A question on cavalry firing carbines from horseback.

I think the problem here in the interpretation of the history is that there are elements of this at least (like the Union government being unwilling to issue Spencers or to make large purchases of them) which do not concord with the actual figures for purchases and issuances of the Spencer rifles. In particular, in March it was literally impossible for the Union government to issue Spencers because they had all already been issued - they had none and Spencer's factory had not made further deliveries.
This element of the story is one which has been included because it "makes a good story" for the government to be conservative and hidebound.

That Wilder made the contract I do not dispute; that he discussed it with his soldiers and they were willing to agree to reimburse Wilder for the weapons I also do not dispute. What I do however dispute are these points:
- that the Union government had Spencers but was unwilling to issue them, rather than being unable because they did not have any Spencers.
- that the contract was actually put into force (i.e. that Wilder was the one who paid for the Spencers) instead of the weapons being issued by the government and the contract being effectively put into abeyance.
Dispute away all you like, the historical record is unambiguous on this point. Here on my desk is Tullahoma: The Forgotten Camaign pages 25-35, a newly published account of the creation of the Lightening Brigade for you to dispute. One of the authors, Eric Wittenberg, is a regular contributor to this forum, no doubt he would appreciate hearing about your doubts concerning the validity of his scholarship, as well.
 
Last edited:
Dispute away all you like, the historical record is unambiguous on this point.
It is?

Would you be so kind as to explain why (in support of my second point) the article on Civil War Profiles which you yourself cited earlier in this thread continues:


Although the War Department had started purchasing Spencer rifles on a limited basis as early as 1861, the Ordnance Bureau was not in favor of purchasing the weapon on a mass scale. Subsequently, flow of the rifle through government channels was slow. Frustrated by the red tape, but still determined to outfit his unit with the repeater, Wilder negotiated a private contract with Spencer for 1,400 rifles at a cost of $35.00 a piece.

The assertive Wilder then went directly to his men, convinced them of the weapon’s superiority, and persuaded them to purchase the rifle on their own – a substantial commitment as the $35.00 price was roughly equal to three months pay for an enlisted man. As initial payment for the order, Wilder secured a personal loan through a hometown bank in Greensburg, Indiana. Fortunately for Wilder and his men, the Federal government ultimately approved the order before any funds changed hands.


I have included in italics the bit which you did not see fit to include in your screenshot of the article. As you can see, in particular in the clause "before any funds changed hands", your own source supports my second point - Wilder made the contract, but it was not actually the means by which his men acquired the weapons.
I must say, I was surprised to discover that your own source was so clear on this matter; I was rather expecting you wouldn't continue holding a view so effectively disproven by the very source you cited to prove it.

As to my first point, about the inability of the Union to issue Spencers to anyone in March, I am afraid that on this matter I must point to Executive Document 99 of the 40th Congress, Second Session, which contains the information on when the Union government obtained deliveries of each of the firearm varieties which they acquired over the course of the war. It is this document from which I obtain the information about when the Spencer deliveries arrived.
 
It is?

Would you be so kind as to explain why (in support of my second point) the article on Civil War Profiles which you yourself cited earlier in this thread continues:





I have included in italics the bit which you did not see fit to include in your screenshot of the article. As you can see, in particular in the clause "before any funds changed hands", your own source supports my second point - Wilder made the contract, but it was not actually the means by which his men acquired the weapons.
I must say, I was surprised to discover that your own source was so clear on this matter; I was rather expecting you wouldn't continue holding a view so effectively disproven by the very source you cited to prove it.

As to my first point, about the inability of the Union to issue Spencers to anyone in March, I am afraid that on this matter I must point to Executive Document 99 of the 40th Congress, Second Session, which contains the information on when the Union government obtained deliveries of each of the firearm varieties which they acquired over the course of the war. It is this document from which I obtain the information about when the Spencer deliveries arrived.
As I have repeated ad nauseam, the historical record is there for all to read. I do not dispute a singe word of it.
 
Wilder’s men owned their own Spencers, I have never seen a reference to worn out rifles being replaced. I have seen several Spencer’s that were brought home after the war.

It was normal for government arms to be surplused after the war. Many were sold to soldiers, who upon discharge were offered their weapon for purchase. Up until that point the weapon remained an accountable part of USG property.

This practice killed the Spencer Rifle Company. The US government was flooding the market with second hand Spencers for very low prices, and they still couldn't get rid of them. The company went bankrupt in 1869. The US Government got rid of the last of their surplus Spencers by selling them to France in 1870.
 
Once again, these aren't my sources, it is the historic record that says exactly what it says. It has nothing to do with me personally in any way.
Right. So you agree that the Spencers were government issue, because that is what the source says - the historical record (or, rather, specifically the article you pointed to) says that the Spencers were issued by the government before Wilder or his men had to pay anything.
 
Right. So you agree that the Spencers were government issue, because that is what the source says - the historical record (or, rather, specifically the article you pointed to) says that the Spencers were issued by the government before Wilder or his men had to pay anything.
You just gotta have the last word...
 
You just gotta have the last word...
While I could make a comment about motes and beams, it seems to me that - given your objection when I stated that I disputed the contract was put into force, something which is supported by your own source - the correct approach here would be some form of apology.
People make mistakes; I don't mind that, of course, because everyone is fallible (myself included). To ridicule someone for questioning you when the source you use to bolster your argument actually supports the interpretation that your statement was incorrect, though, is not in keeping with what should be best practices in historical discussion.

You repeatedly enjoined me to "read up" on the Lightning Brigade; perhaps you should spend a little more of the time in doing so instead reading the article which you cited, or perhaps in engaging with the other arguments I provided which indicated that the commonly told story (of poor soldiers forced to buy themselves weapons because the mean backwards government was holding onto them without good reason) was not wholly in accord with the facts.
 
Seems like the hit rate for all arms was pretty dismal. Sometimes it seems a wonder anyone could have died, except that so much lead was thrown something had to hit some time.


S of Sharpsburg

"I was lying on my back... watching the shells explode and speculating as to how long I could hold up my finger before it would be shot off, for the very air seemed full of bullets, when the order to get up was given, I turned over quickly to look at Col. Kimball, who had given the order, thinking he had suddenly become insane."

Lt. Matthew Graham
Burnside's advance at 3 p.m.

[But they got up, went forward, and were mowed down.]

quoted by James M. McPherson in
Antietam: the Battle that Changed the Course of the Civil War
2002 Oxford U. Press p.126
 
While I could make a comment about motes and beams, it seems to me that - given your objection when I stated that I disputed the contract was put into force, something which is supported by your own source - the correct approach here would be some form of apology.
People make mistakes; I don't mind that, of course, because everyone is fallible (myself included). To ridicule someone for questioning you when the source you use to bolster your argument actually supports the interpretation that your statement was incorrect, though, is not in keeping with what should be best practices in historical discussion.

You repeatedly enjoined me to "read up" on the Lightning Brigade; perhaps you should spend a little more of the time in doing so instead reading the article which you cited, or perhaps in engaging with the other arguments I provided which indicated that the commonly told story (of poor soldiers forced to buy themselves weapons because the mean backwards government was holding onto them without good reason) was not wholly in accord with the facts.
What on earth are you talking about? This is in no way my story or something I made up. The off the books purchase of Wilder's Spencers is fully documented. What Wilder did to finance the purchase, why his men voted to purchase the Spencers & Rosecrans' support of the highly irregular proceedings doesn't have a dang thing to do with me. It is just what happened.

In the world where I live, pointing out that someone needs to read up on a subject is not an insult. It is a piece of friendly advice. Be humble, be teachable is how we learn. Ignorance is a wonderful thing, it is one of the few human conditions we can actually do something about. A couple of days ago, I learned something about Wilder's creation of his brigade from Eric Wittenberg's book that I did not know. Do as I do, read up & learn!
 
Last edited:
What on earth are you talking about? This is in no way my story or something I made up. The off the books purchase of Wilder's Spencers is fully documented. What Wilder did to finance the purchase, why his men voted to purchase the Spencers & Rosecrans' support of the highly irregular proceedings doesn't have a dang thing to do with me. It is just what happened.
Yes, but you then go on to assume that the purchase actually happened, rather than the government obviating the need for it.

I can point you to sources that you yourself posted, to the effect that - while Wilder did make efforts to gain access to Spencers outside the normal system - the Spencers were then provided by the government and so he and his men didn't actually have to pay for them at the time.

This is an important distinction, as it's the difference between making an offer on a house and having it accepted (which I did back in March) and actually going ahead with the purchase before outside events intervene (and I remain sadly houseless). What you are doing is the equivalent of arguing that I must now have a house because I had an offer accepted.
 
Yes, but you then go on to assume that the purchase actually happened, rather than the government obviating the need for it.

I can point you to sources that you yourself posted, to the effect that - while Wilder did make efforts to gain access to Spencers outside the normal system - the Spencers were then provided by the government and so he and his men didn't actually have to pay for them at the time.

This is an important distinction, as it's the difference between making an offer on a house and having it accepted (which I did back in March) and actually going ahead with the purchase before outside events intervene (and I remain sadly houseless). What you are doing is the equivalent of arguing that I must now have a house because I had an offer accepted.
This might be interesting if it had anything to do with discussing the Lightening Brigade at Hoover's gap or during the the Tullahoma Campaign, which I am knee deep in these days. As it is, trying to put words into my mouth & carrying on as if I have anything to do or say about this book keeping thing you have fixed on is a bit much, really. Way back at the beginning of this, I referred to the obvious fact that the gov't actually paid for the Spencers. Had I wanted to start a thread on the ins & outs of U.S. Ordinance Bureau purchasing practices, I would have done so... but don't hold your breath.
 
Way back at the beginning of this, I referred to the obvious fact that the gov't actually paid for the Spencers.

Well, if so you've hardly been consistent:

Wilder’s men owned their own Spencers,
The initial Spencers were the private property of the individual members of the Lightening Brigade.
What on earth are you talking about? The personal purchase of Spencers by Wilder's men & the reasons they were forced to do that is a fully documented fact.

If what you meant by these was that the US Government provided the Spencers and Wilder's men purchased them from the government, as far as I can tell there is no evidence to support the fact the purchase took place then instead of later; if what you meant by that is that Wilder's men purchased the Spencers and the US Government then reimbursed them but did not retake ownership of the Spencers, then you're arguing that the US government effectively provided them with the weapons for free.

If what you mean by that is that the US Government issued the Spencers according to the normal system of issuing weapons (i.e. the weapons remained government property until purchased individually by members of Wilder's brigade at a later date) then it's not been phrased very well.


What the source you quoted earlier indicates is that the US Government issued the spencers in the normal way (i.e. the weapons were issued to the Lightning Brigade without their having to pay for them and without the weapons becoming their personal property), albeit after Wilder had made his enthusiasm for the weapon very clear.
 
Back
Top