Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
"...The regimental organization (mixed up of infantry and riflemen, without bayonets) cannot be preserved. Colonel Gregg has 1,100 men; Colonel Cunningham, 418; Colonel Kershaw, between 300 and 500-in all, 2,000, exclusive of artillery....
Nice to see you have done your normal level of research. Those rifles were M1841's aka Palmetto or Mississippi rifles... not originally intended to use a bayonet. As fine as anything in the world. THey would have played merry hell w/ any force they oppopsed as they were men that knew how to shoot. The units that composed that Regiment would later become the 1st SC Rifles. Look at their history; you might learn something about fighting men.
If you're going to post on this thread...
...please post something that is relevant.
Bayonets, the Palmetto rifle...
...and your collection of John Wayne movies ain't on the table.
Until approximately 11 April 1861 the three regiments were not in active service.
Amazing that their commanding officer thought he had 8,835 of them in his 10 regiment organization in early March then, isn't it?
Some of these (3 regiments) were on Morris Island preparing to attack Ft. Sumter and manning/building the defenses there. Some were concentrating at Columbia (these are the three regiments you are talking about) to be transferred into Confederate service). Another 10 companies/1000 men are declared to be arriving on Morris Island on the 8th/9th.
Others were in a very early stage of organization, scattered about the state, just getting their equipment and probably not in more than company strength at any one place -- usually close to their homes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
The description of the other regiments who had been called into service earlier clearly indicate it as well-
"...318 helpless infantry recruits, almost without arms, without clothing, and totally and entirely unfit to meet the enemy..." (6 March 1861)
As I have already pointed out to you, these men are not part of the 10 regiments of Volunteers. They are part of the Regulars authorized by the SC legislature on January 28, part of Ripley's command. This fragment of a sentence comes from a letter by Ripley, and the part you left out refers to the 290 artillerymen of the Regulars as well. Since you know this for sure now, why are you trying to maintain they are part of the Volunteers of Bonham's command?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Prior to March 1861- 8,835 on paper.
On March 6, 1861, Gist reports to Bonham that he has 8,835 men "received" -- men who have volunteered for the 12-month term of service and been accepted. The command is organized in 104 companies -- ten regiments -- 4 brigades -- one division. We don't have a breakdown beyond that. We don't know what arms they have, the locations of many individual units, etc. Nowhere have I said they were crack troops or anything else.
All of this started because I said SC had about 8000 troops active, exclusive of any in Confederate service, at the time Ft. Sumter was fired on. It appears they had upwards of 10,000 and perhaps 12,000 if you count the ones we have been able to identify on that date. You have claimed they had no more than 3700. Are you ready to simply be honest and admit the facts yet?
If not, please list the units and strengths you are counting.
If you're going to post on this thread...
...please post something that is relevant.
Bayonets, the Palmetto rifle...
...and your collection of John Wayne movies ain't on the table.
Ok... what exactly is incorrect about the Palmetto Rifle aka Mississippi rifle not originally being intended to use a bayonet? There were most of 1000 palmetto rifles used to arm the early SC Regiments; they lacked bayonets because they were not originally designed to use them. The author of your note was unaware of that... as were you.
Is it necessary to give you a reading list on the Mississippi Rifle and it's variants? Perhaps a little basic knowledge on CW arms, in particular CS ones, might educate you.
Here are a few titles that might educate you. All have substantial data on the M1841.
Coates, Earl J. & Thomas, Dean S., An Introduction to Civil War Small Arms, Thomas Publications, 1990
McAulay, John D., Rifles of the U.S. Army 1861-1906, Andrew Mowbray Publishers, 2003.
Reilly, Robert M., United States Military Small Arms 1816-1865, Eagle Press, 1970.
You might want to stop watching "Birth of a Nation" & "Gone With the Wind" for inspiration... as to my collection of the Duke. Don't own any. Are you breathing a little too deeply in your Davis/Calhoun shrine?
__________________ Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
What relevance does the 'Mississippi Rifle' have to secession and politics, or even SC Forces? The Bayonetswas the weapon 'least used' (as a weapon) duing the CW, especially at Ft. Sumpter.
What relevance does the 'Mississippi Rifle' have to secession and politics, or even SC Forces? The Bayonetswas the weapon 'least used' (as a weapon) duing the CW, especially at Ft. Sumpter.
OpnDownfall,
In this case, Battalion is trying to show that the SC troops were worthless or something near it at the time of Ft. Sumter. He is doing this by taking a very small piece of a report out of context. What the officer is actually saying here is that you don't organize a unit the way this one was, partially with rifles that can't be used with the bayonet and partially with muskets that can -- it makes it too unwieldy and creates problems on the field.
Johan_Steele was pointing out to him that the troops were not useless or worthless because of this -- in the right circumstances they would be very deadly.
What relevance does the 'Mississippi Rifle' have to secession and politics, or even SC Forces? The Bayonetswas the weapon 'least used' (as a weapon) duing the CW, especially at Ft. Sumpter.
Trice is spot on about Battalion.
Just as a note... the bayonet was thought of as a rather potent weapon in the hands of good troops. Picketts charge was for all practical purposes a bayonet charge. While very few wounds were caused by bayonets in the last two years of the war... there were plenty killed or wounded by them early war.
While it is all too easy to recall the disasters most bayonet charges in the ACW turned into it is important to remember their were some rather stunning successes as well. 20th Maine at Round Top, King's Regulars at Chickamauga. The bayonet was a well known & very effective weapon that was quite frightening to be on the recieving end of.
The use of the bayonet was a mindset not yet changed by the Minie Ball in 1861, unfortunately it took too long and cost many a good man their lives to figure that out.
__________________ Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
Moved this thread to the top so you could see it. Might help with your debate with trice knowing some of the SC's numbers during the Ft. Sumter crisis.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Moved this thread to the top so you could see it. Might help with your debate with trice knowing some of the SC's numbers during the Ft. Sumter crisis.
Unionblue
Thanks, Neil, but what South Carolina forces were in the field on December 26th 1860 (when Anderson moved to Sumter) would be the pertinent question. I honestly don't know, but I would guess it was a small number (but I'm sure Tim will chime in with the data if it supports his case).
__________________ "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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
