16th Ohio Volunteer Infantry John Fitzroy DeCourcey .

Waterloo50

Major
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Location
England
I'm quite interested in learning a little more about John Fitzroy DeCourcey , Colonel, Field & Staff.

I have read that he was a British subject who offered his services to the US government, he was appointed as Colonel of the 16th Ohio Volunteer Infantry, where he served from September 22, 1861 until his resignation January 11th 1863.

He then takes command of the 86th Ohio Infantry under Col. Wilson C. Lemert. From what I can gather, he was involved in the advance along the Wilderness Road on a mission to attack Cumberland Gap from the Kentucky side. he only had 1700 troops and they were poorly equipped and lacked supplies, despite numerous request from DeCourcey no supplies were ever made available. I have read that DeCourcey was a brilliant strategist and that he was able to fool his enemy into believing his numbers were far larger than they actually were.

'He began his strategy on the way by juggling the brass numbers on the soldier's caps to make the impression of a much larger army. From the number 86 he made it appear the 8th, the 6th and 9th and the 98th. The same was done with 129th, and the Battery number 22. Spies selling cakes and pies to the soldiers along the way would likely report these numbers and the trick could be worked to make the Confederates think there was a big army coming, consisting of 16 regiments. The last four miles of the approach to the Gap were in plain view of the fortifications, and field glasses would be used.'

To cut a long story short his plan to give the impression of a mass force worked and he was able to secure the surrender of JW Frazer and his men.

My question is then, why did Burnside have DeCourcey arrested over a letter that he had previously sent to General Shackleford. It doesn't look like it was offensive or ignoring orders, I'm clearly missing something here. I would be grateful if someone could point out what I am missing, I have tried to find further information on Burnsides reasoning for the arrest but I haven't had any luck. To be honest, I don't know what DeCourcey's letter was responding to, had DeCourcey been ordered to hold position or something similar.


Sir: I have received your dispatch of the 7th and I shall fully inform your guide of my position and circumstances. I do not feel that it would be prudent to do so in a written communication, I fear you have not been made acquainted with the roads and locations on both sides of the Gap, and further that I have been in the military profession almost continually since my sixteenth year. For the above reason, I was chosen, I believe, by General Burnside, and appointed to this independent command, receiving directly from him verbal, but not detailed instructions, as I believe he trusted my experience and local knowledge.
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
John F. De Courcy
Colonel Commanding U. S. Troops on north side of Gap.




 
Last edited:
I found this, perhaps helpful:

http://www.mkwe.com/ohio/pages/wherewas18630219.htm
Paragraph 5 refers

Also a nice bio on the same site at http://www.mkwe.com/ohio/pages/SP_decourceyj.htm

COL. DECOURCEY DEPARTS

On this day, Col. John F. DeCourcey, the dashing officer, adventurer and English nobleman, who volunteered his military expertise to the United States at the start of the Civil War, leaves the 16th Ohio and his brigade. DeCourcey's health had been poor for some time and he decided to head north.

It must also be noted that there are several instances where history refers to Col. DeCourcey as General DeCourcey. It is believed that DeCourcey was in line to be promoted to brigadier general and that he may have actually been breveted, that is, given the rank of brigadier general on a temporary basis, indicating his superiors' satisfaction with his performance. However, the promotion did not come and some believe this may be part of the reason he left the brigade. It is also speculated that President Lincoln wanted to promote DeCourcey but other officers were against it because he was a foreigner.

Other stories indicate that DeCourcey may have been so distraught over the losses his regiment incurred at Chickasaw Bayou, just seven weeks earlier, that he chose to leave the command. Private Frank Mason, of the 42nd Ohio, gives us his view of DeCourcey's departure:

On the 19th ... Col. DeCourcy, whose health had failed, went North on leave of absence. He was dissatisfied with his failure to attain his well-earned promotion to a brigadier generalship, and did not return to the army. From that time until the 29th of July following, the Second Brigade was commanded by Col. Sheldon of the Forty-Second (Ohio)...

Mason's information is only partially correct: DeCourcey did not leave the army until the following year and was involved in organizing and leading a brigade in eastern Kentucky during the summer of 1863. Research indicates DeCourcey was a key commander when the Union re-took Cumberland Gap in September, 1863, in fact, was first to enter and re-occupy the Gap for the Union. However, he apparently entered the Gap too quickly and against the orders of his superiors and was court-martialed. It is believed the court martial did not convict DeCourcey, however, he resigned from the Army in good standing on March 3 of 1864.

Additionally, records indicate that Colonel Daniel Lindsey was in command of the 2nd Brigade under Gen. Osterhaus' Ninth Division, at least during the campaign against Vicksburg in the spring and summer of 1863.

* Some information and italicized text, above, taken from The Forty-Second Ohio Infantry - A History of the Organization and Services of That Regiment In the War of the Rebellion, 1876 - F. H. Mason, late Private of Company A - Cobb, Andrews & Co., Publishers.
 
DeCourcy was the brigade commander of my relatives posted in my signature. DeCourcy was basically grabbing the honor of taking the Gap for himself (the second time he helped capture it) and Burnside let his ego in the way. A World on Fire has quite a bit on his military career, including reasons he was never promoted above the rank of colonel (suspected disagreement with the Emancipation Proclamation).
 
I found this, perhaps helpful:

http://www.mkwe.com/ohio/pages/wherewas18630219.htm
Paragraph 5 refers

Also a nice bio on the same site at http://www.mkwe.com/ohio/pages/SP_decourceyj.htm
Many thanks for the links, its interesting to note the nobody seems sure if he was promoted to brigadier general and that he may have actually been breveted, I have also noticed on a few of the resources that I have looked at that there was a significant amount of jealousy from his peer group, Lincoln wanted to promote him but was unable to because of objections from DeCourcey's fellow officers, that's a real shame DeCourcey brought something to the table, he understood human psychology and how to manipulate and play on peoples fears. His faking numbers at the Gap was a stroke of military genius. Why would anyone object to him being promoted, he trained his men hard but got results, the US Army let a good man go.
 
DeCourcy was the brigade commander of my relatives posted in my signature. DeCourcy was basically grabbing the honor of taking the Gap for himself (the second time he helped capture it) and Burnside let his ego in the way. A World on Fire has quite a bit on his military career, including reasons he was never promoted above the rank of colonel (suspected disagreement with the Emancipation Proclamation).

I haven't seen any comments yet on DeCourcey's political beliefs, it is possible that he opposed the Emancipation Proclamation considering the British political system at the time, I read that he hated rebellions and that was his main motivation to head over to the USA and get involved, also he had plenty of previous military experience which would have been beneficial to the US.
 
I have some newspaper articles on DeCourcy saved. I'll try to post them later this morning. Theodore Wolbach (on mkwe's site) has some interesting observations about him.
That would be fantastic, I look forward to reading them. I read that the men of the 16th Ohio Infantry held DeCourcey in high regard. :thumbsup:
 
Found a nice picture of the 16th Ohio Volunteer Infantry. September 1894
reunion19th_millersburg_group_thumb.jpg
 

Attachments

  • reunion19th_millersburg_group_thumb.jpg
    reunion19th_millersburg_group_thumb.jpg
    33.4 KB · Views: 35
I haven't seen any comments yet on DeCourcey's political beliefs, it is possible that he opposed the Emancipation Proclamation considering the British political system at the time, I read that he hated rebellions and that was his main motivation to head over to the USA and get involved, also he had plenty of previous military experience which would have been beneficial to the US.
Quality is not the best, but it is the Holmes County Farmer, March 12, 1863. DeSilva also tries to defend DeCourcy, who was basically held as the cause of the defeat at Chickasaw Bayou. There was one other place (probably Michael Wood's site, mkwe.com). There was one other place, I'll check Wolbach's account, too, for reference to DeCourcy's attitude towards the Emancipation Proclamation.
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84028822/1863-03-12/ed-1/seq-3/
 
My question is then, why did Burnside have DeCourcey arrested over a letter that he had previously sent to General Shackleford. It doesn't look like it was offensive or ignoring orders, I'm clearly missing something here. I would be grateful if someone could point out what I am missing, I have tried to find further information on Burnsides reasoning for the arrest but I haven't had any luck. To be honest, I don't know what DeCourcey's letter was responding to, had DeCourcey been ordered to hold position or something similar.

Gen. Burnside's Army.; WHY COL. DE COURCEY WAS PLACED UNDER ARREST.

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE OHIO, KNOXVILLE, Tenn., Sept. 29, 1863.

For the purpose of relieving the character of Col. JOHN DE COURCEY from the injurious imputations which are cast upon it by certain false and calumnious reports, charging him with acts of which he was innocent, the commanding General desires to state, as an act of justice to Col. DE COURCEY, that he arrested him at Cumberland Gap solely for writing a letter to his commanding officer, Brig.-Gen. SHACKELFORD, a copy of which letter is given below.

This letter was written to Gen. SHACKELFORD at a moment which called for the most ready cooperation of every officer; instead, however, of exhibiting such a spirit, this letter is a tissue of vanity, consisting of puerile personal details, and closing with a sentence highly insubordinate in its nature, and which implies that he can perform a work to which the verbal message alluded to in his first sentence showed that he was wholly unequal.

In charity to Col. DE COURCEY, his verbal message is not inserted.

COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE.

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES FORCES, IN FRONT OF CUMBERLAND GAP, Sept. 7, 1863.

Col. de Courcey, commanding United States forces north of Gap:

COLONEL: I invested the Gap on this side this morning, and demanded of Gen. FRAZER, commanding at the Gap, an unconditional surrender of himself and forces. He replied, declining to surrender. I want to know your position. If you have not forces on the Harlan Road, you will at once occupy it, and prevent the enemy from escaping in that direction. You will communicate with me by courier as often as possible. The enemy is in a position from which he ought not to escape, and, if proper vigilance is exercised, he cannot escape. You will scout thoroughly the country on the north side of the mountain.

I am, Colonel, very respectfully,

J.W. SHACKELFORD,

Brigadier-General Commanding.

CRAWFORDS, Sept. 8 -- 9 A.M.

To Gen. Shackelford, commanding United States forces south of the Gap:

I have received your dispatch of the 7th, and I shall fully inform your guide of my position and circumstances. I do not feel that it would be prudent to do so in a written communication, which may fail into the enemy's hands.

From certain directions and instructions, which you give me in your written communication, I fear you have not been made acquainted by those who might have done so, that I am fully acquainted with all the roads and localities on both sides of the Gap; and, further, that I have been in the military profession almost continuously ever since my sixteenth year. For the above reasons I was chosen, I believe, by Gen. BURNSIDE, and appointed to this independent command, receiving from him verbal, but not detailed instructions, as I believe he trusted to my experience and local knowledge.

I hope and believe that I shall conduct operations on this side so as to enable you to enter the Gap.

I have the honor to be, Sir, your obedient servant,

JOHN DE COURCEY,

Col. Comd'g U.S. Troops north side of Gap.

For this letter Col. DE COURCEY was arrested and relieved from his command, and no officer will be allowed to remain in this army who displays such a tendency to allow his vanity and presumption to outweigh his patriotism and the public good.

By command of Major-Gen. BURNSIDE.

LEWIS RICHMOND, A.A.G.
 
Gen. Burnside's Army.; WHY COL. DE COURCEY WAS PLACED UNDER ARREST.

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE OHIO, KNOXVILLE, Tenn., Sept. 29, 1863.

For the purpose of relieving the character of Col. JOHN DE COURCEY from the injurious imputations which are cast upon it by certain false and calumnious reports, charging him with acts of which he was innocent, the commanding General desires to state, as an act of justice to Col. DE COURCEY, that he arrested him at Cumberland Gap solely for writing a letter to his commanding officer, Brig.-Gen. SHACKELFORD, a copy of which letter is given below.

This letter was written to Gen. SHACKELFORD at a moment which called for the most ready cooperation of every officer; instead, however, of exhibiting such a spirit, this letter is a tissue of vanity, consisting of puerile personal details, and closing with a sentence highly insubordinate in its nature, and which implies that he can perform a work to which the verbal message alluded to in his first sentence showed that he was wholly unequal.

In charity to Col. DE COURCEY, his verbal message is not inserted.

COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE.

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES FORCES, IN FRONT OF CUMBERLAND GAP, Sept. 7, 1863.

Col. de Courcey, commanding United States forces north of Gap:

COLONEL: I invested the Gap on this side this morning, and demanded of Gen. FRAZER, commanding at the Gap, an unconditional surrender of himself and forces. He replied, declining to surrender. I want to know your position. If you have not forces on the Harlan Road, you will at once occupy it, and prevent the enemy from escaping in that direction. You will communicate with me by courier as often as possible. The enemy is in a position from which he ought not to escape, and, if proper vigilance is exercised, he cannot escape. You will scout thoroughly the country on the north side of the mountain.

I am, Colonel, very respectfully,

J.W. SHACKELFORD,

Brigadier-General Commanding.

CRAWFORDS, Sept. 8 -- 9 A.M.

To Gen. Shackelford, commanding United States forces south of the Gap:

I have received your dispatch of the 7th, and I shall fully inform your guide of my position and circumstances. I do not feel that it would be prudent to do so in a written communication, which may fail into the enemy's hands.

From certain directions and instructions, which you give me in your written communication, I fear you have not been made acquainted by those who might have done so, that I am fully acquainted with all the roads and localities on both sides of the Gap; and, further, that I have been in the military profession almost continuously ever since my sixteenth year. For the above reasons I was chosen, I believe, by Gen. BURNSIDE, and appointed to this independent command, receiving from him verbal, but not detailed instructions, as I believe he trusted to my experience and local knowledge.

I hope and believe that I shall conduct operations on this side so as to enable you to enter the Gap.

I have the honor to be, Sir, your obedient servant,

JOHN DE COURCEY,

Col. Comd'g U.S. Troops north side of Gap.

For this letter Col. DE COURCEY was arrested and relieved from his command, and no officer will be allowed to remain in this army who displays such a tendency to allow his vanity and presumption to outweigh his patriotism and the public good.

By command of Major-Gen. BURNSIDE.

LEWIS RICHMOND, A.A.G.


Wow, thanks for that, I can see how De Courcey would have appeared to be a little up himself with a letter like that, I suspect that Shackelford was slightly miffed when he got the response from De Courcey but here is the thing, De Courceys letter wouldn't have been that unusual or out of place for a Colonel in the British army, I can think of many incidents in the British military where similar letters would and have been written. It wasn't uncommon for a British officer to write a polite letter to a superior challenging an order. I'm wondering if DeCourcey failed to adapt to the American way of doing things. If you remember my original post on the letter, I was struggling to see what was wrong, I probably couldn't see a problem because I am a Brit and that is how British society operates. Given the context of the letter, I can see how it would appear vain and personal but I really don't think that was DeCourceys intention, I believe that he was trying to assert himself using the tried and trusted method of the British Army but it clearly wasn't going to work in the US. There has long been a culture of questioning or declining orders in the British military, even Lord Nelson bent the rules sometimes, I think that is where us Brits get the term 'To turn a blind eye'.
 
Last edited:
Wow, thanks for that, I can see how De Courcey would have appeared to be a little up himself with a letter like that, I suspect that Shackelford was slightly miffed when he got the response from De Courcey but here is the thing, De Courceys letter wouldn't have been that unusual or out of place for a Colonel in the British army, I can think of many incidents in the British military where similar letters would and have been written. It wasn't uncommon for a British officer to write a polite letter to a superior challenging an order. I'm wondering if DeCourcey failed to adapt to the American way of doing things. If you remember my original post on the letter, I was struggling to see what was wrong, I probably couldn't see a problem because I am a Brit and that is how British society operates. Given the context of the letter, I can see how it would appear vain and personal but I really don't think that was DeCourceys intention, I believe that he was trying to assert himself using the tried and trusted method of the British Army but it clearly wasn't going to work in the US.
I tend to think you're right. The bottom line is he got the job done but the credit was suppose to go to someone else so that got him into hot water. A lot of egos were floating around the higher command of the Union army and DeCourcy got caught up in it.

Of course, if you haven't, get a copy of Amanda Foreman's A World on Fire. She mentions DeCourcy numerous times throughout her book. And of course like I said read Wolbach's articles on mkwe.com to get a soldiery idea of DeCourcy. Really insight full. I turned his articles into an ebook to read it better.
 
I tend to think you're right. The bottom line is he got the job done but the credit was suppose to go to someone else so that got him into hot water. A lot of egos were floating around the higher command of the Union army and DeCourcy got caught up in it.

Of course, if you haven't, get a copy of Amanda Foreman's A World on Fire. She mentions DeCourcy numerous times throughout her book. And of course like I said read Wolbach's articles on mkwe.com to get a soldiery idea of DeCourcy. Really insight full. I turned his articles into an ebook to read it better.
Thank you I will definitely take a look at Wolbach.:thumbsup:
 
I know this thread was a while ago, but it seems that the report regarding the surrender of Cumberland Gap by the defending General Frazer himself, made after the fact in November of 1864, provides a good guess at why DeCourcey was arrested. In the light of the letters exchanged between Shackelford and DeCourcey, where basically Shackelford says, "Don't forget to block the Harlan Road," and DeCourcey answers, "What, do you think I'm an idiot? I've been in active military service since I was 16 years old; and anyway I report directly to Burnside; I assure you I know these parts well and will take care of my end of things, thank you very much!" Given that exchange, the fact that DeCourcey withdrew his pickets immediately upon Frazers surrender, allowing "100" rebel soldiers to escape (down the Harlan Road?), was too much for Shackelford and Burnside.

To quote Frazer's report, "The eventual escape of about 100 men and officers was effected after the surrender. When Colonel De Courcy [sic] heard of it (the surrender) he incautiously drew in his pickets and his command which left passes unguarded, by which this force escaped in small squads along the ridge of the mountain. For this act of Colonel De Courcy's he was arrested by General Burnside."

Personally, I could empathise with Shackelford and Burnside, so Frazer's surmise seems plausible.

See: Part II - Reports (p. 614)
 
Back
Top