Hornets Nest Myth ?

DSC06090.JPG


Watched an excellent documentary that claimed the told version of events at the hornets nest were just a myth created by Veterans. It said they found no evidence that backed up the given version of events that day.
When @mkyzzzrdet and I visited Shiloh last June we took a walk with a group led by a veteran NPS Ranger who tended to strongly suggest that very thing. It's quite obvious that the fabled Sunken Road isn't really sunken at all, and according to him it never really was! Instead, there's a ravine just within the wood line on the north (Yankee) side of the road that apparently provided a sort of natural trench in at least a portion of the Union line there. He also pointed out that the equally fabled Hornet's Nest was actually the wooded part of that sector shown below and NOT as would be expected the open field directly in front of the Union position shown above. From reading recent histories like that by Larry Daniels the number of separate Confederate assaults - as many as eleven by some accounts - is likely highly exaggerated. The concentration known as Ruggles' Batteries more likely helped to drive the Federals away while they were already beginning to withdraw due more to running out of ammunition than anything else. And most of the Union troops there, or at least those captured were led by W.H.L. Wallace who was mortally wounded, rather than by Benjamin Prentiss who survived although being captured. So it seems there are quite a few myths or at least exaggerations and misconceptions regarding that portion of the battle and battlefield of April 6.

DSC06091.JPG
 
In the fire department where I worked, there was an often repeated phrase when referring to "Old timers" that when they talked, in their day the smoke was thicker, the fires were hotter and the men were manlier. This I believe can also be applied to old soldiers when they were referring to their exploits. Shiloh is probably my "home field" and I had the privilege/challenge of listening to a West Point Engineer and a Park Ranger discussing the "Hornet's Nest" and I came away with the same opinion that they both had, that while a severe struggle had taken place here, the facts didn't support the myth. And while discussing Shiloh "Myths", there is compelling evidence that the "Bloody Pond" wasn't there at the time of the battle as no first hand descriptions until much later mention it before/during/ or immediately after the battle.
 
Last edited:
The link below may be of interest to you regarding the Hornet's Nest. One must realize that David Reed, the first historian of Shiloh National Park was a veteran of the Battle of Shiloh. Specifically, Reed was a member of the 12th Iowa Infantry which fought along the so called "Sunken Road" and was captured at the end of the 1st day's battle with Prentiss and 2,000 plus other Federals.
Reed was able to caress the narrative of the battle especially the role played by the 12th Iowa in the "Hornet's Nest" by enlarging on the number of cannons in General Ruggle's artillery line facing the Union position across Duncan Field.
The myth of the Hornet's Nest was more of a figment in Reed's mind than an actual place
Regards
David
 
In the fire department where I worked, there was an often repeated phrase when referring to "Old timers" that when they talked, in their day the smoke was thicker, the fires were hotter and the men were manlier. This I believe can also be applied to old soldiers when they were referring to their exploits. Shiloh is probably my "home field" and I had the privilege/challenge of listening to a West Point Engineer and a Park Ranger discussing the "Hornet's Nest" and I came away with the same opinion that they both had, that while a severe struggle had taken place here, the facts didn't support the myth. And while discussing Shiloh "Myths", there is compelling evidence that the "Bloody Pond" wasn't there at the time of the battle as no first hand descriptions until much later mention it before/during/ or immediately after the battle.

"Bloody Pond" was probably more like a "Bloody Puddle" at the time of the battle and grew as time went on with the stories growing more dramatic the more they were told.

Ryan
 
I have the 1863 Iowa Adgents Report in one report, it tells of the bullets sounding like hornets, didn't call it a nest though.
 
I walked that road the first time in 1960 as a child with my Grandfather and it really wasn't sunken, I did find a Minnie washed out from the bank of the road which started a Very LONG journey that I still enjoy. The stories my Grandfather told never seemed to match what I read later. Go Figure.
 
I walked that road the first time in 1960 as a child with my Grandfather and it really wasn't sunken, I did find a Minnie washed out from the bank of the road which started a Very LONG journey that I still enjoy. The stories my Grandfather told never seemed to match what I read later. Go Figure.
That was the first battlefield that my grandfather took me to also and that members of my grandmother's family had fought there. Fond memories indeed and as it has turned out, his ancestors had fought there also with Forrest' s cavalry.
 
Last edited:
DSC06134.JPG

… And while discussing Shiloh "Myths", there is compelling evidence that the "Bloody Pond" wasn't there at the time of the battle as no first hand descriptions until much later mention it before/during/ or immediately after the battle.
"Bloody Pond" was probably more like a "Bloody Puddle" at the time of the battle and grew as time went on with the stories growing more dramatic the more they were told.

Ryan
Last June during our two-day visit to Shiloh @mkyzzzrdet and I were late in the day touring the Peach Orchard area and again ran into the ranger who had given the tour of the Sunken Road, accompanied by a friend of his who was a local, coming from just locking up the so-called War Cabin. They shared many interesting stories for around half an hour, one of which concerned Bloody Pond - it seems Bloody Pond isn't a natural feature at all, but a FAKE! By around the turn-of-the-century when the park was created it had completely dried up, so was excavated and given a cement bottom it may still retain. Significantly, I don't believe when the work was being done there were any battlefield debris-type relics found, negating or at least lessening the myths about it being full of horse and human bodies, etc. Apparently features like Bloody pond and also Water Oaks Pond were purely seasonal and not always present; in fact, I think I remember during one visit I made during a drouth that Water Oaks Pond had again dried up. Other damaging "beautification" was done during the creation of the park at Rhea Springs which was drained and turned from a swamp into the beautiful rivulet beside the picnic ground you see today.

DSC06135.JPG
 
Last edited:
DSC06120.JPG


Is it true that Grant blamed Prentiss for the surrender?
Grant had a dislike for Prentiss that dated from early in his wartime career in 1861 when soon after both were promoted from regimental colonels to brigadier generals they were in conflict over a command in Missouri. Although Prentiss had served in the Mexican War it had been in an Illinois Volunteer regiment and not the Regular Army; he was basically a political appointee and not a professional soldier, so not exactly of the same status as Grant and other West Pointers who were considered to have seniority over them when ranks and dates of appointment were the same. Grant was probably relieved to get rid of him, though he still might've blamed him at least in part for the surrender.
 
Is it true that Grant blamed Prentiss for the surrender?
Grant's dislike of Prentiss certainly increased after the Battle of Shiloh, when Prentiss shared his version of how his leadership saved the day for the Federals. Prentiss was not encumbered by the truth or facts in his promotional tour of promoting his role as the "Hero" who saved the day!
The fact that Colonel Everett Peabody, the man who detected the advancing rebels early that morning was killed and W.H.L. Wallace and his division which provided the bulk of the manpower fighting in the Sunken Road was mortally wounded allowed Prentiss to run unfettered by the truth. Grant knew the truth and had no respect of a man who climbed on the bodies of others to inflate his role and seek personal fame.
If you wish to read and study a true feud between Grant and another, read about the career of General John Alexander McClernand a true charlatan! This man, like Ben Butler, was apolitical general who had to mollycoddled to keep the Democrats happy and cooperative for implementation of Lincoln's plans.
Regards
David
 
Last edited:
DSC06059.JPG


I'll also add that according to more recent "revisionist" interpretations, the area above known as The Crossroads (of the Savannah-Purdy and Corinth-Pittsburg Landing Roads) and site of the Illinois monument shown, was likely more important overall to the action of the first day than the Hornet's Nest/Sunken Road. It was here just north of Shiloh Church and south of Water Oaks Pond that units of both Sherman's and McClernand's divisions fought for at least two hours from around 10am-noon, holding up the advance of the entire Confederate left wing.
 
1-the-battle-of-shiloh-henry-alexander-ogden.jpg


Grant's dislike of Prentiss certainly increased after the Battle of Shiloh, when Prentiss shared his version of how his leadership saved the day for the Federals. Prentiss was not encumbered by the truth or facts in his promotional tour of presenting his role as the "Hero" who saved the day!

Just how well Prentiss succeeded can be seen in the well-known Thulstrup painting of the Hornet's Nest above, with Our Hero at right directing the defense!
 
Soldiers telling tales is as old as the 1st battle. Where Prentiss crossed the line, in my opinion, was when he ; a) ignored Peabody---other than mentioning he commanded a brigade---taking the credit Peabody deserved for ordering his men to probe and meet the Confederates in Rhea field thus allowing more warning for the Federals; b) downplaying the contribution made by W.H.L Wallace and his division (about 2/3 of the troops) in holding the Union line till after 5pm when Prentiss surrendered what little of his division was left and Wallace's men.
I believe this matter is and was a case of Stolen Honor from 2 very brave and patriotic men and taken by in a dastard manner by Prentiss
Regards
David
 
Soldiers telling tales is as old as the 1st battle. Where Prentiss crossed the line, in my opinion, was when he ; a) ignored Peabody---other than mentioning he commanded a brigade---taking the credit Peabody deserved for ordering his men to probe and meet the Confederates in Rhea field thus allowing more warning for the Federals; b) downplaying the contribution made by W.H.L Wallace and his division (about 2/3 of the troops) in holding the Union line till after 5pm when Prentiss surrendered what little of his division was left and Wallace's men.
I believe this matter is and was a case of Stolen Honor from 2 very brave and patriotic men and taken by in a dastard manner by Prentiss
Regards
David

I agree. Prentiss benefitted from the fact that he survived and Wallace and Peabody did not. He got to tell his story and the others did not.

Ryan
 
Back
Top