This deserves a new thread Sigle rank Vs Double Rank Formations

[KyCavMajor]

Let me qoute what was sated in a thread pertaining to bits.

I should say Poinsettes manual, as too many people still know of cookes, a manual which should be thrown on the trash heap of historical novelty items as it serves little if any purpose in historical interpretation and should just be forgotten.
Todd Kern

Todd,
"I should say Poinsettes manual, as too many people still know of cookes, a manual which should be thrown on the trash heap of historical novelty items as it serves little if any purpose in historical interpretation and should just be forgotten."
Care to elaborate on that statement?
__________________
Coley Adair

I would agree with Todd on Cooke's manual, which, unfortunately, is the one that has been widely reproduced. His single-rank tactics were accepted by the War Department at the end of October 1861, by which time so many volunteer units, not to mention the regulars, were training in Poinsett's double-rank tactics that very few federal units used Cooke's until Wilson applied it in the western theatre late in the war. In the east, the 1st Maine and a couple of the Michigan regiments trained to it, but they had to pretend to operate in two ranks when cavalry commanders were around. Early in 1864, Pleasonton specifically prohibited single-rank tactics in the AoP.

That being said, I think that some of the preliminary material may be worth considering as it represents an 1860 perspective rather than an 1840 view. But, as I believe Todd was indicating, the single-rank tactics were so rare in the war that they should not be represented in reenacting except in very specific cases. Get a copy of the repro edition of Patten's Cavalry Drill and Sabre Exercise, the condensed version of Poinsett's.

Andrew German

I am think I am with Coley here, although I may be presuming to much, please correct me if I am wrong.
I can not speak to te Eastern theater, Union or Confederate but my research, Basil Dukes History, shows Morgan's Cavalry using Dabney's single rank drill, and Joe Wheeler "wrote/ plagarized" Cookes. much like Patten did Poinsetts. Of those two I am certain.
I believe that the First Kentucky Cavalry under Ben Helm also used Maury's. I can not state with certainty what tactics Forrest employed, but i boubt it was poinsetts/Pattens.
That is a sizeable chunk, a majority in fact, of Confederate Cavalry in the west NOT using a double rank formation, with the single largest group using a plagarized version of Cookes.

My further thought is that a double rank formation would be at a disavantage by the 1860's, its primary advantage being the "Weight" of a saber charge.

[T.Kern]

Re: This deserves a new thread Single rank Vs Double Rank Formations

Dauby Maury's drill is for mounted rifles and differs from Cookes' entirely.
Forrest at some point, forgive me if I can't quote it, called for front rank to charge one way and rear to charge the other, hence two ranks.

"That is a sizeable chunk, a majority in fact, of Confederate Cavalry in the west NOT using a double rank formation, with the single largest group using a plagiarized version of Cookes" what is this based on? As any pre war cavalryman had been exposed to poinsettes. I would say quite a few used it in the west as well. Cookes had scarcely been published and almost immediately recalled by the guy who asked for a new manual, McClellan, and so was not commonly that available early on.
Even what Volunteer units that used it, when they went into active duty and joined the army they had to learn the old drill, Poinsette's. Even the 1st Maine and michiganers, they did not just pretend for the brass. though I believe Toby claims the Maine boys did, the michiganers did use double ranks.

Why would the "weight" of a sabre charge be a disadvantage in 1860??? This statement makes no sense. After all it is the primary weapon of cav, even your boy Cooke disdained dismounted fighting for cavalry and his manual addresses fighting mounted. In European terms, which is what American cavalry modeled in 1860, cavalry proper was still thought to only fight mounted period- that is who Cooke wrote a manual for. Dragoons and mounted rifles fought dismounted. Sabre charges were commonly used and effective through out the war.
I have not seen a Cookes manual in any collection attributed to a Confederate officer (not that I've seen them all) , I have seen many signed copies of poinsette's/pattons/Davis'... other double ranks that belonged to CS officers. Next study the many drawings or what few images exits of cav units on the field in close order, they are in double ranks.

This was a quick answer as I really didn't feel like digging up old data. Ask N. Nichols, he did more research than anyone on manuals.

Todd Kern

[Charles Heath]

Re: This deserves a new thread Sigle rank Vs Double Rank Formations

Not to be a stick in the mud, but some documentation would add weight to either side of this perennial argument that has been going on for at least 20 years, if not longer. While Todd and Nick are no doubt tired of reposting and re-reposting the information, it is obviously new material for some folks just now joining the world of reenacting outside the campfire mythology club.

Ford!

Chevy!

Ford!

Chevy!

[H. L. Hanger]

Re: Single-Rank Vs Double-Rank Formations

Reference Wilson's Raid:

During my Master's Thesis' research of the Fifth Iowa Cavalry, I discovered the diary of Lt. Charles Alley of the Nebraska Battalion in which he noted the change from single-rank to double-rank formations during the Wilson Raid, According to Lt. Alley, the change was ordered by Gen. "Harry" Wilson to shorten the traditional long lines of a single-rank column of two's into a double-rank column of four's, thereby cutting the length of the column in half. More importantly, according to Alley, this change decreased the amount of area needed for each division to drill resulting in condensing the size of the camps of the raiding force!

Further, this change also helped to deter straggling as well as decreasing the ability of local bushwackers to assail the column while on the march.

Obviously, this change made the entire force more manageable in the field and while on the march ... and the tactical change enabled Wilson's command to deploy more rapidly and bring a larger portion of his force to bear upon the enemy in a shorter period of time.

For the record, Charles Alley enlisted in Omaha, Nebraska Territory, in 1861 and served the entire four years of the war with the Fifth Iowa, rising from a private to Lt. I was fortunate to discover the diary as well as some private letters from his grandson's widow during my research in the 1980's.

[KyCavMajor]

Re: This deserves a new thread Single rank Vs Double Rank Formations

Continuing a friendly debate, I am not trying to research to prove a fixed position, but rather to expand my knowledge.

Todd Kern

Daubny Maury's drill is for mounted rifles and differs from Cooke’s' entirely. Todd Kern

Maury's is a different drill, but it is in fact single rank, and it is what Morgan's men were taught. It does bare much more resemblance to Cooke’s than Poinsett’s. The small portion I have seen contains commands similar to Cooke’s/Wheelers.
Here is the digitalized copy of Duke's History. Page 173-175 describes Morgan's fighting tactics, single rank, mounted and dismounted.

http://kdl.kyvl.org/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=kyetexts;cc=kyetexts;xc=1;sid=3583d64689985a62ec586544a6c570c8;q1=Civil%20War;q3=Kentucky;op2=and;op3=and;rgn=works;idno=b92-111-27909403;view=image;seq=9

I have seen contains commands similar to Cooke’s/Wheelers. After the ill starred Indiana/Ohio raid the remnants were brigaded together under Wheeler, who Plagiarized Cooke’s, nearly work for word, I have a copy and there aren't ten words different in the whole manual.
By the way, Wheeler's was intended for Mounted Infantry as well. the full title is

"Revised System Of Cavalry Tactics for the use of Cavalry and Mounted Infantry CSA"
Published in Mobile in 1862

Forrest at some point, forgive me if I can't quote it, called for front rank to charge one way and rear to charge the other, hence two ranks.

Todd Kern

At Parker's Cross roads Forrest had been attacking Col. Cyrus L. Dunham's brigade, During a lull, Forrest sent Dunham a demand for an unconditional surrender. Dunham refused and was preparing for Forrest's next attack when Fuller's Union brigade arrived from the north and surprised the Confederates with an attack on their rear; Confederate security detachments had failed to warn of Fuller's approach. "Charge 'em both ways," ordered Forrest. The Confederates briefly reversed front, repelled Fuller, then rushed past Dunham's demoralized force and withdrew south to Lexington and then across the Tennessee River. That is from several sources, it appears Forrest command was for his whole brigade which reversed it's field, not independent ranks.
But for the sake of friendly discussion, lets say he DID intend to send one rank forward and the second towards his attackers in the rear. Why could it not been done from a single rank formation such as Cooke’s? If they were in a column of Platoons, or Companies for that matter, you can just as easily wheel the appropriate force about to effect the charge.

"That is a sizeable chunk, a majority in fact, of Confederate Cavalry in the west NOT using a double rank formation, with the single largest group using a plagiarized version of Cooke’s" what is this based on?
Todd Kern

Is the question whether Wheeler's Cavalry used his Manual or that it is a Plagiarized version of Cooke’s?
I have both manuals, I had Staples make copies, I can get you one for 30.00 plus shipping, at least that is what it cost 2 years ago. As I posted, there aren't ten words different in the whole book.
As to whether Wheelers cavalry used his tactics one would have to believe they did. He did go through the trouble of plagiarizing it.


Todd Kern

As any pre war cavalryman had been exposed to Poinsettes. I would say quite a few used it in the west as well. Cooke’s had scarcely been published and almost immediately recalled by the guy who asked for a new manual, McClellan, and so was not commonly that available early on.
Todd Kern

Morgan, and Forrest of course were not pre war cavalrymen. And Wheeler, although West Point was not either, he commanded Infantry at Shiloh.
A LOT of western Confederate Cavalry commanders were not pre war Cavalry.
Read Duke's statement on Pages 15-16 of his History,

http://kdl.kyvl.org/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=kyetexts;cc=kyetexts;xc=1;sid=3583d64689985a62ec586544a6c570c8;q1=Civil%20War;q3=Kentucky;op2=and;op3=and;rgn=works;idno=b92-111-27909403;view=image;seq=9

Todd Kern

Even what Volunteer units that used it, when they went into active duty and joined the army they had to learn the old drill, Poinsette's. Even the 1st Maine and michiganers, they did not just pretend for the brass. though I believe Toby claims the Maine boys did, the michiganers did use double ranks.
Todd Kern

I wouldn't presume to argue that point, but most Western Confederate cavalry was organized after Oct 1861.

Todd Kern

Why would the "weight" of a saber charge be a disadvantage in 1860??? This statement makes no sense.
Todd Kern

Out of context it would not, the question, perhaps poorly formed, was what advantage BESIDES weight of the charge would the two rank formation hold? Personally don't believe it holds any, even the weight of the charge can be duplicated by stacking platoons, or companies. in single ranks. Further it a two rank formation masks the rear rank, and shortens ones front.

Todd Kern

After all it is the primary weapon of cav, even your boy Cooke disdained dismounted fighting for cavalry and his manual addresses fighting mounted. In European terms, which is what American cavalry modeled in 1860, cavalry proper was still thought to only fight mounted period- that is who Cooke wrote a manual for. Dragoons and mounted rifles fought dismounted. Saber charges were commonly used and effective through out the war.
Todd Kern

Disdain or not, in the west, albeit interspersed with the occasional saber charge, for the most part battles were fought on foot. Looking at returns from the OR, the saber, while not as rare as the revolver, was not an item every Confederate cavalryman possesed.
I tend to focus on Kentucky Units as they are my over riding interest with Forrest as an oft encountered sideline. I wouldn't presume to interject n opinion of the Eastern or trans Mississippi Cavalry, and often i find the Kentucky units different from the norm, some having the dreaded "multiple pistols" in first hand accounts.
Wm Dyer for example citing multiple Pistols at Dug Gap for the 9th Kentucky as the reason for being able to stop an entire Union Division, or the University of Cincinnati’s history department's discovery that the 1st Kentucky Cavalry was issued a "Brace of Colt's revolvers". By the way, they were issued "English Pattern" sabers, and trimmed uniforms.

Todd Kern

I have not seen a Cooke’s manual in any collection attributed to a Confederate officer (not that I've seen them all) , I have seen many signed copies of poinsette's/pattons/Davis'... other double ranks that belonged to CS officers. Next study the many drawings or what few images exits of cav units on the field in close order, they are in double ranks.
Todd Kern

I would ask are any of the collections you viewed from Western Confederate cavalry?
Are not drawings often what the artist thinks a cavalry charge should look like?
Don't take those questions as dismissive, but rather as curiosity.
At this point, my research indicates that the part of the Western Confederate Cavalry was trained in and used single rank formations, Maury's in Morgan’s command, and later in Wheelers.
Basil Duke in his "History of Morgan's Cavalry" referred to Maury's by name, and describes fighting in a single line. And Wheeler issued his own manual, plagiarizing Cooke's. I can find NO reference to Wheeler's cavalry fighting in two ranks, or Morgan's having ever used that formation either.

[KyCavMajor]

Re: This deserves a new thread Sigle rank Vs Double Rank Formations

Not to be a stick in the mud, but some documentation would add weight to either side of this perennial argument that has been going on for at least 20 years, if not longer. While Todd and Nick are no doubt tired of reposting and re-reposting the information, it is obviously new material for some folks just now joining the world of reenacting outside the campfire mythology club.

Ford!

Chevy!

Ford!

Chevy!

LESS FILLING!

[T.Kern]

Re: This deserves a new thread Single rank Vs Double Rank Formations

I'll quickly address some of tod's questions.
The original statement was Cooke's should be throw on the trash heap of historical novelties. If Maury's was used then use Maury's not Cooke's. Maury's is written for Mounted infantry not cavalry proper as Cooke's is, two entirely different approaches.

Not being as familiar with the west,Wheelers- was this manual not made official until the last year of the war? This is specifically for wheelers command?

Not sure if this is the forrest example, you could be right. However while Forrest and Morgan were not pre war officers many in the west were.

What was used prior to the adoption of Wheelers manual in the west? I have veen seen infantry manuals used.

The advantage of the double rank system, besides in the charge, in it brings superior numbers to bear at the point of contact. While that can be done by stacking single I don't think it is as efficient.

West or east much of the fighting is dismounted even when you posses a sabre. Sabres, like pistols, were not available to all cavalrymen hence, making them mounted rifles.

The artifacts I had seen were mostly in the east, one was an jr. officer in Hampton's command.

The drawings are not just of charges but moving platoons and often not artist but soldiers drawings. But I agree artist do take liberties with what they think things should look like and how they really are. I believe it's called artistic license, all one has to do is look at the ridiculous art today from Kunstler and Strain to see numerous historical mistakes- why let the facts get in the way of a good story!

What this seems to boil down to is in the west, the question of what manual was used at what time and by who. Again the original direction of my statement was Cooke's, I agree Wheeler's was adopted late in the war. But Maury's is something entirely different and used in the east as well. In the east it is clear, the double rank system was it, and some of these manuals contained Maury's as well.

Todd Kern

[neocelt]

Yawn...

Fellas, this is NOT a "less filling"/"tastes great" kind of debate. Rather, it hinges on one's familiarity with and comprehension of tactical doctrine and the historical record.

Dabney Maury's little manual was not intended to supplant the 1841 Cavalry Tactics; rather it was drafted to complement it, and was drafted for the specific and exclusive use of a single Regular Army regiment--witness the title: "Skirmish Drill for Mounted Rifles" (those who later cadged it outright or included it as an appendix in other after-market manuals altered the title to read "Troops" rather than "Rifles" to achieve broader market appeal). The Regiment of Mounted Rifles was using Poinsett's in 1859 (when Maury's modest addendum was authorized for the use of the regiment). Maury was indeed a proponent of the "rank entire," but that is neither here nor there.... Maury's tactics are in fact diametrically opposed to Cooke's. Philip St. George Cooke penned a manual that was intended to be employed by cavalry-proper, fighting mounted exclusively, and as Todd Kern pointed out, there is no reference to a long arm or dismounted combat anywhere in Cooke's manual (and this is no mere oversight, it is professional tactical doctrine). Wheeler's manual is actually a compendium that includes material he filched from several sources, not just Cooke. But if Cooke's manual--which received official sanction in 1861--was shelved and only rarely employed (which is indeed the case), why should we assume that Wheeler's was widely employed (even if it was officially sanctioned by the Army of Tennessee)? And be very careful when citing primary sources to support your argument: All reporters--even eyewitnesses--have biases, some intentional, some subconscious. This must be taken into account when using primary source material. Further, being human, they make mistakes. Every source must be objectively weighed and assigned a "credibility quotient" and then simply added to the remaining body of data under consideration.

With all due respect, most of Tod Lane's comments reflect a reenactor's sensibilities and reveal a fundamental lack of understanding of the historical employment of cavalry in the Real World. Sorry, I have neither the time nor the inclination to address each of his comments individually. Honestly, this is not intended as a personal affront, it's merely my humble opinion (so secure that flame-thrower, soldier!).

Jack Hanger wrote:
"During my Master's Thesis' research of the Fifth Iowa Cavalry, I discovered the diary of Lt. Charles Alley of the Nebraska Battalion in which he noted the change from single-rank to double-rank formations during the Wilson Raid, According to Lt. Alley, the change was ordered by Gen. "Harry" Wilson to shorten the traditional long lines of a single-rank column of two's into a double-rank column of four's, thereby cutting the length of the column in half. More importantly, according to Alley, this change decreased the amount of area needed for each division to drill resulting in condensing the size of the camps of the raiding force!
Further, this change also helped to deter straggling as well as decreasing the ability of local bushwackers to assail the column while on the march.
Obviously, this change made the entire force more manageable in the field and while on the march ... and the tactical change enabled Wilson's command to deploy more rapidly and bring a larger portion of his force to bear upon the enemy in a shorter period of time."

Not having Lt. Alley's diary to survey, I can't say whether his comments reflect his own misunderstanding of the situation or Mr. Hanger's interpretation of them. Either way, there are some fundamental errors here.

While it is true that Wilson re-adopted the 1841 Tactics to allow adequate space for drilling his command in brigade evolutions (which had never been attempted before and is not addressed in Cooke's or Poinsett's, by the way), this has absolutely nothing to do with the "size of camps." The size of the camp is based on the number of men involved--the tactics manual in use is irrelevant. Further, the camp layout is dictated by Army Regulations and is not within the purview of a tactics manual, be it Cooke's or Poinsett's. Commanders generally relied upon their experience and discretion (or lack of same) in the disposition of their encampments (based on the lay of the land, availability of water, adequate area for the "trains," proximity of the enemy, etc.), but the nature of the camp itself generally followed the layout specified in the Regs (and there is a reason for this...).

I also feel obliged to take issue with the remaining points that Mr. Hanger elucidated:

When formed in "order of march" (that is, in column), cavalry habitually assumes the broadest front the topography will allow. This is merely common sense, as it results in a shorter column which is easier to keep closed up and quicker to deploy. The most common marching formation was "column of squadrons," NOT "column of fours" or "twos." So the "twos" vice "fours" argument (favoring one manual over another) is spurious on its face. To put a finer point on it: Cavalry can be formed in a broader (or narrower) column, regardless of the manual in use. The terrain is the ultimate arbiter here: When forced to use narrow farm tracks for movement through densely wooded country, any column will be narrow and long, and no manual can change that! And based on the humongous size of Wilson's force, I seriously doubt whether the local bushwhackers gave a fig whether the blue-clad invaders were using Cooke's or Poinsett's! They'd have hit and run long before any portion of the Yankee column had time to form in line of battle anyway--it's just the nature of the beast...

I would also dispute the hypothesis that the use of Poinsett's rendered Wilson's "entire force more manageable in the field and while on the march": The only time manueverability comes into play at all is when a column is being deployed into order of battle (or vice versa), as this is the period during which it is most vulnerable to attack (again, this is equally true whether the manual in use is Cooke's or Poinsett's). I'll admit that the movements in Cooke's are a bit easier for neophytes to perform when they don't have adequate supervision (i.e. reenactors). So while reenactors continue to struggle with the drill (or more likely, ignore it altogether...), keep in mind that the real troopers drilled in large numbers ALOT, and anyone who's been through Basic Training will confirm that it doesn't take long before one can perform the appropriate movements in his sleep (and in many cases during the War, the horses DID perform correctly despite a dozing rider...). The competence of the leadership--from regimental commanders down to squad leaders--is really the deciding factor, but here again, the manual in use is immaterial.

Did some troops use a single-rank drill at some point during the war? Sure. (Shoot some fellers even wore jaguar pants!) Did MOST cavalry--both Union and Confederate, in both theaters--employ a two-rank system of tactics? Emphatically, YES! So have at it boys, but play nice...

Happy Thanksgiving, y'all!

[KyCavMajor]

Re: This deserves a new thread Sigle rank Vs Double Rank Formations

I would like to thank Mr Kern and Mr Nichols for what to them must be old hat and I have upmost respect for their learned views.
My research has been rather narrowly focused over the last fifeteen years to Confederate Kentucky Units, and Morgan's troops in particular, both under Morgan and later, after the Ohio raid and Morgan's capture, and later death, under Wheeler and Duke.
I would concede outside the East a uge preponderence of both Confederate and Union cavalry employed the 1841 manual. In the west, at least on the Confederate side I still wonder. Of course winter months are made for such research!

[KyCavMajor]

A little further research

I promised as I got time this winter I would dig deeper, some of what I have come up with.

Mr Kern, Todd, if I may, you stated you had not seen Cookes in any collections of officer effects.... I found you one, for a Western FEDERAL unit, the First Illinios. I found it on EBAY of all places, but the documentation is good I think, it is pretty much contained in the book its self.

"This handbook is not a copy and has been signed by several owners. I can only identify one officer, Leutenant John Warren, Adjutant of the 1st Ill Cavalry U.S.A. Enlisting on 7/19/1861 finally promoted to Sergt Major. Clemant Warren presented the book. It also has Capt Warren written on the same page. There are other names on the back inside, but could not find any data on the names. Maybe if I could make out their writing it would help. A Colonel from Ohio also signed it. The 1st Illinois Cavalry was assigned to the operations to control Missouri, the Missouri State Guard in command was Col. James Mulligan and Maj. Gen. Sterling Price"

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=003&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&viewitem=&item=130073577126&rd=1&rd=1

I also looked into the General Order Wilson Issued to retrain the troops in 1865 before his raid... The following was given me by a great friend and researcher by the name of Dean West. Dean is curently working on his own book and has a credit in Nosworhty's Book "Bloody Crucible of Courage".
"Special Field Order No. 6, January 14, 1865 proves that cav corps
commander James Wilson did order that his cavalry (all the western
cavalry commands) were to be retrained from Cooke's tactics to
Poinsett's. According to Starr (supported by footnoted primary
sources), "All the troops in the command had been trained in the
relatively simple single-line cavalry tactics developed by Union
general Phillip St. George Cooke... and adopted by the Union army in
the first year of the war to replace the traditional but more
complicated two-rank "Poinsett" or "1841" tactics (which were French
cavalry tactics). Wilson decided that single line tactics were not
suitable for (mounted-ED) cavalry combat in hilly, heavily wooded
country." Wilson thought the line, considering proper intervals, of
an average sized cav brigade would be over a mile and a half long.
making effective control of a mounted action impossible (of course,
there were many ways to deploy a regiment or brigade other than in
one single line, and Cooke's does allow two lines of squadrons to be
closed-up to form a two-rank line, but hey, let's not start arguing
with James Wilson). "
It should also be noted that the troops HAD TO BE RETRAINED in Poinsett's, that means they were using something else before does it not?

Also, it was stated Cookes, or Poinsetts did not have provision for Brigade level movements, I believe Cooke's does in the Second Volume. Wheeler Certainly does, I a looking at it as I type.


More from Mr. West,
" You've probably seen the following excerpt previously– in his journal, Arthur Freemantle, a consummate military practitioner relates a conversation he had with Grenfell, who was acting in the position of Inspector-General of Wheeler's Cav at the time:

He (Grenfell) explained to me the method of fighting adopted by the Western cavalry, which he said was admirably adopted for this country; but he denied that they could, under any circumstances, stand a fair charge of regular cavalry in the open. Their system is to dismount and leave their horses in some secure place. One man is placed in charge of his own and three other horses, whilst the remainder act as infantry skirmishers in the dense woods and broken country, making a tremendous row, and deceiving the enemy as to their numbers, and as to their character as infantry or cavalry (because they are armed with rifled muskets-ED). In this manner Morgan, assisted by two small guns, called bulldogs, attacked the enemy in towns, forts, stockades, and steamboats; by the same system, Wheeler and Wharton kept a large pursuing army in check for twenty-seven days, retreating and fighting every day, and deluding the enemy with the idea they were being resisted by a strong force composed of all three branches of the service.” Fremantle, pgs. 158, 159

I only reopen this thread in further hopes of your input...

[John E. Tobey]

Re: This deserves a new thread Sigle rank Vs Double Rank Formations

There were other regiments using Cooke's besides the ones mentioned. The following was written by BG Hinks on June 27th 1864: “The three regiments of cavalry recently assigned to the division are unskilled in the use of muskets and entirely unfitted for operations in the field, by reason of having been taught only the single formations of ranks as prescribed by Cooke’s Tactics…” The three regiments were the 5th Mass Colored Cavalry, the 1st US Colored Cavalry, and the 2nd US Colored Cavalry. This is from the OR, I, XL/2 S#81, 490

John Tobey

[T.Kern]

Re: This deserves a new thread Sigle rank Vs Double Rank Formations

In other words they were using the wrong manual and as soon as they went into service in the field they had to switch to what the army was using. This should prove the point that for anyone interpreting history of cavalry in the field, they should be using the double rank system.

[T.Kern]

Re: A little further research

I promised as I got time this winter I would dig deeper, some of what I have come up with.

Mr Kern, Todd, if I may, you stated you had not seen Cookes in any collections of officer effects.... I found you one, for a Western FEDERAL unit, the First Illinios. I found it on EBAY of all places, but the documentation is good I think, it is pretty much contained in the book its self.

"This handbook is not a copy and has been signed by several owners. I can only identify one officer, Leutenant John Warren, Adjutant of the 1st Ill Cavalry U.S.A. Enlisting on 7/19/1861 finally promoted to Sergt Major. Clemant Warren presented the book. It also has Capt Warren written on the same page. There are other names on the back inside, but could not find any data on the names. Maybe if I could make out their writing it would help. A Colonel from Ohio also signed it. The 1st Illinois Cavalry was assigned to the operations to control Missouri, the Missouri State Guard in command was Col. James Mulligan and Maj. Gen. Sterling Price"

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=003&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&viewitem=&item=130073577126&rd=1&rd=1

I said I had not seen, I did not say it did not exist. They were many manuals around, of various authors. I will note this is western federal, it could be before the war dept orders to disregard Cooke's and go back to Poinsette's. It is unclear as to when he used this manual. At his enlistment date Cooke's had not even been adopted by the war dept., only to be recalled within the month (Nov. 1, 1861).




I also looked into the General Order Wilson Issued to retrain the troops in 1865 before his raid... The following was given me by a great friend and researcher by the name of Dean West. Dean is curently working on his own book and has a credit in Nosworhty's Book "Bloody Crucible of Courage".
"Special Field Order No. 6, January 14, 1865 proves that cav corps
commander James Wilson did order that his cavalry (all the western
cavalry commands) were to be retrained from Cooke's tactics to
Poinsett's. According to Starr (supported by footnoted primary
sources), "All the troops in the command had been trained in the
relatively simple single-line cavalry tactics developed by Union
general Phillip St. George Cooke... and adopted by the Union army in
the first year of the war to replace the traditional but more
complicated two-rank "Poinsett" or "1841" tactics (which were French
cavalry tactics). Wilson decided that single line tactics were not
suitable for (mounted-ED) cavalry combat in hilly, heavily wooded
country." Wilson thought the line, considering proper intervals, of
an average sized cav brigade would be over a mile and a half long.
making effective control of a mounted action impossible (of course,
there were many ways to deploy a regiment or brigade other than in
one single line, and Cooke's does allow two lines of squadrons to be
closed-up to form a two-rank line, but hey, let's not start arguing
with James Wilson). "
It should also be noted that the troops HAD TO BE RETRAINED in Poinsett's, that means they were using something else before does it not?



I would like to see the special field order rather than a secondary source, as I have seen many authors misinterpret primary data. However, I believe this is correct that SOME units were using a single rank sysytem, whether it was Cooke's or another is a question. I agree some units did use Cooke's, however I think it's obvious that it was not the norm or universal. The war dept and many officers prefered Double ranks as we see by this order. Nor does this order state how many units were using a single rank system.


Also, it was stated Cookes, or Poinsetts did not have provision for Brigade level movements, I believe Cooke's does in the Second Volume. Wheeler Certainly does, I a looking at it as I type.


More from Mr. West,
" You've probably seen the following excerpt previously– in his journal, Arthur Freemantle, a consummate military practitioner relates a conversation he had with Grenfell, who was acting in the position of Inspector-General of Wheeler's Cav at the time:

He (Grenfell) explained to me the method of fighting adopted by the Western cavalry, which he said was admirably adopted for this country; but he denied that they could, under any circumstances, stand a fair charge of regular cavalry in the open. Their system is to dismount and leave their horses in some secure place. One man is placed in charge of his own and three other horses, whilst the remainder act as infantry skirmishers in the dense woods and broken country, making a tremendous row, and deceiving the enemy as to their numbers, and as to their character as infantry or cavalry (because they are armed with rifled muskets-ED). In this manner Morgan, assisted by two small guns, called bulldogs, attacked the enemy in towns, forts, stockades, and steamboats; by the same system, Wheeler and Wharton kept a large pursuing army in check for twenty-seven days, retreating and fighting every day, and deluding the enemy with the idea they were being resisted by a strong force composed of all three branches of the service.” Fremantle, pgs. 158, 159

I only reopen this thread in further hopes of your input...

Freemantle said many things which he observed but the specific example can not be argued for the whole without more primary evidence. He also said they never charged into each other, we know is untrue in general, but could be an example of a specific he experienced. It can be taken as evidence for a specific. More importantly though, this example you give still does not prove the use of Cooke's as Poinsette's dismount to fight on foot the very way he describes, as does Maury's and others. As I stated before there is no prevision for fighting on foot in Cooke's manual, so this example of dismounting can not come from Cooke's manual without the influx of another manual. "Cooke ardently eschewed" this form of fighting for cavalry.
Regards , Todd Kern

[T.Kern]

Re: A little further research

Lets re-address this thread as it's gone cold. What we have ascertained is but for a few specific examples Cooke's manual was used relatively little in the field, especially in the east. In fact, when most units went on active duty, if they had been using Cooke's it seems they had to immediately retrain using Poinsette's.
The west seems to be the area most in question concerning this subject. While it is clear some units, especially in the west, were using a single rank formation, it is not completely clear it was Cooke's. There is no provision for dismounted fighting in Cooke's. Dismounted fighting seems to be so prevalent in the west that some other manual must be in use to use this tactic. Cooke objected to the cavalry being armed with long arms. At the very least, it was not Cooke's manual alone.
Next,The examples for fighting on foot. Many seem to be mistaken that fighting in a single row is Cooke's, as stated before this is how nearly every manual throws out a skirmish line, mounted or dismounted, but for Cooke's which does not address fighting on foot. Relatively few historians read the manuals to realize that Cooke's is incomplete for the tactics being used that they are writing about. Therefore, they do not realize their mistake when they make blankets statements that this manual was being used. Then it's picked up and used as a secondary source by those who never think the source is flawed. Much like some other works on saddlery, but that is the next thread..
So in summary, for the use of interpretive historical cavalry, Cooke's should not be the primary manual except for a few specific units at specific periods during the war. In the west, early in the war prior to Wheeler's, the evidence is still unclear as to what manual or compilation of manuals was primarially being used. Maury's, Patton's, Poinsette's, Davis' , McClellan's, Gilham's, Hardee's, Cooper's, and Cooke's are a few that may have had some influence. One thing is clear in the west, it was not Cooke's alone.

Todd Kern

[John E. Tobey]

Re: This deserves a new thread Sigle rank Vs Double Rank Formations

Todd,

I agree with part of what you say: Cookes was being used by specific regiments at specific times. I disagree that they "immediately retrained" to Poinsette's when entering active duty.

The discovery of the extract I quoted earlier pretaining to the colored cavalry led me to dig deeper at the NA. The cavalry division of the Army of the James (the parent unit of the colored regiments mentioned earlier) was using Cooke's until March/April of 1865 when they too were finally ordered to start using the "Regulation Tactics." It's spelled out that way: "Cooke's." The only reason that the colored boys came under scrutiny in 1864 was because they were assigned to an infantry outfit, and HAD to learn a double-rank system -- it wasn't because they were new to the field.

John Tobey