CivilWarTalk.com - A free and friendly Civil War community.
CivilWarTalk.com
The Dispatch Depot at Civil War Talk  

Go Back   The Dispatch Depot at Civil War Talk > The Backpack - Essential Discussions > Civil War History - The Eastern Theater

Civil War History - The Eastern Theater Discuss any and all battles, movements, and events occuring in the Eastern Theater here! This includes any actions in tha area east of the Appalachian Mountains in the vicinity of the river capitals of Richmond and Washington D.C.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-22-2006, 06:56 AM
JohnTaylor's Avatar
Corporal (250+ posts)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 445
Default Heavy artillery in Washington defenses

Can someone point me to a source showing the number of heavy (or siege) artillery in the Washington defenses in May of 1862?
In May, there were thirty-two field guns in the Washington defenses.
As of December 1862, there were six hundred and forty-three guns and seventy-five mortars. But this includes field and siege guns.
But I can't find a laydown for the siege or heavy guns in May 1862.
Any helpful hints would be greatly appreciated.
JT
__________________
"In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with."
James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-22-2006, 10:34 AM
1st Lt. (3500+ posts)
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,085
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Can someone point me to a source showing the number of heavy (or siege) artillery in the Washington defenses in May of 1862?
In May, there were thirty-two field guns in the Washington defenses.
As of December 1862, there were six hundred and forty-three guns and seventy-five mortars. But this includes field and siege guns.
But I can't find a laydown for the siege or heavy guns in May 1862.
Any helpful hints would be greatly appreciated.
JT
John,

I can't tell you exactly. The report below shows what the plan was in late 1861. In January, about 200 guns had been mounted, but the forts had no permanent garrisons in most cases and ammo had not been supplied to the forts.

WASHINGTON, D. C., October 24, 1861.
General S. WILLIAMS, Assistant Adjutant-General:
GENERAL: In our report of the 22d instant we stated the number of men we deemed necessary for garrisons and reserves "for the various works in and about Washington to satisfy the conditions of a good defense." It seems proper to exhibit more clearly the grounds on which our estimate is founded. We have adopted the rule, which experience Showed to be satisfactory for the lines of Torres Vedras, in computing the garrison of the various works, viz: Two men per running yard of front covering line and one man per running yard of rear line, deducting spaces occupied by guns. Computed in this manner, the total of the full garrisons of all the works would amount to 19,789 men, of which 6,581 should be gunners, in order to furnish three reliefs to each gun. Of these works, however, the following on the south side of the Potomac are on interior lines, and do not require full garrisons, while the exterior line is intact, viz: Forts Ellsworth, Scott, Runyon, Jackson, Corcoran, Bennett, and Haggerty.
Fort Albany might, perhaps, have been included in the above list in our estimate of the 22d. However, we have considered it as fully garrisoned.
As Fort Ellsworth and Fort Scott have commanding views of the valleys of Hunting Creek and Four-mile Run, we have considered it necessary to provide for the efficient service of all their guns by three reliefs of gunners; to the others we have assigned but one relief. With regard to the assignment of garrisons to works of the exterior lines, we remark that if Washington were thrown upon its own defenses, without external <ar5_627>aid, and the enemy were so far in the ascendant in the field as to be able to act on either shore, it is evident that all the works should be fully garrisoned.
We do not consider this extreme supposition the proper basis for garrisoning the works, and it is evidently desirable to shut up in them as few men as possible. The more probable supposition is that the army moves from here in force, rally occupying the bulk of the enemy's forces by its own movement, leaving the capital so strengthened by its defensive lines as to prevent danger of sudden seizure by a strategical movement of the enemy, and enable it to be held a reasonable time in case of serious reverses to our own arms in the field.
On this basis we have estimated for full garrisons of all the works of the exterior line south of the Potomac, for three reliefs of gunners for Forts Ellsworth and Scott, and for one relief for the other interior works, and for three reliefs of gunners only for all the works north of the Potomac, giving a total, as stated in our report of October 22, of 11,045 men. As without reserves a line of detached field works possesses little or no strength, we have considered as included in our instructions to provide for these. We are of opinion that two brigades should be distributed along the lines from Hunting Creek to Four Mile Run and two between Four Mile Run and Fort Corcoran, making, say, 12,000 men; one regiment in reserve at Chain Bridge of 750 men, and stationed in the city a reserve of 10,000 men; making a total of reserves of 22,750 men. As the total of full garrisons of all the works north of the Potomac is 7,343 men, it will be seen that in case of necessity part of these works or all might be full garrisoned from the reserves, still leaving over 15,000 men.
We herewith inclose two tabular statements, giving the names of works, perimeters, full garrisons, number of gunners, of works north and south of the Potomac. We would add that the system is not entirely completed, and that three or four more works than are mentioned in these statements may yet be found necessary.
RECAPITULATION.
For full garrisons of all works of exterior line south of the Potomac, except the Chain Bridge 5,952
Full garrisons of Forts Ethan Allen and Marcy 1,500
Three reliefs of gunners at Forts Ellsworth and Scott 363
One relief of gunners for other interior works 230
For three reliefs of gunners for all works north of Potomac 3,000
Total. 11,045
Total garrisons 11,045
Reserves 22,750
Total 33,795
We have the honor to be, general, very respectfully, your obedient servants,
WILLIAM F. BARRY,
Brigadier-General, Chief of Artillery.
J. G. BARNARD,
Brigadier-General, and Chief Engineer.
<ar5_628>
[Inclosure.]
Names. Perimeter. Guns. Men toman guns. Totalgarrisons.
North of the Potomac.
Yards
Battery Cameron .... 2 .... ....
Battery Martin Scott. .... 2 .... ....
Battery Vermont .... 3 45 ....
Fort .... 5 75 400
Fort (north of reservoir). .... 5 75 300
Fort .... 5 75 300
Fort Gaines 105 4 75 250
Fort Pennsylvania 440 12 180 600
Fort (Schwartz's house). 190 7 105 250
Fort Massachusetts 168 10 150 200
Fort Slocum 250 13 195 300
Fort Totten 272 14 180 350
Fort Bunker Hill 205 8 120 270
Fort Saratoga 109 6 120 220
Fort .... 4 60 200
Fort Lincoln 446 16 140 600
Fort. (Benning's Bridge) 354 10 150 500
Fort .... 8 120 300
Fort .... 8 120 300
Fort Stanton .... 8 120 300
Fort 322 18 270 483
Fort Carroll .... 10 150 400
Fort Greble .... 12 180 400
327 15 255 420
Total north of the Potomac. .... 205 2,960 7,343

South of the Potomac.

Fort Lyon 937 41 570 1,200
Fort Worth 463 14 210 630
Fort Ward 576 17 255 780
Fort Ellsworth 618 17 255 843
Fort Blenker 360 10 150 510
Fort 172 6 105 225
Fort Scott 226 6 108 487
Fort Albany 429 13 183 585
Fort Runyon 1,484 21 315 2,120
Fort Jackson .... 4 60 200
Fort Richardson 316 8 120 444
Fort Craig .... 7 105 400
Fort Tillinghast .... 7 105 300
Fort Ramsay .... 5 75 300
Fort Woodbury 161 5 75 300
Fort De Kalb 196 9 135 450
Fort Corcoran 576 12 180 800
Fort Bennett 146 5 75 200
Fort Haggerty 128 4 60 172
Fort Ethan Allen 736 21 375 1,000
Fort Marcy 338 7 105 500
Total south of the Potomac. .... 239 3,621 12,446
Grand total .... 444 6,581 19,789

Hope the formatting held

Regards,
Tim
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-22-2006, 12:45 PM
JohnTaylor's Avatar
Corporal (250+ posts)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 445
Default

Thanks, Tim. I am looking for just how defendable Washington was in late May 1862. I know that Wadsworth's command had around 18,000 men (some partially organized) and 32 field pieces (two batteries without horses). The missing piece is the status of siege guns. On July 31st, Banks had 477 guns (field and siege/heavy). On December 10 1862, Heintzelman had 273 pieces (types not specified). On December 31st, Heintzelman had 268 heavy pieces.

But I am concerned especially with the end of May.

Thanks again for helping.

Respectfully,
John Taylor
__________________
"In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with."
James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-22-2006, 02:33 PM
1st Lt. (3500+ posts)
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,085
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Thanks, Tim. I am looking for just how defendable Washington was in late May 1862. I know that Wadsworth's command had around 18,000 men (some partially organized) and 32 field pieces (two batteries without horses). The missing piece is the status of siege guns. On July 31st, Banks had 477 guns (field and siege/heavy). On December 10 1862, Heintzelman had 273 pieces (types not specified). On December 31st, Heintzelman had 268 heavy pieces.

But I am concerned especially with the end of May.
General Banks took over command of the defenses of Washington on September 8, 1862. Previous to that (starting March 12) Brig. Gen. James Wadsworth was in command.

Statement of troops in the Military District of Washington, Brig. Gen. James S. Wadsworth commanding, May 31, 1862.
Whipple's Brigade.
Brig. Gen. A.W. WHIPPLE.
6th Maine Battery, Capt. F. McGilvery.
1st Massachusetts Heavy Artillery, Col. W. B. Greene.
2d New York Heavy Artillery, Col. G. Waagner.
4th New York Heavy Artillery, Col. T. D. Doubleday.
11th New York Battery, Capt. A. A. von Puttkammer.
12th New York Bat'y, Capt. W. H. Ellis.
3d Battalion New York Heavy Artillery, Lieut. Col. A. Senges.
101st New York Inf., Col. Enrico Fardella.
1st Wisconsin Heavy Artillery (one comp'y), Capt. A. J. Langworthy.
Sturgis' Brigade.(*)
Brig. Gen. S. D. STURGIS
63d Indiana.
59th New York.
71st New York Militia.
9th Rhode Island.
10th Rhode Island.
17th U.S. (battalion).
19th U.S. (battalion).
2d New York Artillery, Battery L.
Provost Guard.(*)
Maj. W. E. DOSTER.
10th New Jersey (eight companies).
86th New York (seven companies).
2d Pennsylvania Cavalry (two companies).
4th Pennsylvania Cavalry (two companies.)
Infantry.(+)
2d District of Columbia, Col. I. A. Peck.
32d Mass., Lieut. Col. F. J. Parker.
69th New York, Col. Robert Nugent.
86th New York (detachment), Col. B. P. Bailey.
26th Pennsylvania (one company), Capt. J. B. Adams.
91st Pennsylvania, Col. E. M. Gregory.
99th Pennsylvania, Col. Peter Fritz.
1st U.S. (one company).
11th U.S. (two companies).
l2th Virginia (one company).
Cavalry.(+)
1st Michigan (six companies), Maj. S. Atwood.
6th New York, Col. T. C. Devin.
9th New York, Col. John Beardsley.
11th New York, Col. J. B. Swain.
2d Pennsylvania, Col. R. B. Price.
12th Pennsylvania, Col. L. B. Pierce.
5th U S. (detachment), Lieut. Harrison Fosdick.
6th U. S., Co. L, Capt. James S. Brisbin.
Artillery.(+)
16th Indiana Battery, Capt. C. A. Naylor.
4th Maine Battery, Capt. O'N. W. Robinson.
1st New York, Battery C, Capt. Almont Barnes.
9th New York Battery, Capt. A. von Morozowicz.
10th New York Battery, Capt. J. T. Bruen.
16th New York Battery, Capt. M. W. Locke.
2d Pennsylvania Heavy Artillery, Col. C. Angeroth.
10th Rhode Island Battery.

regards,
Tim
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-22-2006, 04:27 PM
JohnTaylor's Avatar
Corporal (250+ posts)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 445
Default

Tim, thanks again. Seriously.
I have searched my CD copy of the OR (Guild Press) and found the unit order of battle. What is tantalizing is that, at other times, the reports specify how many of what type of cannon (field or siege/heavy), but none in May 1862 specify this data. Maybe I am searching for the wrong words, or maybe there is a source other than the OR that would specify the number and type of cannon in the Washington defenses.
Anyway, I do appreciate your efforts to help me find the answer.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
__________________
"In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with."
James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-23-2006, 02:44 PM
First Sergeant (1000+ posts)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,118
Default Washington Defenses

I've seen an inventory report prepared in 1864 on Washington artillery, but none earlier.

Was Washington well defended in 1862? I would say yes. First, the Confederacy never mounted an invasion of the north until the fall of 1862.

Logistically, the Confederacy never had the ability to attack and capture Washington. In September, 1862, R.E. Lee wrote, "...I have no intention of attacking him in his fortifications, and am not prepared to invest them. If I possessed the necessary munitions, I should be unable to supply provisions for the troops."
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-23-2006, 06:06 PM
Private (25+ posts)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: St Charles, MO
Posts: 107
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whitworth
I've seen an inventory report prepared in 1864 on Washington artillery, but none earlier.

Was Washington well defended in 1862? I would say yes. First, the Confederacy never mounted an invasion of the north until the fall of 1862.

Logistically, the Confederacy never had the ability to attack and capture Washington. In September, 1862, R.E. Lee wrote, "...I have no intention of attacking him in his fortifications, and am not prepared to invest them. If I possessed the necessary munitions, I should be unable to supply provisions for the troops."
Given the number of federal personnel culled from the heavy artillery garrison units for Grant's use starting in earnest with Cold Harbor and throughout the balance of the war in the east, could there have been a long shot seizure of Washington in 1864 however temporary?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-23-2006, 06:35 PM
1st Lt. (3500+ posts)
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,085
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Tim, thanks again. Seriously.
I have searched my CD copy of the OR (Guild Press) and found the unit order of battle. What is tantalizing is that, at other times, the reports specify how many of what type of cannon (field or siege/heavy), but none in May 1862 specify this data. Maybe I am searching for the wrong words, or maybe there is a source other than the OR that would specify the number and type of cannon in the Washington defenses.
Anyway, I do appreciate your efforts to help me find the answer.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
Big as it is, the OR is incomplete. It was unmanageable to include everything, and they often didn't have everything (particularly for anything in the West and the Confederacy after 1863; Johnston and Hood made a hash of the records).

There is a chance the reports you want exist somewhere in the National Archives, but that would require either a personal visit or a paid search.

Regards,
Tim
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-23-2006, 06:41 PM
1st Lt. (3500+ posts)
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,085
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whitworth
I've seen an inventory report prepared in 1864 on Washington artillery, but none earlier.
Was Washington well defended in 1862? I would say yes. First, the Confederacy never mounted an invasion of the north until the fall of 1862.
Logistically, the Confederacy never had the ability to attack and capture Washington. In September, 1862, R.E. Lee wrote, "...I have no intention of attacking him in his fortifications, and am not prepared to invest them. If I possessed the necessary munitions, I should be unable to supply provisions for the troops."
Around April 1, 1862, Lincoln caught McClellan trying to shortchange the defenses of Washington. Mac was headed for the Peninsula and had orders to leave enough force to safeguard the city.

Mac did what many commanders would do. The defenses looked OK on paper -- but if you looked into it the units were raw, or not properly equipped, or of poor quality. Plus Wadsworth had a supposed 22,000 men and 4,000 of them were being sent off to the field (the best regiments he had, of course). Lincoln and Stanton then pulled MAc up short, which is why McDowell's corps was held up near Fredricksburg.

Mac may have been right in his plan, but he once he got caught dealing from the bottom his credibilty was blown on the issue.

Regards,
Tim
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-23-2006, 09:16 PM
johan_steele's Avatar
NCOIC, Mod
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South of the North 40
Posts: 4,156
Default

To add to what Trice said I believe Lil Mac also tried to grab big seige guns from the Washington area for use against shdow defenses of Yorktown. There was a kabash put on that. In particular IIRC he was trying to grab some of the big 32 lbs guns.
__________________
Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
Back to top
Bringing the American Civil War to Life. Copyright © 1999 - 2008, CivilWarTalk.com. Site Version 4.3

The American Civil War | Forum | Resource Center | Image Gallery | Links | Site Map | XML | Donations