Tweet
I put this in the Sinks since it has some degree of personal opinion. I just received the January/February issue of Civil War Historian and was quite disappointed in the “Drill Books & Rifles” article. I thought the whole article missed the point on drill manual transitions , definitely only my personal opinion. But I also saw a number of errors or misstatements, many lifted almost word for word from “Attack And Die” that I feel transcend personal opinion. This may be seen as the ramblings of an anal retentive drillhead but I see little difference from the one-mention-of-a-female-soldier-means-there-were-probably-60,000 school of thought. To list all would be longer than the article, I’ll add others as time permits, but as an example:
CWH article says;
“The attempt to use Scott’s third volume to supplement Hardee failed when the outbreak of war made massive drilling and training necessary. Scott’s third volume confused commanders because it occasionally referred to Scott’s first two volumes, which were now obsolete.”
I thought this a remarkable statement and envisioned dozens and dozens of brigades dead in the water unable to drill with the “failed” system in place.
Checking the source, “Attack And Die”, 1982, says :
“The attempt to use Scott’s third volume as a third volume for Hardee’s work failed when the outbreak of war made massive drilling and training necessary. Scott’s third volume confused commanders because it occasionally referred to Scott’s first two volumes, which were now obsolete.”
Checking their source, Duffield’s “School Of The Brigade And Evolutions Of The Line”, 1862, says:
“ The new system of infantry tactics, adopted by the War Department May 1, 1861, has modified the former system of Lieutenant-General Winfield Scott to such an extent, that it has become a very difficult for the volunteer officer, to make himself familiar with the various movements of a brigade or division. This difficulty is still further increased by the fact, that all the references in General Scott’s Evolutions of the Line, are made to the sections of the first and second volumes of his very valuable work, which has been much modified by the new system.
The want of a new work has been severally felt by many, who have recently assumed the profession of arms without the requisite knowledge or prior study, that would enable them to make the necessary corrections in General Scott’s Evolutions of the Line, incident to the adoption of an entire new school of the soldier, company, and battalion. Many of my brother officers have, therefore, urged me to prepare a system of instruction for their use; and in compliance with this request, I have completed the following work, with the earnest hope, that it may relieve them from much unnecessary study”
All I see different so far is Duffield added paragraph numbers, looking at 'Loading at will and the firings' for instance I found:
SCOTT
1. Prepare to load
1745. This having been repeated, the general will add:
2. Load
1746. This, immediately repeated, will be executed as prescribed, School of the Battalion.
DUFFIELD
1. Prepare to load
37. This having been repeated, the general will add:
2. Load
38. This, immediately repeated, will be executed as prescribed in School of the Battalion No 31.
CASEY
1. Prepare to load
28. This having been repeated, the general will add:
2. Load
29. This, immediately repeated, will be executed as prescribed in the S. B.
CWH article says;
“The attempt to use Scott’s third volume to supplement Hardee failed when the outbreak of war made massive drilling and training necessary. Scott’s third volume confused commanders because it occasionally referred to Scott’s first two volumes, which were now obsolete.”
I thought this a remarkable statement and envisioned dozens and dozens of brigades dead in the water unable to drill with the “failed” system in place.
Checking the source, “Attack And Die”, 1982, says :
“The attempt to use Scott’s third volume as a third volume for Hardee’s work failed when the outbreak of war made massive drilling and training necessary. Scott’s third volume confused commanders because it occasionally referred to Scott’s first two volumes, which were now obsolete.”
Checking their source, Duffield’s “School Of The Brigade And Evolutions Of The Line”, 1862, says:
“ The new system of infantry tactics, adopted by the War Department May 1, 1861, has modified the former system of Lieutenant-General Winfield Scott to such an extent, that it has become a very difficult for the volunteer officer, to make himself familiar with the various movements of a brigade or division. This difficulty is still further increased by the fact, that all the references in General Scott’s Evolutions of the Line, are made to the sections of the first and second volumes of his very valuable work, which has been much modified by the new system.
The want of a new work has been severally felt by many, who have recently assumed the profession of arms without the requisite knowledge or prior study, that would enable them to make the necessary corrections in General Scott’s Evolutions of the Line, incident to the adoption of an entire new school of the soldier, company, and battalion. Many of my brother officers have, therefore, urged me to prepare a system of instruction for their use; and in compliance with this request, I have completed the following work, with the earnest hope, that it may relieve them from much unnecessary study”
All I see different so far is Duffield added paragraph numbers, looking at 'Loading at will and the firings' for instance I found:
SCOTT
1. Prepare to load
1745. This having been repeated, the general will add:
2. Load
1746. This, immediately repeated, will be executed as prescribed, School of the Battalion.
DUFFIELD
1. Prepare to load
37. This having been repeated, the general will add:
2. Load
38. This, immediately repeated, will be executed as prescribed in School of the Battalion No 31.
CASEY
1. Prepare to load
28. This having been repeated, the general will add:
2. Load
29. This, immediately repeated, will be executed as prescribed in the S. B.
Comment