Cooke's vs. Poinsett's

[Steven Dacus]

Moderators: Please move this if necessary

I have been trying to conduct some research on the 11th Ohio Vol Cav that was stationed in the west during the civil war and trying to find out what school of instruction they used. I am hoping some of you may be able to help. The museum curators in this area have no idea what I am talking about and I don't know enough about Poinsett's or Cooke's to know definitively what they used.

I have tried searching in this and other forums but can’t seem to find exactly what I am looking for. Google has the basics but no specifics on who used what and when (exactly) the switch was made.

If I understand correctly, Poinsett’s was early war and Cooke’s was came in later, but I can’t seem to find actual dates, and units that used each one and when/how each unit “Converted”. Any help will be greatly appreciated.
I must admit I am fairly new and understand this might be a “green” question. And if so, please at least point me in the right direction on where to research. Thanks for your time ahead of time.

Trying to do my homework

Steve Dacus
11th Ohio Cav. (1st Battalion, 6th OVC)
Casper, Wy

[Doughboy]

Re: Cooke's vs. Poinsett's

Per Todd Kern;
"Never. This has been dispelled long ago. Eastern cav especially. Cookes was recalled at outbreak of war. Went back to 1841 manual. Custer even calls for a drill in 1870s per 1841 manual. Cookes is never adopted after initial recall. Some few units did use it but majority used 1841. The West used a little of everything. Cookes doesnt even address fighting dismounted because it is a manual for mounted proper'

[Tom Craig]

Re: Cooke's vs. Poinsett's

Steve,
I will preface my remarks by saying that I am no expert on western theater cavalry. My real zone of expertise lies in Federal cavalry in the east. That said, I do know a couple of things...

In the east, Poinsett's was near universal. The 1st Maine was actually trained in Cooke's, and was clearly mentioned in their own regimental history as being an odd ball unit for doing so. They go as far as to make the claim that they were the only unit in the Army of the Potomac to do so.

Now in the west, things were more of a hodge podge. I happen to be rereading Stephen Starr's three volume history on federal cavalry (if you haven't read it yet, you REALLY ought to). In the introduction of the first volume he tells the story of Wilson's '65 Selma raid. He makes the very deliberate claim that Wilson set about teaching his men to use Pointsett's, because previously they had used Cooke's, and he felt that it was difficult and inefficient given the landscape, to use the single rank system.

A good recommendation would be to check out the regimental history for the unit in question, if there is one. Failing that, you could also check with other regimentals from units that they were brigaded with. You could also check with the National Archives to see if you could get your hands on their daily order and record books for any mention there. Also, first person accounts will also sometimes give you clues.

If you have any photographs of the unit in formation, that MAY help you determine what they did. If you aren't familiar with it, Poinsett's is a two rank formation, while Cooke's is formed in single rank. Poinsett's was adopted in 1841 under Secretary of War Joel Poinsett. Cooke's was published in 1861. You can get a gander at Poinsett's on the 1st Maine website: www.mainecav.org

Welcome to the wild and woolly world of researching cavalry!

Take care,
Tom Craig
1st Maine Cavalry

[Steven Dacus]

Re: Cooke's vs. Poinsett's

Tom & Christopher,

Thanks for the help. This unit has been very difficult to research as hardly anything existed as far as written orders (from the museum curator that I spoke with today, only a few pages of quartermasters records and general orders has survived), photographic evidence is almost non-existant (only a few known photos of the entire regiment through its entire history), and I just found out how hodge-podge their organization was. I would like to see some of your guys thoughts on an email I just got today:

"Company's A,B,C,D were originally armed with Enfield Rifles In October of '63 the regiment privately purchased 240 Frank Wesson Rifles with the copper cartridge box made for the Wesson cartridges. Another 151Wesson rifles were issued to new recruits later on.

"Company B was armed with 36 cal Navy revolvers, and 10 troopers in each company were issued M1855 Springfield Carbine pistols (58 cal). Company's E,F,G,H were issued spencer rifles with bayonet, frog, and a musket style cartridge box (exact style unknown).

"Company K was issued merril Carbines and company L was issued Sharps."


-Was this miss-match gear (including infantry style gear like bayonets, etc) even halfway common back east? When I got the email today, I found it peculiar the different companies were issued such different gear. Thoughts?

Thanks for the info.

Steve Dacus
11th Ohio Vol Cav (1st Battalion: 6th Ohio)
Casper, Wyoming