Civil War History - The South & Western TheatersCheck this forum for all South and Western Theater Questions. Included are the Western, Pacific, Trans-Mississippi, & Lower Seaboard and Gulf Approach Theaters.
What explanation does Cimprich have for the extra 50-60 men?
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
What explanation does Cimprich have for the extra 50-60 men?
Cimprich and Mainfort used the actual strength reports compiled by the War Department that are in the National Archives. They didn't rely on after-the-fact memories.
Cimprich and Mainfort used the actual strength reports compiled by the War Department that are in the National Archives. They didn't rely on after-the-fact memories.
Regards,
Cash
What strength reports?
Where in the National Archives?
Certainly the source they give for this information is more detailed than "in the National Archives."
~~~
"They didn't rely on after-the-fact memories."
The information Harris and Jackson had was not based on memory.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
Certainly the source they give for this information is more detailed than "in the National Archives."
Here's the entire footnote:
"11th US Colored Infantry Compiled Service Reords; 2nd US Colored Light Artillery, Ibid.; Bradford's Battalion, Ibid.; 6th Tennessee Cavalry, Ibid. The 11th US Colord Infantry later absorbed the 6th US Colored Heavy Artillery. Having lost so many members at Fort Pillow, Bradford's Battalion was shortly thereafter incorporated into the 14th Tennessee Cavalry and was later absorbd by the 6th Tennessee Cavalry. Memphis and Mound City Hospital Registers, RG 94 (National Archives); War Department, War of the Rebellion, Ser 1, XXXII, Pt. 1, pp. 510, 538-9; Jordan and Pryor, _Campaigns of Forrest,_ 704" [p. 834]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
"They didn't rely on after-the-fact memories."
The information Harris and Jackson had was not based on memory.
"11th US Colored Infantry Compiled Service Records; 2nd US Colored Light Artillery, Ibid.; Bradford's Battalion, Ibid.; 6th Tennessee Cavalry, Ibid. The 11th US Colord Infantry later absorbed the 6th US Colored Heavy Artillery. Having lost so many members at Fort Pillow, Bradford's Battalion was shortly thereafter incorporated into the 14th Tennessee Cavalry and was later absorbd by the 6th Tennessee Cavalry. Memphis and Mound City Hospital Registers, RG 94 (National Archives); War Department, War of the Rebellion, Ser 1, XXXII, Pt. 1, pp. 510, 538-9; Jordan and Pryor, _Campaigns of Forrest,_ 704" [p. 834]
Service Records.....not Strength Reports...
...but thanks for posting it anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
They didn't travel with their records.
Regards,
Cash
True...but they knew how many were sent to Fort Pillow...
...and you have reports from two different officers which generally agree (221/212).
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
Cimprich and Mainfort used the actual strength reports compiled by the War Department that are in the National Archives. They didn't rely on after-the-fact memories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
The information Harris and Jackson had was not based on memory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
They didn't travel with their records.
Battalion, Harris is on record as saying he had no information from Ft. Pillow since Booth's report of April 3 (and Booth's brief note says nothing about strengths).
On April 21, Harris writes this: "The only report as yet received at these headquarters is that of Lieutenant Van Horn. No correct information has yet been furnished of the strength of the battalion Sixth U.S. Artillery (colored), when it embarked for Fort Pillow, nor of the number who escaped."
Yet you quote him as giving specific figures on April 26. In that note, Harris indicates that his figures for strengths are all out of date. His last figure for the 2nd Lt. Art section is from February 15. His figure for Bradford's Battalion is different than what he reported on March 31, but no reason is given. His number for Booth's 6th US battalion does not match that of Lt. Col. Jackson of that regiment.
The figures you are quoting from these two men were assembled hurriedly, in the midst of pressure from an ongoing investigation, and they appear to contradict one another to a certain extent. They do not account for the fact that Bradford's battlion was actively recruiting and had a far larger number "present" on March 31 than is being reported after the battle. In addition, there were transients in the fort on that day, and local civilians, some of whom are known to have participated in the fight. The USCT would also have ben likely to have gathered up any recruits they could from slaves in the area.
Now with a man like Booth suddenly in command (Regular Army non-com, jumped up to Major when he came over into the USCT), there is a pretty good chance that paperwork was being done as required in his unit, and probably over in the 2nd Lt. Art. section. Bradford, as a civilian with little experience in the Army, probably hadn't been doing it too well before April 1 -- but having a Regular Army guy in command of him from that point on might have changed a few things.
I am not sure about the timing of regular strength reports in the US Army at that time. I have the impression one might be expected on the 10th of the month, and if so, I think Booth would have gotten it done. But if he did, it had not been forwarded to Harris, or he would have known about it on April 21. It might never have left Ft. Pillow before the Fort was taken, and if so was likely destroyed/captured by the Confederates, and so lost.
In short, unless Booth's report made it up to his immediate commander and not to Harris, NO ONE can accurately tell you what the strength of the force was on April 12. The place to look would be in the routine strength reports, which you would expect to find in the National Archives, to get as close as possible. Cimprich and Mainfort have looked there, and you have not; they have also looked at the same reports you are quoting from; and they have come to a different total that you have. Unless you come up with better reasoning and documentation than you have so far, we have to assume that their experience in investigating this over a period of decades gives them a better basis for their figures than you have.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Battalion, Harris is on record as saying he had no information from Ft. Pillow since Booth's report of April 3 (and Booth's brief note says nothing about strengths).
On April 21, Harris writes this: "The only report as yet received at these headquarters is that of Lieutenant Van Horn. No correct information has yet been furnished of the strength of the battalion Sixth U.S. Artillery (colored), when it embarked for Fort Pillow, nor of the number who escaped."
Yet you quote him as giving specific figures on April 26. In that note, Harris indicates that his figures for strengths are all out of date. His last figure for the 2nd Lt. Art section is from February 15. His figure for Bradford's Battalion is different than what he reported on March 31, but no reason is given. His number for Booth's 6th US battalion does not match that of Lt. Col. Jackson of that regiment.
The figures you are quoting from these two men were assembled hurriedly, in the midst of pressure from an ongoing investigation, and they appear to contradict one another to a certain extent. They do not account for the fact that Bradford's battlion was actively recruiting and had a far larger number "present" on March 31 than is being reported after the battle. In addition, there were transients in the fort on that day, and local civilians, some of whom are known to have participated in the fight. The USCT would also have ben likely to have gathered up any recruits they could from slaves in the area.
Now with a man like Booth suddenly in command (Regular Army non-com, jumped up to Major when he came over into the USCT), there is a pretty good chance that paperwork was being done as required in his unit, and probably over in the 2nd Lt. Art. section. Bradford, as a civilian with little experience in the Army, probably hadn't been doing it too well before April 1 -- but having a Regular Army guy in command of him from that point on might have changed a few things.
I am not sure about the timing of regular strength reports in the US Army at that time. I have the impression one might be expected on the 10th of the month, and if so, I think Booth would have gotten it done. But if he did, it had not been forwarded to Harris, or he would have known about it on April 21. It might never have left Ft. Pillow before the Fort was taken, and if so was likely destroyed/captured by the Confederates, and so lost.
In short, unless Booth's report made it up to his immediate commander and not to Harris, NO ONE can accurately tell you what the strength of the force was on April 12. The place to look would be in the routine strength reports, which you would expect to find in the National Archives, to get as close as possible. Cimprich and Mainfort have looked there, and you have not; they have also looked at the same reports you are quoting from; and they have come to a different total that you have. Unless you come up with better reasoning and documentation than you have so far, we have to assume that their experience in investigating this over a period of decades gives them a better basis for their figures than you have.
Tim
A comparison of the strength reports of Fort Pillow are rather close. All between 2%-4%.
Harris' report
..............2nd US Light.......41
..............13th Tenn.........295
..............Total................336
Fort Pillow, strength on or about 31 March 1864
(before 6th US arrived)
.....................................329
~
Harris' report........6th US Heavy....221
Jackson's report.........."...............212
~
The reason I emphasize the numbers is because this is the game the propagandists have played since the beginning of the controversy. They invariably inflate the number of black troops (unknown/unnamed therefore "missing") to enhance the massacre story.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
A comparison of the strength reports of Fort Pillow are rather close. All between 2%-4%.
Harris' report
..............2nd US Light.......41
..............13th Tenn.........295
..............Total................336
Fort Pillow, strength on or about 31 March 1864
(before 6th US arrived)
.....................................329
~
Harris' report........6th US Heavy....221
Jackson's report.........."...............212
~
The reason I emphasize the numbers is because this is the game the propagandists have played since the beginning of the controversy. They invariably inflate the number of black troops (unknown/unnamed therefore "missing") to enhance the massacre story.
Again, note that Harris has no idea what the numbers are for the 6th only a few days before he is quoted by you. Look again at the Jackson/Harris numbers. Probably Harris number is Jackson's number with 212 transposing into 221.
Harris put pressure on Jackson's CO. That CO undoubtedly put pressure on Jackson. Jackson undoubtedly put pressure on his staff and someone at the bottom of all that came up with a number. All because Harris knew the Congressional investigators were coming and did exactly what anyone with any experience with the military or bureaucracies would expect him to do. Under pressure, people don't always cross all the i's and dot all the t's. Unless you can say you know where Lt. Col. Jackson got the number, you really don't know if it is accurate, or simply a guess someone sent back up the line.
OTOH, searching meticulously in the service records at the National Archives would probably find you all the information the 6th had, along with much more in the way of documentation. There's a good chance Cimprich and Montfort did a better job than some clerk under pressure did in 1864 -- simply because they had more time and probably more information to work with.
Calling them liars will do you no good unless you can document it.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
A comparison of the strength reports of Fort Pillow are rather close. All between 2%-4%.
Harris' report
..............2nd US Light.......41
..............13th Tenn.........295
..............Total................336
Fort Pillow, strength on or about 31 March 1864
(before 6th US arrived)
.....................................329
Well, no.
On March 31st, the consolidated end-of-quarter return for the District of Memphis in the Department of the Tennessee lists this:
Fort Pillow (Major Bradford)
9 Officers
262 Men
271 Present for Duty
329 Aggregate Present
466 Aggregate Present & Absent
2 Light Guns
Now the two light guns probably belong to the section of 1 battery of the 2nd US Lt. Artillery, so maybe we should be seeing the 40 odd men of that unit somewhere -- but where?
If you see them in the "Present for Duty" figure, then the number you are pushing for the Bradford battalion is way off.
If you see them in the "Aggregate Present" but not the "Present for Duty" figure, then a) you would be off by 7, not 1 as claimed and b) what evidence convinces you of this?
BTW, you can't just pick one that makes it easy for you. You have to explain why, and you have to have evidence to support what you say. That is the way these things are done.
Also, note the 466 figure above. On March 28, when General Hurlbut sends Major Booth down here with the battlion from the 6th US Hvy Art, he writes to Bradford on March 28 that: "At all events, with 700 good men, your post can be held until assistance arrives." Add your figure for the 6th US HA to the 466 figure and you'll find you are pretty close to the 700 figure -- which is what General Hurlbut thinks will be in the fort in early April. He thinks this on March 28.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
On March 31st, the consolidated end-of-quarter return for the District of Memphis in the Department of the Tennessee lists this:
Fort Pillow (Major Bradford)
9 Officers
262 Men
271 Present for Duty
329 Aggregate Present
466 Aggregate Present & Absent
2 Light Guns
Now the two light guns probably belong to the section of 1 battery of the 2nd US Lt. Artillery, so maybe we should be seeing the 40 odd men of that unit somewhere -- but where?
They are included in the 329. The 2nd US Light had been at Fort Pillow since February. The "Major Bradford" in parentheses signifies that he is in overall command.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Also, note the 466 figure above. On March 28, when General Hurlbut sends Major Booth down here with the battlion from the 6th US Hvy Art, he writes to Bradford on March 28 that: "At all events, with 700 good men, your post can be held until assistance arrives." Add your figure for the 6th US HA to the 466 figure and you'll find you are pretty close to the 700 figure -- which is what General Hurlbut thinks will be in the fort in early April. He thinks this on March 28.
Tim
The 466 is Present and Absent...means 137 are AWOL, POW, in hospital, in arrest, &etc. (not at Fort Pillow).
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
