arms report 4th Virginia

[T.Kern]

For couple of years now there has been a report floating around for the 4th that shows over whelming numbers of Sharp's carbines. I have always wondered about this report, as most reports and correspondences for cavalry show some type of muzzle loaders being more common. I have not taken he time to get more document from the archives but in this summer's Mus of the confederacy magazine they have a report from Jan. of '64. It shows for 548 men present arms carried were;152 colt army, 40 navy pistols, 5 kerr pistols, 43 Adams and dean's pistol, 150 sharp's carbines, 65 Richmond carbines,14 Burnside's carbines,1 Spencer carbine, 1 Merrill carbine,1 Gallagher carbine, 28 .58 rifle musket, 35 .54 rifle musket, 364 sabre and belts.

What is interesting is that it shows a comparatively large number of sharps but almost an equal number of other carbines and rifles. It should be pointed out, as usual, there are not enough pistols to even equip half the men present with them! So much for reenactor pistol charges! Also, a majority of men have sabre AND they are carried on the belt, which dispelled the myth that most carried them on the saddle.

Todd Kern

[Iron Scout]

Re: arms report 4th Virginia

Todd,

Thanks for posting this. It's always nice to see primary documentation with actual numbers rather than speculation. A report from Wade Hampton dated December 1864 shows that about 1/5th of his Cavalry Corps had revolvers. It also showed that 4/5 had "long arms". Several letters in Hampton's personal papers at the South Caroliniana library show he actually pushed many regiments to give up the various carbines due to a lack of consistancy in ammunition. Seems his favored arm was the Enfield rifle. Seems like Butler's Brigade made quite the impression on folks after their arrival in the ANV during the Spring of 1864. One of Butler's troopers commented a Virginia cavalryman quiped to him, "Come over here and let me bite the end off that barrel".

Good stuff,

Neill Rose
PLHA

[rbruno]

Re: arms report 4th Virginia

Todd,
Does the report break down the number of men by how many are present? I can remember the correct terms right now, but there is a number for how many are on the roster and how many are present in the field for service. Could that account for the difference in the number of sabres and pistols? I agree that not everyman would have a pistol given the report, but the sabre number is a little closer.
Rob Bruno
1st MD Cav

[Jubilo]

Re: arms report 4th Virginia

Dear Mr. Kern ,
Thank you for the interesting post . Regarding the sabers on the belt : since we know much cavalry fighting was done on foot , it seems the dragging, clanging sabers would be an impediment but regulations and media show dismounted cavalrymen with their sabers hanging from their belts. Could you comment on this ?
Thank you .
all for the old flag,
David Corbett

[Jimmayo]

Re: arms report 4th Virginia

Todd,

Seems his favored arm was the Enfield rifle. Seems like Butler's Brigade made quite the impression on folks after their arrival in the ANV during the Spring of 1864. One of Butler's troopers commented a Virginia cavalryman quiped to him, "Come over here and let me bite the end off that barrel".

Must have been this one.

[Jerry Ross]

Re: arms report 4th Virginia

Todd,
Intersesting numbers I totaled up all the numbers you gave and noticed that of 548 men only 535 total firearms were available.This report is similar to what Ken Knoop shared about AoT troopers.There was not enough firearms to go around . Altough there are edged weapons I can't remember if the AoT had that many ,if any. It goes to what I have thought about the CSA troops having to do with out many items. We are sometimes more well equiped than the average numbers show.

Thanks for sharing

[T.Kern]

Re: arms report 4th Virginia

Dear Mr. Kern ,
Thank you for the interesting post . Regarding the sabers on the belt : since we know much cavalry fighting was done on foot , it seems the dragging, clanging sabers would be an impediment but regulations and media show dismounted cavalrymen with their sabers hanging from their belts. Could you comment on this ?
Thank you .
all for the old flag,
David Corbett

I think that is how they were commonly carried. While I have only one primary account of an officer wearing his on the saddle there are numerous accounts of sabres on the belt. Not only does issues and inspections say sabre belts or sabre with belt but that is the way the manual directs it. Look at the illustrations in Poinsette's of how to carry the sabre on foot. So few people actually hang the sabre on the hook properly it's a shame, most walk around with it dragging or their hand resting on it like a Hollywood B movie rather than a real cavalryman. On the hook with the belt worn at the belly button it is not as much of an impediment as one thinks but it is not easy either. While on that note, none seem to have read how to properly draw it either; over the arm, straight out, rotate the wrist, and then down to the shoulder, not under and in some curving arch that cuts the fellow beside you.
Back to the original questions, this report show men present, so yes arms are lacking, even if some men are detached to camp or logistics duty. Better yet, the lack of arms and the type of arms available drives regiments to be divided into sabre and sharpshooter companies. There is some common evidence of this being done, even at times done on the platoon level with in the company. So arms such as sabres are issued to the sabre company while long arms are issue to sharpshooter company, or platoons in the company. That is how you get nearly everyone armed and the regiment functional with this shortage of arms. The manual directs whenever a company is dismounted you keep a mounted reserve to be throw in where needed. Therefore, if you are in a sabre company you most likely will not be dragging a sabre around dismounted anyway. BUT there is also plenty of primary accounts of troopers having both, a weapon for mounted and for dismtd. work, and having to drag the sabre around on foot. The army was not too concerned for your comfort but was for your function. Norville Baker in one of the less stellar regiments, the 18th Virginia cavalry, describes his action in the wagoneers fight on the retreat from Gettysburg. While supporting two batteries dismounted he describes,"... they ran us on the double quick from one battery to the other...it was a hot sultry day and we had our side arms and sabres and all the straps , etc., a cavalryman has to carry which made it awful hard on us boys... our clothes were soaked..." It sounds like this fellow was a lucky guy to be carrying all three weapons associated with cavalry. He is clearly carrying his sabre on the belt and this is not even one of the regiments under JEB Stuarts eye.

Todd Kern

[rbruno]

Re: arms report 4th Virginia

There is always the exceptions to the rules. Joseph Stonebreaker, Co. C 1st MD Cav, wrote in his diary that after he was paroled in Lynchburg at the end of the war on the way home in uncliped his sabre from his saddle and threw it in a creek. The next day he stopped at the home of a family he had met in the valley and was fed and stayed the night. As a thank you, he gave the family his breechloading carbine he carried during the war. He doesn't say what kind of breechloader it was, but he specifically mentions that it was a breechloader. He doesn't mention a pistol but is specific about how he carried the sabre and his type of carbine. Again, just an exception to the rule and food for thought.
Rob Bruno
1st MD Cav.

[CJSchumacher]

Re: arms report 4th Virginia

I agree with Todd that sabre’s not on the belt were the anomaly, but it definitely happened. Here’s a photo of some Federal cavalry during the 1864 Wilderness campaign at Charles City Court House, Virginia. These guys are all leading horses, but they’re definitely cavalry or some sort of mounted escort. All of them have either shoes or boots with un-bloused trousers on, a mix of jackets and sack coats, and mostly slouch hats (badly beaten) with one in the immediate foreground on the left wearing a cap.

Interestingly, all have McClellan’s, cruppers, issue curb bits, a few breast straps and some use of running martingales. Some detail shows well packed saddles, one valise, a canteen on the cantle of one saddle, one large bed roll utilizing a rubberized cloth, a couple of horribly floppy hats, and YES…a sabre slung to the near side of a saddle under one rider’s left leg. Interestingly, none of the others appear to be carrying sabre's at all. Again, sabres on the saddle were not the norm, but there it is……

[Charles City Court House, Va. Rear view of the courthouse].
O'Sullivan, Timothy H., 1840-1882, photographer.
CREATED/PUBLISHED
1864 June 13.
SUMMARY
Photograph from the main eastern theater of war, Grant's Wilderness Campaign, May-June 1864.
NOTES
Reference: Civil War photographs, 1861-1865 / compiled by Hirst D. Milhollen and Donald H. Mugridge, Washington, D.C. : Library of Congress, 1977. No. 0319






...et voila...

[KyCavMajor]

Re: arms report 4th Virginia

Two white or light colored horses as well....

[T.Kern]

Re: arms report 4th Virginia

Very interesting picture! Very non regulation. Don't know if that is a valise or a properly tightly rolled blanket. Some are not rolled as prescribed, a couple are. That canteen on the saddle is clearly throw over the cantle with a strap long enough to be worn as prescribed, no snap hook, but ready to be worn over the shoulder. Sabre, as directed ( Mahon's?), in the presence of the enemy can be carried under the leg to keep it from rattling ( done it, comfortable change) but still on the belt although I would agree this one is not on a belt. One empty saddle looks like it might have the carbine tied up with coat straps as well. White horse has a huge forage sack on the pommel. The guy looks like a camp servant? The problem with wrapping your oil cloth around the sleeping blanket is getting it off easily if your riding and it starts raining. No tall boots in sight. Shallow stirrup hoods not a toe strap in sight. Where are all the weapons? But for a couple, No carbines, pistols or sabres in sight. Are they active soldiers or logistics? Are they just watering from camp and have left weapons there? Are they just waiting and have dropped stuff till time to move?
Todd Kern

[Andrew German]

Re: arms report 4th Virginia

I guess we've gotten a bit far from the 4th VA, but this is an image full of in-the-field detail. John Tobey and I have discussed it extensively. It is part of O'Sullivan's series taken at Charles City Court House, probably on June 14, 1864 (see William Frassanito's Grant and Lee). A companion image shows part of the ammunition train of the 1st Brigade (McIntosh's) of the 3rd Cavalry Division (Wilson's). As they were in proximity to the train, these may be wagon guards or other denizens of the rear, as Todd suggests.

For other federal sabres on the saddle, see O'Sullivan's June 4, 1864, shot of Sheridan's headquarters at Old Church Hotel (the source of John's Whazzit query below). Again, you'll see many cruppers.

Incidentally, the 4th VA and other Confederate cavalry regiments were not alone in having a mixture of weapons. Many federal cavalry regiments in the Army of the Potomac (and I presume the west) mixed Sharps and Burnside carbines, Colt .36s and Colt .44s (with Remingtons and other revolvers as well), and both heavy and light sabres. It must have been a quartermaster's nightmare.

Andrew German