Hello… help with 5th Corporal?

[LorrieJ]

Hello, I'm new here and to searching my family to Civil War.. just found a relative who was a 5th Corp. Could somebody possibly tell me what that means? Thanks, Lorrie

 

[Cumpston1862]

During the Civil War infantry units were organized primarily into regiments. As an example the 13th Iowa Volunteer Infantry Regiment meant it was the 13th regiment of Iowa volunteers mustered in as infantry during the war from the state of Iowa. A Civil War regiment was made up of 10 companies labeled A-M. Each company had approximately 100 to 120 men at the start. By the middle of the war, 1863, a company may number 35-50 men and by 1865 some numbered barely 20 men. This loss in strength was of course from battle and sickness.

Getting to your question. Each company had a Captain, a 1st Lieutenant and a 2nd Lieutenant. These three men were the commissioned officers of the company. Than there were the NCOs or non commissioned officers. These would have been your sergeants and corporals. The significance of a 1st sergeant vs say a 4th sergeant was the hiearchy of command. What this means is if all the officers were killed or wounded in battle the 1st sergeant than took command of the company than a 2nd sergeant, than 3rd so on and so forth. The corporals were the same way. There would have been 8 corporals in a company. 1st through 8th with the official rank of 1st corporal, 2nd corporal, 3rd corporal again so on and so forth. And again the need for this was who ranked when necessary. Because as mentioned a 1st corporal was a higher rank than a 5th corporal. The NCOs also had specific places that they were positioned in while marching/fighting. So you can look at a drill manual and know exactly where your 5th corporal ancestor would have been during a battle or march. Also as I recall sometime in late 1863 or early 1864 the Union Army reorganized and did away with the ranks of 5th through 8th corporal. They did this because the attrition of men in the units as previously mentioned made it unnecessary for a company of say 35 men to have 8 corporals.

Knowing that your ancestor was an NCO also tells us some general things about him. NCOs were responsible for a certain amount of paperwork so he was probably able to read and write. Also he was given the rank because he could command or handle men effectively to train and discipline.

A helpful previous link from this forum.

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/corporal-rank.23357/

Another useful link.

http://www.angelfire.com/wv/wasec5/formations.html

 

[thomas aagaard]

Unlike the sergeants the Corporals was ranked by height and not by seniority. So the 1st corporal was not a higer rank than the 5th. He was simply physical higher.


Don't use the information on the the angelfire page... some of it is not correct.

 

[ErnieMac]

The attached link is from the Civil War Trust and shows how the Civil War armies were organized. Your relative was in the Fifth Corps (Note the word Corps is singular) of the Army of the Potomac. There was no Fifth Corps in any other Union army. The key to gaining some understanding your relative's Civil War experience would be to know his regiment and, if possible, which company in that regiment.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/army-organization/

 

[CMWinkler]

Welcome.

 

[thomas aagaard]

pretty sure she is talking about 5th corporal... not 5th corps

 

[MRB1863]

Hello and welcome from 35 miles north of Gettysburg! Would you care to share more regarding your Civil War relative?

 

[Cumpston1862]

The rank of corporal was a bit of a slippery slope. Corporals were put into line by height yes but in the color guard there is language that implies their assignment was by "ranking corporals". Of course since the OP has not yet clarified or may not know what company their ancestor was in we are shooting in the dark.

From the post cited by me above and taken from: INFANTRY TACTICS TITLE I ARTICLE I,
FORMATION OF THE INFANTRY IN ORDER OF BATTLE supplied by Mr. M E Wolf.

In regards to the Color Guard (aka the company that carries the flags.)

"The front rank will be composed of a sergeant, to be selected by the colonel, who will be called, for the time, color-bearer , with the two ranking corporals, respectively on his right and left; the rear rank will be composed of the three corporals next in rank; and the three remaining corporals will be posted in the rear, and on the line of file closers. The left guide of the color-company, when these three last named corporals are in the rank of file closers, will be immediately on their left."

This passage does not specifically say these "ranking corporals" are 1st or 2nd corporals per se but that is my interpretation. The argument could be made that rank meant height but why not say so.

Also taken from Mr. M E Wolf's post but from "Hardee's Rifle & Infantry Tactics- School of the Soldier"

The formation of a regiment is in two ranks; and each company will be formed into two ranks in the following order: the corporals will be posted in the front rank, and on the right and left of platoons, according to height; the tallest corporal and the tallest man will form the first file, the next tallest man will form the second file. and so on to the the last file which will be composed of the shortest corporal and the shortest man.

The information supplied in the manuals depending on which was used could be confusing to say the least.

 

[Cumpston1862]

Unlike the sergeants the Corporals was ranked by height and not by seniority. So the 1st corporal was not a higer rank than the 5th. He was simply physical higher.


Don't use the information on the the angelfire page... some of it is not correct.

If there is some misinformation on the angelfire link I provided could you please give some clarifications.

 

[Seduzal]

Welcome to CWT from the Smoky Mountain side of North Carolina.