Tweet
Folks,
The Camp Chase has been kind enough to publish another article of mine in the “Authentic Campaigner Section” of their current edition. Its title is... WAS THERE A CHRONIC SHORTAGE OF HAVERSACKS & CANTEENS
AMONG WESTERN CS CAVALRY? OR, ... WAS IT A SHORTAGE BY “CHOICE”?
The genesis for this article was a post made here on the AC some years ago (I could not find it in the search engine so assume it was “lost” in the late crash). I have since expanded upon it quite a bit with new information I have found. Since this is very relative, somewhat novel and certainly new research to us as cavalrymen I include excerpts here for your perusal, enjoyment and to “tweak” your interest. I hope you might find it of value enough to take the opportunity to read the full article and offer your ideas and opinions. Thank you! Ken R knopp
(Second in a series of articles on Confederate Cavalry arms and equipment exclusively for the Camp Chase)
Official inspections taken of Confederate cavalry during the war are incredibly revealing as to the arms, saddlery, accoutrements, ammunition and other equipment found in the ranks. From them, we can learn a lot about what was actually used in the field. So, why are otherwise very necessary items like haversacks and canteens- that is, individual vessels to hold food and water, habitually in short supply in the inspection reports for virtually every western cavalry command? This discrepancy is also found to some slightly lessor degree in the records of eastern (ANV) cavalrymen but the question remains simply- Why? This question is important as it may well illustrate a case of our modern historical mis-understanding of the Confederate cavalryman’s daily existence and perhaps, to highlight yet another flagrant reenactor “disconnect” in accurate equipment........................... (Paragraphs omitted)
............3.A month prior to the Battle of Brice’s Crossroads, the Confederate War Department ordered an inspection of Forrest Cavalry Corps which by that time, comprised a major portion of the west’s cavalry. Dated May 26, 1864, it was the most complete report of Forrest’s Cavalry during the war. He was at his peak in horses (9,500 serviceable) and men, recently recruited to three divisions with a combined strength of 8,952 effectives plus artillery and his Escort (about 65 men). This very detailed report comprises his entire command including his artillery (sixteen guns) and the Divisions of Chalmers, Buford and, Gholston’s Brigade of Mississippi State Troops totaling some twenty-nine regiments and battalions. Forrest had recently returned from his west Tennessee raids including actions at Jackson Tenn, Paducah Ky., etc. and significant engagements at Ft. Pillow and against Sooy Smith at Okalona, Miss., etc. In these endeavors he had gathered a large number of conscript men, captured horses, weapons, equipment and supplies. In addition, since Dec. 1863, Forrest had made a number of requisitions on the Ordnance Department for arms and equipment which yielded 1,350 imported French Lafoucheaux pistols, at least two thousand Austrian Lorenz rifles, saddlery and, some “accoutrements” from Richmond. 3.
Command Effective Men (Approx.) Haversacks % Canteens %
Chalmer’s Div 4,067 1,842 45% 1,437 40%
Buford’s Div. 3,615 1,503 42% 1,572 43%
Gholston’s 1,213 245 20% 257 21%
TOTAL: 8,895 3,590 40% 3,266 37%
4. After the remarkable success by Forrest at Brice’s Crossroads, the resulting capture of Federal arms and equipment certainly augmented supply to a great degree. To illustrate an interesting comparison point, we turn to an inspection report of Rucker’s Brigade of Chalmer’s Division dated July 3rd, 1864 as a relative sample of what then might be typically found throughout Forrest’s Cavalry. 4. Consisting of 1,072 effective men from three regiments of Tennessee and Mississippi cavalry we find the following:
Command Effective Men (Approx.) Haversacks % Canteens %
Chalmer’s (2nd Brigade) 1,072 496 46% 675 63%
*1st Brigade (Neely’s) detached and not included.
Now, compare the percentages of Chalmers’ May report to the July report. Keep in mind that at the Battle of Brice’s Crossroads some two weeks prior Forrest’s men had captured 17 cannon, 250 wagons, 3,000 stands of arms, killed and wounded some 2,000 men and captured another 2,000 men. 5. Not noted in Forrest’s battle report but obvious would be the assumption of the many, many haversacks and canteens that were part of these captures. Combine this with the many more captures of these articles in the previous engagements noted above and Forrest’s equipment requisitions made upon Confederate authorities from January through June of 1864. As a result, one should be able to reasonably assume with confidence that haversacks and canteens should be plentiful and not likely an item in short supply in Forrest’s command, right? Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that despite all of the above one still finds the percentage of haversacks virtually the same and canteens only marginally higher in the Chalmer’s July inspection report. But WHY????
5. About this same time, the west’s other large cavalry command was with the Army of Tennessee under Gen. Joe Wheeler........ (Paragraphs omitted) ...........this extremely detailed report of Wheeler’s Cavalry Corps (taken July 31, 1864) shows the number of haversacks and canteens on hand but again, significant shortages are noted. 6.
Command Effective Men (Approx.) Haversacks % Canteens %
Wheeler’s Cavalry Corp’s 6,734 3,228 47.9% 4,120 61%
6. Wheeler’s Cavalry, Jackson’s Division, Plametto Ga. September 20, 1864. Unlike the other reports, this was an official Adjutant Inspector General Office report highlighting equipment “deficiencies” which meant those in extremely poor condition requiring replacement or a complete lack thereof. To be consistent, the numbers shown below are those on hand to effective men in the ranks. 7.
Command Effective Men (Approx.) Haversacks % Canteens %
Armstrong’s Brigade 1,513 653 43% 1,138 75%
Ross’s Texas Brigade 845 All Deficient *
Ferguson’s Brigade 1 984 709 72% 659 67%
Wheeler’s Reserve Corps 656 431 66% 506 77%
Lewis’ Mtd. Ky Inf. Brig. 473 232 49% 321 68%
Hannon’s Ala. Brigade 241 141 58% 215 89%
TOTAL: 4,712 2,166 46% 2,839 60%
* Noting that no haversacks or canteens are mentioned in Ross’s report probably suggests very few and in poor condition rather than a complete void.
(Paragraphs omitted)
SUMMARY AND OBSERVATIONS: For certain, throughout much of the war there was never a full compliment of canteens and haversacks in the western cavalry commands. Although we can speculate, there is no clear reason why they are not found in greater numbers. There are however, questions to ponder:....................................(Paragr aphs omitted)
-Can we assume an anomaly in the Inspection Reports?............(Paragraphs omitted)
-Can we say that the Inspection Officers only noted “Confederate government issue” items? Possibly, but.............(Paragraphs omitted)
-Can we assume that the number of haversacks and canteens were inadequate due to a lack of access to supply sources such as captures? .........................(Paragraphs omitted)
How about access to Confederate supply sources? While complete records are impossible to obtain those available suggest Confederate manufacture of these items was quite good.
A. Atlanta Ga. Arsenal: July 1, 1862 - June 30th, 1863 Rec’d & Purchased Issued 8.
Haversacks 42,889 67,834 Canteens 72,147 64,250
B. Macon Ga. Arsenal: “Stores on Hand”, March 1863 - Mid-Feb. 1864 * 9.
On hand at beginning of period Rec’d or Fabricated Issued
Haversacks: 1,356 3,263 3,618
Canteens: 9,641 4,425 12,996
* These are the only consistent records available from the Macon Arsenal. Interestingly, significant numbers of haversacks and canteens remained on hand in Macon for months with few or no issues suggesting demand was sporadic and not excessive.
C. Augusta Ga. Arsenal: Records are scant on these items but from Nov, 12, 1861 to Oct 23, 1864 one local contractor, George Wyman & Co. provided to the arsenal 30,565 haversacks and thousands of canteen straps. Other arsenal records note tin, cedar and cypress wood canteens being shipped. 10.
D. Columbus Ga. Arsenal: Again, records are scant but the huge textile mills in Columbus no doubt provided copious amounts of cloth for every need including haversacks allowing the arsenal to ship significant numbers throughout the war. In addition, the arsenal provided tin and cedar canteens to the stores of other arsenals for subsequent issue. 11.
Other manufacturing at places like Selma, Montgomery and elsewhere in the western Confederacy no doubt provided many more. While incomplete and therefore largely circumstantial, the manufacturing notes above strongly suggest Confederate production of canteens and haversacks was apparently adequate for the army’s needs. While transportation issues may have impacted issue to the cavalry, manufacturing was clearly not a problem......(Paragraphs omitted)
So, how do we account for a clear lack of haversacks and canteens in the ranks of the cavalry? It is quite possible this obvious lack of a seemingly important item may well have been by “choice”. In other words, many of the west’s (and east’s) cavalrymen simply chose NOT to carry these articles. But why? Well, it is difficult to know for sure but, the mid-19th century was a different era and with a different mind set, so here are some theories:....................
((Paragraphs omitted. I don’t want to give away the “meat” of the article but I do urge you folks to get a copy. Ken R Knopp)
CONCLUSION: Perhaps it was “all of the above” or maybe, the real reason or “reasons” may always elude us. Whatever it is, it is clear on average only about 48% of western cavalrymen carried a haversack and 52% a canteen. So, while carrying a canteen for safe hydration on the battlefield makes good sense, perhaps, as reenactors maybe we should consider emulating our gallant heros a bit more in other ways such as..... (Paragraphs omitted)
............As cavalry reenactors, we should (within reason) strive to wear, use and ride the right stuff, travel, fight, eat, sleep and live the way they did- the “cavalry way”. What better way to capture the real experience? In short, we must ask ourselves, are we “reenactors” or, just “costumed campers”?
END
If you get a chance pick up a copy of the current (August) Camp Chase. I hope you will find this effort of mine interesting and worthwhile. Comments welcome.
PS: Sorry this post is so scrambled....and long! My apologies.
Thank you!
Ken R Knopp
The Camp Chase has been kind enough to publish another article of mine in the “Authentic Campaigner Section” of their current edition. Its title is... WAS THERE A CHRONIC SHORTAGE OF HAVERSACKS & CANTEENS
AMONG WESTERN CS CAVALRY? OR, ... WAS IT A SHORTAGE BY “CHOICE”?
The genesis for this article was a post made here on the AC some years ago (I could not find it in the search engine so assume it was “lost” in the late crash). I have since expanded upon it quite a bit with new information I have found. Since this is very relative, somewhat novel and certainly new research to us as cavalrymen I include excerpts here for your perusal, enjoyment and to “tweak” your interest. I hope you might find it of value enough to take the opportunity to read the full article and offer your ideas and opinions. Thank you! Ken R knopp
(Second in a series of articles on Confederate Cavalry arms and equipment exclusively for the Camp Chase)
Official inspections taken of Confederate cavalry during the war are incredibly revealing as to the arms, saddlery, accoutrements, ammunition and other equipment found in the ranks. From them, we can learn a lot about what was actually used in the field. So, why are otherwise very necessary items like haversacks and canteens- that is, individual vessels to hold food and water, habitually in short supply in the inspection reports for virtually every western cavalry command? This discrepancy is also found to some slightly lessor degree in the records of eastern (ANV) cavalrymen but the question remains simply- Why? This question is important as it may well illustrate a case of our modern historical mis-understanding of the Confederate cavalryman’s daily existence and perhaps, to highlight yet another flagrant reenactor “disconnect” in accurate equipment........................... (Paragraphs omitted)
............3.A month prior to the Battle of Brice’s Crossroads, the Confederate War Department ordered an inspection of Forrest Cavalry Corps which by that time, comprised a major portion of the west’s cavalry. Dated May 26, 1864, it was the most complete report of Forrest’s Cavalry during the war. He was at his peak in horses (9,500 serviceable) and men, recently recruited to three divisions with a combined strength of 8,952 effectives plus artillery and his Escort (about 65 men). This very detailed report comprises his entire command including his artillery (sixteen guns) and the Divisions of Chalmers, Buford and, Gholston’s Brigade of Mississippi State Troops totaling some twenty-nine regiments and battalions. Forrest had recently returned from his west Tennessee raids including actions at Jackson Tenn, Paducah Ky., etc. and significant engagements at Ft. Pillow and against Sooy Smith at Okalona, Miss., etc. In these endeavors he had gathered a large number of conscript men, captured horses, weapons, equipment and supplies. In addition, since Dec. 1863, Forrest had made a number of requisitions on the Ordnance Department for arms and equipment which yielded 1,350 imported French Lafoucheaux pistols, at least two thousand Austrian Lorenz rifles, saddlery and, some “accoutrements” from Richmond. 3.
Command Effective Men (Approx.) Haversacks % Canteens %
Chalmer’s Div 4,067 1,842 45% 1,437 40%
Buford’s Div. 3,615 1,503 42% 1,572 43%
Gholston’s 1,213 245 20% 257 21%
TOTAL: 8,895 3,590 40% 3,266 37%
4. After the remarkable success by Forrest at Brice’s Crossroads, the resulting capture of Federal arms and equipment certainly augmented supply to a great degree. To illustrate an interesting comparison point, we turn to an inspection report of Rucker’s Brigade of Chalmer’s Division dated July 3rd, 1864 as a relative sample of what then might be typically found throughout Forrest’s Cavalry. 4. Consisting of 1,072 effective men from three regiments of Tennessee and Mississippi cavalry we find the following:
Command Effective Men (Approx.) Haversacks % Canteens %
Chalmer’s (2nd Brigade) 1,072 496 46% 675 63%
*1st Brigade (Neely’s) detached and not included.
Now, compare the percentages of Chalmers’ May report to the July report. Keep in mind that at the Battle of Brice’s Crossroads some two weeks prior Forrest’s men had captured 17 cannon, 250 wagons, 3,000 stands of arms, killed and wounded some 2,000 men and captured another 2,000 men. 5. Not noted in Forrest’s battle report but obvious would be the assumption of the many, many haversacks and canteens that were part of these captures. Combine this with the many more captures of these articles in the previous engagements noted above and Forrest’s equipment requisitions made upon Confederate authorities from January through June of 1864. As a result, one should be able to reasonably assume with confidence that haversacks and canteens should be plentiful and not likely an item in short supply in Forrest’s command, right? Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that despite all of the above one still finds the percentage of haversacks virtually the same and canteens only marginally higher in the Chalmer’s July inspection report. But WHY????
5. About this same time, the west’s other large cavalry command was with the Army of Tennessee under Gen. Joe Wheeler........ (Paragraphs omitted) ...........this extremely detailed report of Wheeler’s Cavalry Corps (taken July 31, 1864) shows the number of haversacks and canteens on hand but again, significant shortages are noted. 6.
Command Effective Men (Approx.) Haversacks % Canteens %
Wheeler’s Cavalry Corp’s 6,734 3,228 47.9% 4,120 61%
6. Wheeler’s Cavalry, Jackson’s Division, Plametto Ga. September 20, 1864. Unlike the other reports, this was an official Adjutant Inspector General Office report highlighting equipment “deficiencies” which meant those in extremely poor condition requiring replacement or a complete lack thereof. To be consistent, the numbers shown below are those on hand to effective men in the ranks. 7.
Command Effective Men (Approx.) Haversacks % Canteens %
Armstrong’s Brigade 1,513 653 43% 1,138 75%
Ross’s Texas Brigade 845 All Deficient *
Ferguson’s Brigade 1 984 709 72% 659 67%
Wheeler’s Reserve Corps 656 431 66% 506 77%
Lewis’ Mtd. Ky Inf. Brig. 473 232 49% 321 68%
Hannon’s Ala. Brigade 241 141 58% 215 89%
TOTAL: 4,712 2,166 46% 2,839 60%
* Noting that no haversacks or canteens are mentioned in Ross’s report probably suggests very few and in poor condition rather than a complete void.
(Paragraphs omitted)
SUMMARY AND OBSERVATIONS: For certain, throughout much of the war there was never a full compliment of canteens and haversacks in the western cavalry commands. Although we can speculate, there is no clear reason why they are not found in greater numbers. There are however, questions to ponder:....................................(Paragr aphs omitted)
-Can we assume an anomaly in the Inspection Reports?............(Paragraphs omitted)
-Can we say that the Inspection Officers only noted “Confederate government issue” items? Possibly, but.............(Paragraphs omitted)
-Can we assume that the number of haversacks and canteens were inadequate due to a lack of access to supply sources such as captures? .........................(Paragraphs omitted)
How about access to Confederate supply sources? While complete records are impossible to obtain those available suggest Confederate manufacture of these items was quite good.
A. Atlanta Ga. Arsenal: July 1, 1862 - June 30th, 1863 Rec’d & Purchased Issued 8.
Haversacks 42,889 67,834 Canteens 72,147 64,250
B. Macon Ga. Arsenal: “Stores on Hand”, March 1863 - Mid-Feb. 1864 * 9.
On hand at beginning of period Rec’d or Fabricated Issued
Haversacks: 1,356 3,263 3,618
Canteens: 9,641 4,425 12,996
* These are the only consistent records available from the Macon Arsenal. Interestingly, significant numbers of haversacks and canteens remained on hand in Macon for months with few or no issues suggesting demand was sporadic and not excessive.
C. Augusta Ga. Arsenal: Records are scant on these items but from Nov, 12, 1861 to Oct 23, 1864 one local contractor, George Wyman & Co. provided to the arsenal 30,565 haversacks and thousands of canteen straps. Other arsenal records note tin, cedar and cypress wood canteens being shipped. 10.
D. Columbus Ga. Arsenal: Again, records are scant but the huge textile mills in Columbus no doubt provided copious amounts of cloth for every need including haversacks allowing the arsenal to ship significant numbers throughout the war. In addition, the arsenal provided tin and cedar canteens to the stores of other arsenals for subsequent issue. 11.
Other manufacturing at places like Selma, Montgomery and elsewhere in the western Confederacy no doubt provided many more. While incomplete and therefore largely circumstantial, the manufacturing notes above strongly suggest Confederate production of canteens and haversacks was apparently adequate for the army’s needs. While transportation issues may have impacted issue to the cavalry, manufacturing was clearly not a problem......(Paragraphs omitted)
So, how do we account for a clear lack of haversacks and canteens in the ranks of the cavalry? It is quite possible this obvious lack of a seemingly important item may well have been by “choice”. In other words, many of the west’s (and east’s) cavalrymen simply chose NOT to carry these articles. But why? Well, it is difficult to know for sure but, the mid-19th century was a different era and with a different mind set, so here are some theories:....................
((Paragraphs omitted. I don’t want to give away the “meat” of the article but I do urge you folks to get a copy. Ken R Knopp)
CONCLUSION: Perhaps it was “all of the above” or maybe, the real reason or “reasons” may always elude us. Whatever it is, it is clear on average only about 48% of western cavalrymen carried a haversack and 52% a canteen. So, while carrying a canteen for safe hydration on the battlefield makes good sense, perhaps, as reenactors maybe we should consider emulating our gallant heros a bit more in other ways such as..... (Paragraphs omitted)
............As cavalry reenactors, we should (within reason) strive to wear, use and ride the right stuff, travel, fight, eat, sleep and live the way they did- the “cavalry way”. What better way to capture the real experience? In short, we must ask ourselves, are we “reenactors” or, just “costumed campers”?
END
If you get a chance pick up a copy of the current (August) Camp Chase. I hope you will find this effort of mine interesting and worthwhile. Comments welcome.
PS: Sorry this post is so scrambled....and long! My apologies.
Thank you!
Ken R Knopp
Comment