Belmont Mo

[rkg]

I just finished the book "The Battle of Belmont-Grant Strikes South" by Hughes. I enjoyed it, and recommend it. Here is my question; is any of this battlefield preserved?

[Michael Comer]

Re: Belmont Mo

Well, part of my job with Missouri State Parks is taking care of the little bit of Belmont that we have. It is only a marker really on the river. The marker is on the south end of the battlefield. The rest of the land is in private hands and we (state park system) would certainly be interested in having some more of it to better interpret this important early war action. However, at this time, the casual visitor would not be able to access most of the land the battle was fought on.

[rkg]

Re: Belmont Mo

Thanks Michael, I thought that would be in your "back yard". It would be great if the State of Missouri could get more of the battlefield. Has the CWPT attempted to do anything there? I'm sure the state doesn't have huge amounts of cash to work with these days, but this is more than just a side-bar of the war in Mo. Had the South won this battle, (and after reading Hughes I can't call it a clear Federal win) the war along the Mississippi and in Missouri may have taken a different turn.

[csuniforms]

Re: Belmont Mo--Great

The first segment of the Battle of Belmont was a Federal victory by them overrunning the camps and taking the Confederate Battery. The Confederates unloaded reinforcements downriver attacked and drove the Union Army off the field. Grant and his boys retreated under fire back to the boats and just barely got away thanks to the fire of the two gunboats the Tyler and Lexington who raked the shoreline with grape and shell.

I was down there 30 years ago and the pond was still there. The pond you see in the maps but little else can be seen. The River has changed course and much of the Battlefield is under water. The Columbus side has a museum and some artifacts. The bluffs are still a prominent part of the landscape. There was a small Ferry that crossed there, but I was told it no longer runs.

The biggest "what if" at Belmont was if Grant had been killed there. He almost was!! being one of the last to board the transports.

Lots of Tennessee pattern frock coats on the Confeds' and lots of Illinois State jackets on the Feds'. Have of photo of a 22nd Tenn. soldier with a Colt revolving rifle and wearing his Tennesse frock!!

Tom Arliskas
Cadet Gray and Butternut Brown

[Iceman]

Re: Belmont Mo

Tom,

Some minor corrections to your post; first, the Confederates on the KY side of the river to came to the aid of those on the MO side of the river did not land down river from the battle, but up river. The importance of the Confederates that were ferried over from KY is that they landed between the Federals fighting the battle and their transports that were up river and around a bend in the river, which prevented the Confederate artillery on the bluffs and their water battery from getting range on those boats. Secondly, it's only the northern portion of the battlefield that has been lost by the Mississippi River changing course. The location of where the transports that brought the Federal soldiers down from Cairo and Bird's Point, and where the Federals disembarked from the transports is now gone. However, where the actual fighting took place is still there.

Over in KY, there's the Columbus-Belmont State Park. There are still surviving earth works, a small museum, and an original Columbiad, along with the anchor and some chain that the Confederates had stretched across the Mississippi to prevent the Union boats from passing down river. The town of Columbus, KY is not the same town that was there in Nov. 1861. Due to flooding and the town being wiped out a time or two following the Civil War, the town moved to higher ground. The town of Columbus at the time of the battle was south of the bluffs on low ground. This area is now an open field. Following the evacuation of Columbus by the Confederates (under the command of L. Polk), the Union took over Columbus and it's fortifications for the rest of the war. USCT would be stationed here later in the war.

The problems with the Columbus-Belmont State Park is that they have turned it into a park; i.e. bar-b-que pits, RV camping, swing sets, jungle gyms, etc., all situated around original earth works. The next problem C-B State Park has is that the bluffs are crumbling into the river. The position of the Confederate artillery on the northern half of their position have either collapsed down into the river (this is what happened to the Columbiad that was found at the base of the bluff), or is in danger of crumbling down into the Mississippi.

The ferry that used to operate there is the Wolf Island ferry, and it still operates, but a bit further down river from where it used to. There's not much around there.

Directly across from Columbus, KY where the Confederates had their camp is now a dock yard for river barges to be fixed and repaired.

For those of you who don't know about Columbus and the Battle of Belmont, it took place in November of 1861, and was the first probe by the Union army to move down and open up the Mississippi River. There were more Confederate artillery at Columbus than would be at Vicksburg. There were over 100 artillery pieces on the bluffs of Columbus, KY. It was Polk's going into KY and setting up fortifications at Columbus, KY that broke KY's neutrality, opening the way for Union invasion. Where Polk goofed up is that he didn't capture and hold Paducah, which gave the Union a base of operations, and a way to get in Polk's rear. The Confederates set up a camp with Watson's Artillery from Louisiana, on the MO shore across from Columbus. This encampment was much smaller than the fortified bluffs of Columbus. Polk thought that the attack on the camp over on the MO shore was a diversion and that the main attack would be on the KY side. Once he realized that wasn't the case, this is when he ferried soldiers over to help aid those Confederates that were being shot down over in MO. These Confederate reinforcements were fired on by Union soldiers on the river bank, which caused them to steam up river, which by chance put fresh Confederates between the Union army and their transports which they needed to take them out of there and back up to Cairo, IL.

Belmont was not joke. It was a one day fight, but you have a lot of murder going on. Federal soldiers set the Confederate camp on fire, but they either didn't know or didn't care that there were sick Confederates in those tents, and thereby those Confederates got burned to death. Confederates that ran and took shelter behind the river bank, with the Mississippi River to their back, were shot like fish in a barrel by the Federals who were standing on the river bank above them. The Federals even wheeled a Confederate artillery piece to the river bank, lowered the piece and murdered Confederates at point blank range with artillery. The Mississippi was running red with blood and the bodies of those Confederates who were being murdered along the river bank.

There were attempts in the early '90s to do Belmont, but each attempt turned into a sea of mud, so I guess that's why they don't do it anymore. I have been excited to do a killer, large scale Belmont, and I've talked to Mike Comer about this, too. But alas, the State of MO wasn't interested. There are no 150th battle events in MO yet scheduled in MO, not even Wilson's Creek. The east has their 1st Manassas, and the Trans-Miss could have its Belmont. It could even involve the State of KY and IL. It could be a tri-State 150th event, but no one around here has the same vision or passion about making it happen.

[Iceman]

Re: Belmont Mo

Tom,

You might be thinking about Bird's Point, Missouri. That is now under water. Bird's Point was located across from Cairo, Illinois, for those of you who don't know.

[agintomboy]

Re: Belmont Mo

I am not familiar with MO CW history, never heard of it. Who are you? You didn't sign your message.

Anita L. Henderson

[Michael Comer]

Re: Belmont Mo

Nic,

It's not a lack of interest on the part of the State Parks. It's great to have a concept and in a perfect world we could do all sorts of things. But concepts and ideas take a lot of things to make them work, the least of which is funding, and it's simply not there. There is a lot of interest and we plan on doing the most that we can to commemmorate the war. In fact, we (state parks) put together a commitee about 2-3 years ago for planning purposes. I can't speak for the NPS or the state as a whole but there will be things done in the civil war state historic sites that we do have. However, we have no presence at Belmont except for a postage stamp sized parcel of land and we do not, at this time, have the funding to do anything else there. Being supported by a sales tax, the economy has hit us one powerful blow and we just cannot take anything else on at this time.

[csuniforms]

Re: Belmont Mo

Hello, Thank you for correcting me on the up river down river fo-pah. I did a ton of research on Belmont thirty years ago and my brain is old. I still have the reams of notes I kept on the Battle and particularly General Grant and his almost court-martial for his part in what was described as a"reconnaissance in force" to keep Confederate troops in Columbus from reinforcing General Price in Southern Missouri. The real truth is that Fremont heard that he was about to be relieved from command unless, "he was about to give battle to the enemy" and so kept up this charade of Confederate troop movements all over Missouri until he could do something to keep his job. Grant said in his memoirs he had no direct orders to attack Belmont so did it on his own. He almost lost his own life in the Battle and was saved from a court-martial,(rumor it was WHL Wallace who was appalled by the useless slaughter of the Federal troops,) by Fremont getting all the blame.

As to the burning of the poor Confederate sick and wounded in the tents, the troops were ordered to fire the camps to bring order to what was described as, "mob drunk with victory and looking for spoils" and now totally unawares that the Confederate were preparing a counterattack. The fought their way out of the encirclement with a great loss in killed, wounded, and prisoners.

As to the Union men firing down on those who took shelter under the riverbank, yes it did happen because fire was coming from that direction. I can find nothing deliberate in terms of shooting down defenseless men in my notes-- do you have letters or diaries that describe this--??
I know at the end of the fight one of the Confederate Generals, sick with the slaughter of the Union forces, forbade his men to fire on the retreating Federals, General Grant being one of the lucky ones.

Nate Hughes sent me a map long ago that showed the old banks of the Mississippi in 1861 and the new in 1989! Neat map-- I bow to your present knowledge of what is the current situation of where the banks are today.-- The location of the old town--have a great description in my notes-- down by the river and the new town up top of Columbus bluffs I did see thirty years ago.

Belmont for some reason is one of those neglected by history. Nate Hughes did a great job on his Belmont book--I helped some-- The reason is there was and is very little available in terms of letters and diaries or written works on the Battle during the War and after. I had to dig to find all my letters and diaries and even then many questions went unanswered.

Belmont was considered a draw by many, a defeat by some, and a victory by a few--

CSuniforms

Tom Arliskas

[rkg]

Re: Belmont Mo

Hey Michael, What does land go for per acre in that part of the country? That is if it were available for purchase for preservation.

"I am not familiar with MO CW history, never heard of it. Who are you? You didn't sign your message.

Anita L. Henderson"

Anita, pick up a copy of "The Battle of Belmont-Grant Strikes South by Nathaniel Cheairs Hughs Jr. it is a very good read and worth the effort.