Member Review Company Aytch: Or a Side Show of the Big Show By Sam Watkins

Regarding Watkins description of the frozen men.....

"We reached Winchester on the [Feb] 6th, and went into camp, after being away a little over a month, undergoing the most terrible experience during the war. Many men were frozen to death, others frozen so badly they never recovered, and the rheumatism contracted by many was never gotten rid of. Many of the men were incapacitated for service, large numbers were barefooted, having burned their shoes while trying to warm their feet at the fires."
John Worsham of the 21st Virginia
  1. John Worsham. One of Jackson's Foot Cavalry, Neale Publishing Company, New York, 1912. p. 37.
 
Some of this issues just need a little squeezing. This is what I see in his pay records. Nov. 28, 1884
Memphis Ledger
Screenshot_20220607-232707_DuckDuckGo.jpg
 
1. Where does the idea that he was an officer come from? His service records indicate he was a private for much of the war. Granted, his service records end (along with everyone else in the 1st Tennessee) in March 64. So perhaps he was promoted at some point in 64 after the available records end, but his records never show any rank other than private. Is there evidence out there indicating a promotion at some point in 64?
If he, as claimed was one of only 7 men who served trueout the war and survived, then it make zero sense that he was only a private by the end of the war.
Unless he had some serious disciplinary issues or if he could not read and write, then he would have been promoted at some point.
Iam curious to why he was not promoted earlier...
 
I don't understand that about Mary Chesnut's diary. I think she makes it perfectly clear in her diary what she thought at the time. I've read it and CSPAN has done a show about it and her original plantation still stands. She made it clear, in my opinion, what she thought.

I have to say, I think I'm being talked over in this thread by a couple of people. I've made it perfectly clear that IF you read Philip Leigh's annotated book of Sam Watkins, he teases out the tall tales with the facts. Some of the so called lies are just Sam misremembering battle details and Philip makes that clear too with footnotes and maps - and believe me, Sam isn't the only one who 30-years-later, from the great to the small misremembered battle details.

I don't think Sam has done a HUGE disservice to Civil War History anymore than other diaries. In fact, if you take so called factual accounts from some of the officers Union or CSA, now there you can find embellishment that raged on for decades and DID cause disservice to the Civil War community because it takes a lot of counter checking against the OR and other sources to suss the facts out.
I read this book for the first time a handful of years ago, I read his disclaimer at the beginning, but otherwise had no other prior knowledge going into the book. I found myself picking apart pieces of his story as improbable at first, but learned to reframe my reading experience from analysis and internal fact checking to just consuming the book for what it is, a personalized retelling of small pieces of the war from someone who experienced it directly, no doubt without a little flourish from multiple camp tellings, retellings and embellishments to transform a real event from a good story into a great one.

I thoroughly enjoyed the book, but as I said reading it for what it was, not what I wanted it to be, or thought it was going into it. I gave Sam a lot more leeway, and it never crossed my mind that he was being anything other than earnest in his retelling. It gave me the impression of a guy around the camp at night retelling his experiences to a new recruit. I appreciated the fact that the stories and tales existed, and there is something to be gleaned from his stories, even in the face of some egregious embellishments.

Anyway, all that to say that I with you on this one, so you're clearly come through and have the agreement of at least one other reader.
 
Last edited:
If he, as claimed was one of only 7 men who served trueout the war and survived, then it make zero sense that he was only a private by the end of the war.
Unless he had some serious disciplinary issues or if he could not read and write, then he would have been promoted at some point.
Iam curious to why he was not promoted earlier...
There is nothing unusual about his remaining a private. Unlike the modern system of promotion in the military, the majority of the men in these Confederate Units in the Army of Tennessee stayed Privates throughout the War. These units from Maury County, Tenn. were made up of educated men...the sons of well to do planters. Watkins was no exception. His POW records in 1865 also state Private.
 
Last edited:
There is nothing unusual about his remaining a private. Unlike the modern system of promotion in the military, the majority of the men in these Confederate Units in the Army of Tennessee stayed Privates throughout the War. These units from Maury County, Tenn. were made up of educated men...the sons of well to do planters. Watkins was no exception.
As you say, Watkins’ status as a gentleman private was a feature of Civil War regiments. Watkins’ cohort voted for officers & sergeants yearly. Unpopular individuals could loose their position & return to the ranks. There was no avenue for a man of Watkin’s education to go to OCS, for example. The CSA Army couldn’t assign a qualified lieutenant from TN to take over a NC company. In any case, given the inordinately high attrition rate among CSA captains, majors & colonels, not getting promoted was a wise survival move.
 
Just as we must take in the bias of Watkins, there is also the bias of historians we must beware of. The current political trend to cancel and criminalize these men as a group has no doubt influenced how we view Watkins and others. I've noted a common trend to automatically distrust Southern sources with no real solid evidence to support the decision. With the lack of evidence either way they tend to go immediately to distrust, with no great desire to look into the matter in great detail. For example, Watkins info regarding Pickett's Mill sat there for over 150 years with no real historical investigation as to whether what he was saying was true. When pressed on the latter battle Historians revert to the old "you can't trust what he has to say" routine. Even when what he has to say, down to the minute details, is corroborated by literally dozens of narratives (including 2 extensive same day diary entries). Still, his info sits there as mere "smoke" and all these accounts, saying the same thing, are ignored. So, we have bias that we need to consider on all sides here. Historians need to put them aside and get back to critically looking at these accounts and determing what really is and isnt, rather than rely on feelings. It's too easy and convenient to say it's just a fireside tale or to even say he's prone to lie, and attempt to move on.
 
Another thing I researched on the diary was his account of the execution of "Rowland." By chance I was looking at microfilm of Nashville newspapers when I came upon an account of this execution. A check of his CSRs showed that Roland (spelled at least three ways) was executed by firing squad at Corinth after the Battle of Shiloh for having deserted and joined a Union regiment. Much later I found a thread here that mentions him in a book written by a Union man who wrote that there were at least two of these Tennessean deserters captured at Shiloh, but Roland was the only one made an example of. I located Roland's family on the 1860 and 1870 census enumerations, showing he had a wife and children. I don't know how much more you need to show that Watkins is entirely believable as to the incidents he records, the details being another matter. His account of Rowland d***ing the Confederacy and wanting a drink of water for he would soon be in a very hot place may be embellishments, but to me they have a ring of truth.
 
At Pickett's Mill, he details the battle which involved Ashby's Tennessee Cavalry Brigade(JT Wheeler) on right of Granbury. He correctly places their starting location at New Hope Church, even when the rest of Humes division was well to the east. He correctly notes company size of his Uncle Capt. Asa Freeman's Company F of the 1st Tennessee Cavalry(only 15 men). Only 60-65 men total in regiment. He details the wounding of his Uncle Asa Freeman which is corroborated in the 27 May, 1864 diary entry of TH Williams and narrative of Regimental commander Lt. Col. James H. Lewis. Numerous other key details also corroborated in numerous accounts. The only thing I could not prove/disprove is the weather where regional storms were happening.

 
Last edited:
If he, as claimed was one of only 7 men who served trueout the war and survived, then it make zero sense that he was only a private by the end of the war.
Unless he had some serious disciplinary issues or if he could not read and write, then he would have been promoted at some point.
Iam curious to why he was not promoted earlier...
This is not necessarily the case. My detailed roster of the 16th Tennessee shows that many men were never promoted either due to disciplinary actions or they refused promotion. Of seven men in Company D that were present at the final surrender in North Carolina, three of them were given promotions almost as if honorary for their service - knowing that they would have nothing other than a title. Many, many men went the entire war without being promoted - even when very few men were in the ranks. Especially so then in fact.
 
This is not necessarily the case. My detailed roster of the 16th Tennessee shows that many men were never promoted either due to disciplinary actions or they refused promotion. Of seven men in Company D that were present at the final surrender in North Carolina, three of them were given promotions almost as if honorary for their service - knowing that they would have nothing other than a title. Many, many men went the entire war without being promoted - even when very few men were in the ranks. Especially so then in fact.
I've read that many an educated Southerner preferred to serve as privates because they had a belief in democracy to such an extent that they did not want to put themselves above anyone else in the ranks.
 
I've read that many an educated Southerner preferred to serve as privates because they had a belief in democracy to such an extent that they did not want to put themselves above anyone else in the ranks.
Yep. You know after the first twelve months at the reorganization of the army at Tupelo in May 1862, many men that were officers and or non commissioned officers refused to accept nominations or promotions.
 
I've read that many an educated Southerner preferred to serve as privates because they had a belief in democracy to such an extent that they did not want to put themselves above anyone else in the ranks.
That pattern seems to match up fairly well with Sam Watkins.
 
As you say, Watkins’ status as a gentleman private was a feature of Civil War regiments. Watkins’ cohort voted for officers & sergeants yearly. Unpopular individuals could loose their position & return to the ranks. There was no avenue for a man of Watkin’s education to go to OCS, for example. The CSA Army couldn’t assign a qualified lieutenant from TN to take over a NC company. In any case, given the inordinately high attrition rate among CSA captains, majors & colonels, not getting promoted was a wise survival move.
Easier to fly under the radar as a private and stay out of the endless Company drama and extra duty. The skills with which Soldiers accomplish this feat of anonymity have to be witnessed to be believed.
 
I read Company Aytch around the time the Burns documentary was released, as I had not heard of him before that. I enjoyed it very much, mostly because I read it as the response to the question, "What did you do in the war Daddy?" rather than history or even a real war memoir. I think it's engaging, entertaining and well worth reading on that basis.
 
I read Company Aytch around the time the Burns documentary was released, as I had not heard of him before that. I enjoyed it very much, mostly because I read it as the response to the question, "What did you do in the war Daddy?" rather than history or even a real war memoir. I think it's engaging, entertaining and well worth reading on that basis.
My experience was nearly identical!
 
I am currently reading the annotated version by Philip Leigh who is a member of CWT. I don’t always agree with Philip’s outlook on Civil War his but he did an excellent job on this book. He corrects where Sam got his facts wrong and tells you when something is an outright lie like the 11 picket soldiers found frozen to death.

Philip also produces small maps to show where Sam was marching or corrects certain accounts of the battle that Sam misremembers.

Sam says in the introduction he is writing it for his children and family so they won’t forget.
Thanks for the encouragement. Where do I send the check? ;-)

CWT Cadet Drazion's approach to Co. Aytch is a good one: "I found myself picking apart pieces of his story as improbable at first, but learned to reframe my reading from analysis . . . to just consuming the book for what it is, a personalized retelling of small pieces of the war from someone who experienced it directly, . . . [which thereby] transform[ed] a real event from a good story into a great one."

Like Shelby Foote I don't write a book because I have all the answers. I write it because I am trying to discover them. Since my version was released nine years ago I've realized there are some tall tales I failed to identify.

Based on the respective troops deployments, for example, it's unlikely that Sam shared a bucket of honey with a Yankee picket on the eve of the Battle of Perryville. It is, however, difficult to conclude that his description of the fighting on Strarkweather Hill the next day is anything other than a first hand account. Perhaps the juxtaposition makes the horror-of-war digestible.

Unlike the bucket-of-honey tale, his story of devouring an entire bottle of sorghum on the march back to Tennessee from Perryville seems true. Judge for yourself:

Only eight miles now to Cumberland Gap . . . No rations yet.​
Well, this won't do. I am going to hunt something to eat. I turned off the road and had gone but a short distance before I came across a group of soldiers clambering over something. It was a barrel of sorghum captured from a Union man. A Confederate soldier was selling at five dollars a quart. I paid my five dollars, and by pushing I finally got my quart.​
I sat down and drank it; it was bully; it was not so good; it was not worth a cent; I was sick, and have never loved sorghum since.​
 
Last edited:
And this thread fired up again. Whew, when I start a fire, I start a fire!

Just as we must take in the bias of Watkins, there is also the bias of historians we must beware of. The current political trend to cancel and criminalize these men as a group has no doubt influenced how we view Watkins and others. I've noted a common trend to automatically distrust Southern sources with no real solid evidence to support the decision. With the lack of evidence either way they tend to go immediately to distrust, with no great desire to look into the matter in great detail. For example, Watkins info regarding Pickett's Mill sat there for over 150 years with no real historical investigation as to whether what he was saying was true. When pressed on the latter battle Historians revert to the old "you can't trust what he has to say" routine. Even when what he has to say, down to the minute details, is corroborated by literally dozens of narratives (including 2 extensive same day diary entries). Still, his info sits there as mere "smoke" and all these accounts, saying the same thing, are ignored. So, we have bias that we need to consider on all sides here. Historians need to put them aside and get back to critically looking at these accounts and determing what really is and isnt, rather than rely on feelings. It's too easy and convenient to say it's just a fireside tale or to even say he's prone to lie, and attempt to move on.
I've kind of taken some serious offense at this comment. Wasn't directed at me, but I started the thread with the book review, and your crusading for Watkins.

I've read your comments, and all the others since this started back up, and you've made some good points as well as some not as good. With me, and a great many people who criticized Sam Watkins, anti-Southern sympathies ain't got a thing to do with it. Plus, I'm extremely pro-Confederacy!:rofl: I've read at least 100 Confederate memoirs by enlisted men, most likely even more, and Sam Watkins book stinks to high Heaven. Most memoirs by enlisted men can be backed up by history books, follow a pattern based on what the writer saw when he saw it from a first-person point of view. Watkins book has too many suspicious aspects, and to me he comes across as someone who was pretending to be someone he was not and was spinning some yarns.

His work is not a grand example of the war from a Confederate soldier's point of view, its a derogatory one. It's like he's the stereotypical Southern hick telling a story, and compared to all the other Confederate memoirs I've read, more than a few unpublished rotting in local archives, its an insult. His work reminds me too much of memoirs by officers North and South trying to add glory to their well known names, except he's pretending be a hick. And the fact so many look to this probable fraud of a book as the shining example of the Southern enlisted man sickens me. He may have intended it as a grand secret gesture to the fighting man, but its insulting, and the fighting man spoke up pretty darn well on their own.

Sure, his daughter may have said she seen him weeping as he wrote, but for example, my Grandaddy swore up and down till the day he died his Mother was an angel, and as I learned from my Grandmother who was there, she was more of a cruel devil that would do anything dirty trick she could to get what she wanted. There's so many explanations for everything, but I rest my case once again, not that it'll matter. Arguing with closed doors doesn't accomplish anything. Which to be fair is a double edged sword...
 
Just telling you what evidence I have and asking others for theirs if they have evidence of his false testimony. By this evidence we advance the history. I'm not pro any side or crusading for Watkins. I'm pro truth. These men, both North and South deserve that we tell the truth. Nothing personal here at all.
 
Out of respect for Rusk County Avengers thread I will move my portion of the discussion over to my thread on Franklin: The Case Against (or For)Sam Watkins Narrative. Thank you all for your input.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top