What the Regular Army Officers Knew

[john duffer]

Re: What the Regular Army Officers Knew

Mr. Kenworthy

If you haven't already you should read Douglas Southall Freeman's LEE'S LIEUTENANTS. I know the ANV seems a little far from US Regulars but as a study of command it fits the subject and in the beginning at least a good number of the general officers were West Point. There's also a breakdown of officer educations. Freeman suggests that combat is the proving ground. The attrition is horrible and after every battle folks shuffle up the ladder. Some thrive at whatever level they reach, others fail at some point, a very large number get hit and are just gone.

Kevin

" What makes you think that commissioned officers understood and USED the increased range and accuracy of the rifled-musket from 1861 through the end of 1863? "

I'm at work and bookless so this is just hearsay but I agree completely. The ideal was to hurl yourself upon the enemy with the bayonet. The latest tactics with the double quick, right shoulder shift, etc were just to enable you to get there quicker to hurl yourself upon the enemy with the bayonet and no officer with any spark should wish to do less. In fairness to American officers - fifty years later at the Somme nobody had any better ideas.

[sauguszouave]

Re: What the Regular Army Officers Knew

Ed,

were these Non-Com's usually asked to take these officerships, or were they "ordered" to do so? If they could refuse, did it become a black mark on their record?

Ken,

Nobody could be ordered to accept an appointment as an officer. In addition, any officer could resign a commission at any time.

Regarding whether or not you would be treated poorly if you did refuse a commission, I don't know the answer to that. An enlisted man, even one with a warrant, was not able to resign until expiration of term of service, so you were stuck with whatever attitude your CO happened to cop on you.

Regards,

Paul Kenworthy

[sauguszouave]

Re: What the Regular Army Officers Knew

As with most things, somebody's already done a dissertation on this topic... Check out William B. Skelton, An American Profession of Arms: The Army Officer Corps,1784-1861 ISBN 0-7006-1114-2, University of Kansas Pres, Lawrence, KS (1992). It's on the Army's required reading list for field grade officers, so ought to be easily available through the usual vendors. My copy came from the PX.

Based on the trend of discussion thus far, you might be surprised... and it's definitely a good read if you portray a Regular officer or an old officer from the antebellum Army or Mex War volunteers.

Good reference!

I happen to have an original muster roll from a battery in the !st US Artillery from June, 1864. A battery muster roll lists four officers by name: the regimental commander, the battery commander, and two lieutenants. I looked up the service records of those four officers and it turns out that all four of them had been assigned to the 1st US before the war. That means that this particular battery still had the same chain of command at the start of Grant's overland campaign in the fourth summer of the war that it had the summer before the war started. The officers were all loaded down with brevets for gallantry at Antietam, Chancellorsville, and Gettysburg, but they were still getting the same pay and doing the same job. A couple of these guys didn't make field grade until the 1880s.

By the way, another interesting thing in this muster roll was that there were a dozen volunteers serving in the battery. In other words, men weren't being taken out of the regulars to help the volunteers, men were being taken out of the volunteers to help the regulars. That was a surprise to me.

Regards,

Paul Kenworthy

[sauguszouave]

Re: What the Regular Army Officers Knew

p.s. - too bad this thread is in the sinks... there's a reasonable historical discussion here...

That's my fault. I didn't know where this kind of discussion should be posted.

Regards,

Paul Kenworthy

[Bob 125th NYSVI]

Re: What the Regular Army Officers Knew

What makes you think that commissioned officers understood and USED the increased range and accuracy of the rifled-musket from 1861 through the end of 1863?

Many of them absolutely didn't, particularly from the offensive side of things but then that is a mistake we saw repeated as late as WWI, when nobody should have been surprised at the leathality (a word?) of the rifle.

But I think you can find examples of the better ones understanding it from a defensive standpoint (Fredricksburg and Cold Harbor being defensive examples).

What's the old line about the Marines "Hey Diddle Diddle, Charge Right Up the Middle!"

Too many officers thought elan and cold steel would make up for stupid tactical mistakes (Mistakes which the officer in charge didn't realize were stupid).

However I think the men learned this lesson faster than the officers did. You can find accounts of soldiers lying down to return fire as soon as they were with in range, or refusing to advance. You also read accounts of how the men would often start to entrench as soon as a halt was called without being ordered to do so.

So it is possible that the learning curve was retared by seveal things. Officiers continually refusing to learn the the 'old' manual didn't apply to the 'new' war. Those who learned and were successful moved up, removing them from tactical control of the battlefield leaving the units in the hands of less experieinced officers. Think of it like bringing in the number 2 Quarterback, yeah he knows how to play the game on paper but often it isn't the same as doing it for real.

Finally I think that the soldiers improved as markmen faster than their officers adjusted to the new tactical requirements. As the soldiers got used to how their guns fired (and each individual weapons quirks) they became more proficient with them. As they became more proficient they could effectively engage the enemy at a greater distance. Even when issued a new rifle, based on previous experience they got comfortable with it more quickly than when they were inexperience.

The gunpowder age has always be a action/reaction contest between the improvements in the weapons and the skills of the gunners vs. the change in tactics of the offciers. And unfortunately for the foot soldier the officers always seem to be behind the curve or 'fighting the last war'.

Probably eight or ten years ago "North and South" magazine had a great couple of articles titled, "The Rifled-musket Revolution?" that seriously questioned--with a lot of evidence--the widely held opinion that Civil War battles were so bloody due to the increased range and accuracy of the rifled-musket. The articles convinced me that there was little real use of the range and accuracy of these weapons until the final year of the war.

Well I think you have to counterpoint that position against the medical evidence which indicates that the majority of the caualties were inflicted by the rifled musket. Previously the hand held gunpowder weapon had not held that distinction. Could it have been used more effectively, maybe. But then my M16 could engage an enemy out to 480 yards but my Sgt who had been in Nam told me he never saw an enemy that far away. With few exceptions, just based on topography, I don't think the majority of CW battlefileds allowed a clear field of fire out to 500 yards.

And yes I know their are exceptions.

[A Sykes Regular]

Re: What the Regular Army Officers Knew

The officers were all loaded down with brevets for gallantry at Antietam, Chancellorsville, and Gettysburg, but they were still getting the same pay and doing the same job. A couple of these guys didn't make field grade until the 1880s.

Yes, that was very frequently the case across the regular infantry regiment with company and regimental brevets as well. After the war, they returned to their lower commissioned rank, and returned to the agonizingly slow process of peacetime promotion...

By the way, another interesting thing in this muster roll was that there were a dozen volunteers serving in the battery. In other words, men weren't being taken out of the regulars to help the volunteers, men were being taken out of the volunteers to help the regulars.

I'd love to hear more about the circumstances behind that...

[A Sykes Regular]

Re: What the Regular Army Officers Knew

Ed, were these Non-Com's usually asked to take these officerships, or were they "ordered" to do so? If they could refuse, did it become a black mark on their record?

I did a bit of reading over the weekend, and couldn't find any examples of a regular NCO that was offered a commission but declined (not to say there were not any ... just couldn't find any info). I'd venture to say that an NCO being offered a brevet commission was quite an honor, not one easily turned down, particularly in light of enlisted life in the regular army ...

I've wanted to find out more about Thomas Parker. His regiment surrendered in Texas at the start of the war, and the regimental command (several of whom took Confederate commissions) and unit as a whole suffered quite a bit of oppobrium as a result. Parker, however, managed to make his escape and while at Ft. Columbus (Governors Island) NY ended up with a brevet commission to the 2nd Infantry. In Parker's case, the choice to take a commission after leaving a disgraced regiment might have been an easy one...

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: What the Regular Army Officers Knew

Some of you have seen the attached article, but others may also be interested in a contemporary view of what regular and volunteer officers knew, written by Thomas Wentworth Higginson and published in the September 1864 issue of The Atlantic Monthly (downloaded from the Cornell University site).

[hutchpat]

Re: What the Regular Army Officers Knew

I haven't posted anything here in quite a while, but I wanted to jump in with a comment:

Too many officers thought elan and cold steel would make up for stupid tactical mistakes (Mistakes which the officer in charge didn't realize were stupid).

That's a fact--and the lesson (as others commented about WWI) wasn't driven home by the Civil War. I have a copy somewhere of an article from the Army and Navy Journal written just after the war, by a serving officer, in which he states that, advancements in range and cartridge types notwithstanding, battles would always be decided by the elan and bravery of men carrying out a bayonet charge. And this was written by a veteran of the conflict, who we would think should certainly have known better than to believe that future battles would still be decided by push of pike! Old ideas, like habits, die hard....

[sauguszouave]

Re: What the Regular Army Officers Knew

Yes, that was very frequently the case across the regular infantry regiment with company and regimental brevets as well. After the war, they returned to their lower commissioned rank, and returned to the agonizingly slow process of peacetime promotion...



I'd love to hear more about the circumstances behind that...

I went back and looked at the muster roll and it turns out I had mis-remembered the number. There were 38 volunteer privates on detatched duty with the battery, more than the number of regulars privates in the battery. The muster roll lists each one's original unit and they come from every branch. Some were cav, some infantry, and some volunteer art. Turns out the Regulars weren't so regular. :)

Regards,

Paul Kenworthy