1st Mississippi Mounted Rifles: Mississippi's Union Battalion

MISSISSIPPI VOLUNTEERS.
1st REGIMENT MOUNTED RIFLES.

Organized at Memphis, Tenn., March, 1864. Attached to District of Memphis, Tenn.,
16th Army Corps, Dept. Tennessee, to June, 1864. 1st Brigade, Cavalry Division,
District of West Tennessee, to July, 1864. 1st Brigade, 2nd Cavalry Division, District
West Tennessee, to December, 1864. 1st Brigade, Cavalry Division, District West Tennessee,
to June, 1865.

SERVICE.-Duty in the. Defences of Memphis, Tenn., till August, 1864. Expedition from
Memphis to Grand Gulf, Miss., July 7-24. Near Bolivar July 6. Port Gibson July 14.
Grand Gulf July 16. Smith's Expedition to Oxford, Miss., August 1-31. Tallahatchie
River August 7-9. Hurricane Creek August 9. Oxford August 9 and 11. Hurricane Creek
August 13-14 and 19. At Memphis and in District of West Tennessee, till December.
Grierson's Expedition from Memphis against Mobile & Ohio Railroad December 21, 1864,
to January 5, 1865. Verona December 25, 1864. Okolona December 27. Egypt Station
December 28. Franklin and Lexington January 2, 1865. Mechanicsburg January 3. The Ponds
January 4. Moved from Vicksburg to Memphis and duty there till June, 1865. Expedition
from Memphis into Southeast Arkansas and Northeast Louisiana January 26-February 11.

Mustered out June 26, 1865.


Frederick A. Dyer "A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion" vol. 3

****************************************************************************



The following was taken from the Supplement to the Official Records:


Record of Events for First Battalion,
Mississippi (Union) Mounted Rifles,
December 1863-April 1865.


Field and Staff

Stationed at Memphis, Tennessee, January-April 1865.

Regiment

Stationed at White's Station near Memphis, Tennessee, August
1864.
Stationed at Camp Kargi near Memphis, Tennessee, December
1863-November 1864.


Company A

Stationed at Memphis, Tennessee, enrollment to June 30, 1864.
Stationed at White's Station, Tennessee, July-August 1864.
Next roll on file February 1865.
Stationed at Memphis, Tennessee, January April 1865.


Company B

Stationed at Memphis, Tennessee, enrollment to April 30, 1864.
Station not stated, May August 1864.
Stationed at Memphis, Tennessee, February 28-April [30], 1865.


Company C

Stationed at Memphis, Tennessee, June 30, 1864.
Next roll on file February 1865.

Stationed at Memphis, Tennessee, January-April 1865.
February 26-27.— Eight men of this company, with others of the
regiment, left Memphis, Tennessee on the Hernando Road,
reaching Hernando City in the morning of February 27. Pressed
east through [illegible] Cross-Roads across the Coldwater; thence
northeast near Byhalia and crossed the Coldwater again through
Olive Branch.

February 28.— Reached camp on the evening of February 28,
traveling near seventy-five miles.
March 24.— Thirteen men made scout of thirty miles.
March 26.— Fifteen men made scout of thirty miles.


Company D

Stationed at Memphis, Tennessee, enrollment to April 30, 1864.
Stationed at Memphis, Tennessee, January-April 1865.


Company E

Stationed at White's Station, Tennessee, August 31, 1864.
Stationed at Memphis, Tennessee, November 1864-April 1865.


Company F

Stationed at Memphis, Tennessee, February 28, 1865.


Company G

Stationed at Memphis, Tennessee, enrollment to April 30, 1864.
Stationed at Memphis, Tennessee, May-June 1864.

[M594-Roll #91]
 
Started reading, very interesting!!

They don't appear to be a "paper regiment" with over 400 present for duty in July 1864. That they sustained only three combat related deaths seems to have more to do with the missions they were assigned and the lack of significant opposition to those duties. Not really surprising considering the stage of the war (time and place) that they were involved in.
 
It is a fairly well known fact that the only southern state to not lend white combatants to the Union cause was South Carolina.
 
Started reading, very interesting!!

They don't appear to be a "paper regiment" with over 400 present for duty in July 1864. That they sustained only three combat related deaths seems to have more to do with the missions they were assigned and the lack of significant opposition to those duties. Not really surprising considering the stage of the war (time and place) that they were involved in.

After all, those duties have to be done by someone.
 
After all, those duties have to be done by someone.
Absolutely, these duties have to be accomplished and the troops don't get a say in what duties they are assigned. Not trying to demean these troops just pointing that certain duties, at certain times, and in certain places tend to suffer less casualties than others. No sign of this unit being a "paper regiment"
 
Absolutely, these duties have to be accomplished and the troops don't get a say in what duties they are assigned. Not trying to demean these troops just pointing that certain duties, at certain times, and in certain places tend to suffer less casualties than others. No sign of this unit being a "paper regiment"
Exactly so. And as soldiers don't get to choose where their regiment is assigned, saying that "they could have enlisted in something more active" as some (not you) might want to say is a bit much.
 
Before my Yankee friends get that tingling feeling about this group they should read a little further in the linked paper.

P. 39-40 By the time of the First Mississippi’s fourth expedition, it had around 350 enlisted men and fourteen officers in its ranks, with many having been in the battalion since earlier in the year and many new recruits added to the ranks. During its first year, the Mississippi had over 600 men sign up for duty. Also during this time 11 men had been captured, 9 were in prison, over 160 had deserted, 54 had died, 16 were discharged and 5 were still missing in action. Though the battalion had seen its share of action, it still did not have much respect from the higher command. In November of that year (1864) Colonel Winslow, commanding the 4th Iowa Cavalry, wrote, "The First Mississippi Mounted Rifles were organized here (Memphis, TN) and are yet without regular organization." (remember they were organized in March of that year, 7 months earlier). Lieutenant and Aide-de-Camp Henry E. Noyes wrote to Major E. B. Beaumont, Assistant Adjutant General, Cavalry Corps, in December of 1864, "As far as I have been able to learn the First Mississippi Mounted Rifles amounts to but little." This lack of respect by their superior officers might also explain why so few of the men were allowed to go on expeditions, which did not change when it came time to pack up and head back into Mississippi.

This looks like a failed experiment to me. The desertion rate was 25% in the first year despite being well fed, clothed and relatively near their families. The officers did not trust or respect the men and who could blame them.
 
Is that what "paper regiment" means? I had never heard the term before.
I can only guess that what CSA Today means by that term is that Southern Unionists only fought on paper and no Southern white ever drew blood on the superior fighters of the stars and bars.
Leftyhunter
 
Before my Yankee friends get that tingling feeling about this group they should read a little further in the linked paper.

P. 39-40 By the time of the First Mississippi’s fourth expedition, it had around 350 enlisted men and fourteen officers in its ranks, with many having been in the battalion since earlier in the year and many new recruits added to the ranks. During its first year, the Mississippi had over 600 men sign up for duty. Also during this time 11 men had been captured, 9 were in prison, over 160 had deserted, 54 had died, 16 were discharged and 5 were still missing in action. Though the battalion had seen its share of action, it still did not have much respect from the higher command. In November of that year (1864) Colonel Winslow, commanding the 4th Iowa Cavalry, wrote, "The First Mississippi Mounted Rifles were organized here (Memphis, TN) and are yet without regular organization." (remember they were organized in March of that year, 7 months earlier). Lieutenant and Aide-de-Camp Henry E. Noyes wrote to Major E. B. Beaumont, Assistant Adjutant General, Cavalry Corps, in December of 1864, "As far as I have been able to learn the First Mississippi Mounted Rifles amounts to but little." This lack of respect by their superior officers might also explain why so few of the men were allowed to go on expeditions, which did not change when it came time to pack up and head back into Mississippi.

This looks like a failed experiment to me. The desertion rate was 25% in the first year despite being well fed, clothed and relatively near their families. The officers did not trust or respect the men and who could blame them.
True but the men of the Ms rifles where not helping the CSA and perhaps they killed a few Confederates. I agree there where more effective Southern Unionist regiments.
Leftyhunter
 
Before my Yankee friends get that tingling feeling about this group they should read a little further in the linked paper.

What is "that tingling feeling"?

Because quite honestly I don't think anyone seriously went into this thinking "Glory Halleujah! A battalion of saints seeking only glorious martyrdom for the Union!" or some rubbish that finding out that the battalion had morale and discipline issues would tarnish.

I can dig up North Carolina (Confederate) regiments whose records aren't anything to boast of to compare the Mississippians to if I try, but I don't see the point. Some units were pretty good. Some weren't. This being one of the "not so good" doesn't mean it was all worthless.


Of course, I did get a tingling feeling of anticipating learning about a unit I knew almost nothing about, save that it existed, and I think that was largely satisfied.
 
What is "that tingling feeling"?

Because quite honestly I don't think anyone seriously went into this thinking "Glory Halleujah! A battalion of saints seeking only glorious martyrdom for the Union!" or some rubbish that finding out that the battalion had morale and discipline issues would tarnish.

I can dig up North Carolina (Confederate) regiments whose records aren't anything to boast of to compare the Mississippians to if I try, but I don't see the point. Some units were pretty good. Some weren't. This being one of the "not so good" doesn't mean it was all worthless.


Of course, I did get a tingling feeling of anticipating learning about a unit I knew almost nothing about, save that it existed, and I think that was largely satisfied.
Okay.
 
I do want to know what that "tingling feeling" is supposed to be if it wasn't what I felt about learning something new, whatever else you want to say.

You still have a few - several hundred men volunteering to fight for the Union, after subtracting deserters (and I'd really want a comparison of whatever "typical" is to see how much more extreme that is than our hypothetical average unit, but that's academic curiosity).
 
Well, I am a Yankee, by some definitions of, and "friend" could mean anyone. So I responded as someone who found post #13 to be ignoring who is jumping to conclusions about the unit in this thread, to the point I might even consider saying that it was more in the nature of a statement intentionally misrepresenting who is jumping to conclusions about the unit.
 
Back
Top