Civil War History - The Eastern TheaterDiscuss 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.
Brig. Gen. Robert C. Schenck in his report (OR 2, p.127) wrote:
"From the same reliable source ["a perfectly reliable Union man, residing in Vienna, who was there during the attack"] I ascertain that the whole force attacking us was at least 2000 (...). The enemy had cavalry, numbering, it is believed, not less than 200, and in addition to those, was a body of 150 armed picked negroes, who were posted nearest us, in a grain field on our left flank, but not observed by us, as they lay flat in the grain and did not fire a gun".
My question is: what a group of "armed picked negroes" could be there, under the command of Col. Maxcy Gregg? Or the "reliable source" of Schenck was not so reliable?
Gregg didn't mention any such men in his report of the skirmish.
Brig. Gen. Robert C. Schenck in his report (OR 2, p.127) wrote:
"From the same reliable source ["a perfectly reliable Union man, residing in Vienna, who was there during the attack"] I ascertain that the whole force attacking us was at least 2000 (...). The enemy had cavalry, numbering, it is believed, not less than 200, and in addition to those, was a body of 150 armed picked Negroes, who were posted nearest us, in a grain field on our left flank, but not observed by us, as they lay flat in the grain and did not fire a gun".
My question is: what a group of "armed picked negroes" could be there, under the command of Col. Maxcy Gregg? Or the "reliable source" of Schenck was not so reliable?
Gregg didn't mention any such men in his report of the skirmish.
I think Gen. Schenck is not reliable. I have found that in many Official Reports numbers of men enage in combat are almost always incorrect if you lose, then the other side always had more men then you.
Skrimish at Vienna, Va. was early in the war so I doubt that any (armed negros as Gen. Schenck put it) there.
I think Gen, Schenck was just embellishing just a little.
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
That early in the war, armed negroes would have been as alarming in the north as it was in the south. My guess is propaganda.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
you mean that Gen. Schenck added those informations about coloured troops to his report on purpose?
Like a journalist who wrote an article in Harper's Weekly on Black Confederates? (May 10, 1862):
"THE correspondent of the New York Herald, in one of its late numbers, reports that the rebels had a regiment of mounted negroes, armed with sabres, at Manassas, and that some five hundred Union prisoners taken at Bull Run were escorted to their filthy prison by a regiment of black men".
The journalist asked rhetorically: "Will some one now say why, if slaves are to be armed at all, they should be armed against our friends instead of our enemies?". Did Gen. Schenck have the same intention?
There is a similarity between Schenck's observation and the journalist's: they both saw things that no one else wrote about. Were either deliberately lying to make a situation where there wasn't one? Possibly. Schenck had already added a few more troops than Gregg reported present.
The only I can say in Schenck's favor is that his counterpart was a journalist -- not one of them could report an event without inventing details to make a more exciting story.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I think I'll stick by the version that Robert Schenck embellished his report just to weaken the impression of his defeat. By describing such an unexpected opponent he made the retreat of his forces from Vienna look less disgraceful.
We don't know all the cultural or social norms of the 1860's. I do believe Schenck did embellish his report but the journalist I think was trying to create a story for us to think about it. Mounted Armed slaves was a scary thought by the 1860's America to the people in the north and south. I think the journalist wanted to put a scare into the people back home. I think he didn't have a story and made one up. Maybe Schenck reliable source wanted to put a scare into him as well.
Just a thought,
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
Maybe Schenck reliable source wanted to put a scare into him as well.
Haven't thought about it in this way. It could be the case. The general desribed his informant (a Virginian I guess) as "a perfectly reliable Union man"- but he could have been mistaken...
As regards the Harper's Weekly article, I presume it's aim was not really to frighten its readers. It seems more likely to me that the journalist wanted to persuade the US government to arm slaves: hence the rhetorical question I quoted yesterday.
I contemplated if Schenck could have had a similar aim, but I haven't found any arguments in favour. Haven't found any proof of his presupposed support for creating Black regiments.
I contemplated if Schenck could have had a similar aim, but I haven't found any arguments in favour. Haven't found any proof of his presupposed support for creating Black regiments.
Schenck was an early supporter of Lincoln's. Did you check out his voting record in congress for he was a congressman twice.
Think he did belong to the !st Ohio regiment maybe another soldier wrote about the Vienna skirmish.
I have not figure out the "Vienna affair" yet.
I suppose if black slaves had truly fired at him. The news of the day would have put the story on the front page. Just a thought.
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Skirmish at Vienna 
An Embellishing General! 
Linear Mode
