if all the sergeants have been detailed for other duties or positions, that a private would end up being in the left-most spot filling in for the missing corporal.

I perused your compilation manual based on Gilham's, and it is very informative. It does answer how to post the 2nd and 3rd corporals in the middle of the front rank.

[thomas aagaard]

Re: Forming the company - odd man on the left or right?

But at least when it come to the union, Kautz tell us in his "NCO" book that:
295. Volunteer regiments of infantry differ from the above in having one commissary sergeant
and one hospital steward, and no principal musicians, in the non-commissioned staff and four
sergeants and eight corporals in each company.

And this is the number found in General order 126, from sep 6th 1862 and GO 110 from 28th april 1863.

Casey don't give a specific number of corporals, just indirectly tell us where to post four of them. But with up to 8 in the company I would think most companies did have 4 most of the time. Even with looses, color guards and other duties...


Personally I don't think Casey cared about the fact that union companies had 8 corporals.
When we talk about volume one He was keeping most of the texts from Hardee anyway, and that language worked.
And I think his focus was on volume 3 that was something he actually wrote.

[dgriego]

Re: Forming the company - odd man on the left or right?

Very helpful quotes, Thomas!

[floridawar]

Re: Forming the company - odd man on the left or right?

I'd like to comment on the issue of an odd man without a rear-ranker. I've seen that called a "broken file" in some places. I understand it can be dealt with in various ways, per the manuals.

The 4th Corporal is intended to be the front-rank man on the left of the company (Hardee, Casey, vol. I, 8) but it is not necessarily his "post." Some of the earlier comments on this thread note how he might not always be "the man on the left" as described in some maneuvers. Why would he not be there? Perhaps because of the following from the manuals:

"Absent officers and sergeants will be replaced - officers by sergeants, and sergeants by corporals." [Scott's (1835) Vol. I, para. 34; and Hardee's (1862) para. 25, and Casey's (1862;vol. I, para. 32);]

Gillam's, does not specifically state the above but it goes without saying it had to be done.

Corporals replacing missing Sergeants must be taken from the rank and file. Consequently, if a company commander had an odd number of rank-and-file men, and ANY missing sergeants (for whatever reason)---AND he just could not stand having a broken or incomplete file---he had only to take a corporal from the ranks to fill the sergeant's post. Now he'll have an even number of men to form in two ranks. AND I might add--a more complete line of file-closers!

But suppose there are an even number of rank/file men, but a missing sergeant. Then pulling that corporal would indeed make the rank and file odd...if the sergeant is unnecessary, then don't replace him. But say the sergeant MUST be replaced. In such a case, if there happens to be two sergeants missing just pull two corporals to replace them---etc. Don't forget the captain can also detail sergeants to fill missing officer's posts, and then corporals into theirs.

Say there just HAS to be a broken file in some companies of a battalion. Now the battalion/regimental commander can get into this act. He Must EQUALIZE the number of men in each company, drawing men from the stronger to the weaker companies for maneuvering.(Scott's (Vol. I, para. 18)/ Hardee (1862, vol. I, p. 11, etc.)
Now, If this here colonel just could not stand a couple of "broken files" among the companies of his outfit (no matter what his captains thought or did about it), here's his chance to get rid of 'em. Lets say he spots a couple 4th corporals as broken files on the left of their companies; the Colonel might have their two companies send their odd man to a weak company. The captains will yank the men to the right of their 4th corporals (you wouldn’t send your corporals as spares to another company would you?) Now the 4th corporals can side-step right into yanked fellow’s places; Bully! The shortest corporal of these companies is in file with the shortest man as called for. Gillam (par.7) and Hardee & Casey (par. 8), are redeemed!

Finally, in Scott's Tactics alone, there is case of the left-hand company of each Battalion, (vol. I, para. 37) which would perhaps benefit from an odd number of rank/file. On it's left flank a corporal is formed as "covering corporal" behind the second sergeant of that company on the left of the front rank (as "closing sergeant" or left guide). However this "covering corporal" does not appear in Hardee's, Gillam's (v.I, para. 8 and diagram), or Casey's…

This is how I understand it. Please do let me know where I am in error.

Best,
J. M.

[Cpl DeFarb]

Re: Forming the company - odd man on the left or right?

[/QUOTE] Finally, in Scott's Tactics alone, there is case of the left-hand company of each Battalion, (vol. I, para. 37) which would perhaps benefit from an odd number of rank/file. On it's left flank a corporal is formed as "covering corporal" behind the second sergeant of that company on the left of the front rank (as "closing sergeant" or left guide). However this "covering corporal" does not appear in Hardee's, Gillam's (v.I, para. 8 and diagram), or Casey's…[/QUOTE]


I do not remember exactly but I believe that this is only done because the company is in three ranks and NOT two.

Scott dose make allowances for companies in two ranks. I believe 72 men or less is what he required for forming in two ranks instead of three.

But I do not remember Scott allowing a "covering corporal" when the company is in two ranks.

I will have to look for the above statement in Scott's. I believe it is in the first pages of School of the Company.

Hope this helps.

Regards

Karl Jacob

[floridawar]

Re: Forming the company - odd man on the left or right?

But I do not remember Scott allowing a "covering corporal" when the company is in two ranks.
I will have to look for the above statement in Scott's. I believe it is in the first pages of School of the Company.
]

Hello Karl,
Excellent question. Rather than going back and re-reading Scott's Vol. I, I went to Capt. Samuel Cooper's "Concise System..." from 1836, published for the Militia. It deletes all references to three ranks, but Cooper does include the "Covering Corporal" for the left company of a battalion in two ranks:
"The second sergeant, two paces in rear of the second file from the left of the company; he is denominated the left guide of the company. In the left company of a battalion, this sergeant is on the left of the front rank, and is covered by a corporal in the rear rank; he is designated as the closing sergeant, and the corporal, the covering corporal."
There is a general order by the War Department appended to the front of Scott's Volume I, (1835) which suspends the use of three ranks, and renders a third of the text useless, and confusing to read around to get to the two ranks stuff. Cooper's abstract of it (1836) deletes the three rank stuff, making it more readable (in my opinion). Cooper's volume was intended for the Militia, but was prepared under the auspices of Army Commanding General Alex. Macomb, on whose Staff Cooper was serving...

Best,

Jesse Marshall

[Cpl DeFarb]

Re: Forming the company - odd man on the left or right?

But I do not remember Scott allowing a "covering corporal" when the company is in two ranks.
I will have to look for the above statement in Scott's. I believe it is in the first pages of School of the Company.
]

Hello Karl,
Excellent question. Rather than going back and re-reading Scott's Vol. I, I went to Capt. Samuel Cooper's "Concise System..." from 1836, published for the Militia. It deletes all references to three ranks, but Cooper does include the "Covering Corporal" for the left company of a battalion in two ranks:
"The second sergeant, two paces in rear of the second file from the left of the company; he is denominated the left guide of the company. In the left company of a battalion, this sergeant is on the left of the front rank, and is covered by a corporal in the rear rank; he is designated as the closing sergeant, and the corporal, the covering corporal."
There is a general order by the War Department appended to the front of Scott's Volume I, (1835) which suspends the use of three ranks, and renders a third of the text useless, and confusing to read around to get to the two ranks stuff. Cooper's abstract of it (1836) deletes the three rank stuff, making it more readable (in my opinion). Cooper's volume was intended for the Militia, but was prepared under the auspices of Army Commanding General Alex. Macomb, on whose Staff Cooper was serving...

Best,

Jesse Marshall

Thank you for posting this Mr. Marshall.

I went back and looked through Scott's and I'll be I can't find the part I thought he wrote about not having a "covering corporal" when the company is in two ranks.

I did how ever find the part about 72 men or less forming in two ranks. Scott's Vol. I page 9 Article 15.

I never noticed the general order before I'll have to let my CO. know about that. I think its kind of funny that the Government would adopt the manual and then make at lest half of it null. I bet Scott wasn't to happy with that either.

Regards

Karl Jacob

[floridawar]

Re: Forming the company - odd man on the left or right?

Hello Karl,

Here is a scan of the relevant General Order, from April 10, 1835, from the front-piece of Scott's Volume I, printed in 1835; suspending the use of three-ranks by the army. The militia, per a law from 1820, had to use the same tactics as the Army, so they too would have ignored the three-ranks stuff...and thus Cooper's tactics of 1836, for the militia, has no reference to three ranks.
A copy of it is available on drillnet.net (as "Cooper's tactics") or can be read on Google books, etc.

The three-ranks stuff was only in Scott's because it was in the French system of 1831, of which Scott's was but a translation.

[Cpl DeFarb]

Re: Forming the Company - Odd Man on the Left or Right?

Those pesky French manuals and our translators. ;)

Karl Jacob

[floridawar]

Re: Forming the company - odd man on the left or right?

Thank you for posting this Mr. Marshall.

I went back and looked through Scott's and I'll be I can't find the part I thought he wrote about not having a "covering corporal" when the company is in two ranks...

Karl Jacob

I spent some down-time this morning poking through Scott's (1835) three volumes. Volume II has a relevant comment, specifically in the text description for Plate I, Fig. 2. It represents a company in three ranks, with closing sergeant and covering corporal formed on the left, as for the left company in a battalion. However, this text notes any other company than that one, including individual detached companies, were to form without the 2nd Sgt. and covering corporal on the left. The text reads:

“On the supposition that the company is detached, all the parts of the figure are correct, with the exception of the…closing sergeant and the covering corporal [on the left]. In this case, these…will be considered obliterated, and then the figure will represent any detached company drawn up in three ranks.”

This makes it clear that only the left company of a battalion withheld the 4CPL from the rank and file, and placed him in a file with the 2nd Sgt. on the left. Otherwise 4th CPL was to be in the left-most file of the front rank.

Best,

[Cpl DeFarb]

Re: Forming the Company - Odd Man on the Left or Right?

Mr. Marshall,

Have you ever found an appreciable difference between Scott's and Cooper's Manuals? More then just verbiage (e.g. different hand placement in the manual of arms or marching by the flank &c.).

Karl Jacob

[floridawar]

Re: Forming the Company - Odd Man on the Left or Right?

Mr. Marshall,

Have you ever found an appreciable difference between Scott's and Cooper's Manuals? More then just verbiage (e.g. different hand placement in the manual of arms or marching by the flank &c.).

Karl Jacob

Hello, I have not noticed any differences between Scott (1835) and Cooper (1836) regarding manual of arms, flank marching, etc. OTHER than the significant omission of all the three-rank formations as standard. At one time i did compare the manual of arms in them closely, as Cooper's volume employs manual of arms figures different from Scott's, but the text is essentially the same. Cooper's omits what was considered by Cooper, etc., unnecessary for militia training.
Scott's 1835 adopts one manual of arms for foot troops (the 1825 system had one for infantry (musket) and another for light infantry and riflemen), and that was considered an advantage. Unlike some of the half-baked volumes to come out during the official use of Scott's 1835 tactics, Cooper's volume (1836) was produced under the eye of Commanding General Macomb specifically to aid the Militia in conforming to Scotts' new system, which they were bound by federal law (May 12, 1820) to employ.
Some reenactors use Baxter's Volunteer Manual to understand Scott's manual of arms, but there actually are some differences there.


Best,

[Cpl DeFarb]

Re: Forming the Company - Odd Man on the Left or Right? for Marine Corps drill

Gentlemen,

I just remembered I had seen this photo awhile back and thought it might help.



Notice the presumably Corporal on the left of the line with no rear rank man behind him, and the Sergeant near and slightly in front of him. It appears that the Sergeants were ordered to the front for the photo.

Here is the full photo.



According to David M. Sullivan's book "The Civil War Uniform of the United States Marine Corps: The Regulations of 1859". This photo was taken at the Boston Navy Yard in late 1863 - early 1864.

Based on the "Rules and Regulations for the Government of Marines on Shore" Prepared by a board of officers pursuant to orders from Bvt. Brig Gen. Archibald Henderson dated December 14, 1852, and submitted December 23, 1852.¹ Article 3 states the following:

3d. The instruction of the Marine Corps shall be according to the system of Infantry tactics prescribed for the Army of the United States.

And article 56 states,

56th. The general regulations of the Army of the United States in all that regards the discipline and military control of the Marine Corps (not provided for by these regulations) shall be the same that is now, or may hereafter be, prescribed for the government of the Army. ²

That being said there is some evidence that the Marines (at lest in part) continued to use older tactics or even mixed manuals. Generally form what I can tell this only took place at sea where the new manual hadn't caught up with the ship. However it appears that the whole Corps (at lest every photo I have seen) did "support arms" with the arm horizontally across the body like in Baxter's manual, which I believe may be left over from von steuben's.

All of this to say that at that time the Marine Corps was most likely using a modified version of Casey's.

Page No. 228 Marines of the Civil War The Officers, Honors, Records, and Regulations by David M. Sullivan
Page No. 233 Marines of the Civil War The Officers, Honors, Records, and Regulations by David M. Sullivan

Hope this helps.

Regard,

Karl Jacob