"I always shot at Privates"

[John Olexa]

" I always shot at Privates. It was they that did the shooting and killing and if I could kill or wound a private, why, my chances were so much the better. I've always looked on officers as harmless personages"
- Sam Watkins Confederate soldier
From Ken Burns Civil war documentary.

Is there any merit to this? Make sense? Or is he just blowing smoke?

 

[leftyhunter]

" I always shot at Privates. It was they that did the shooting and killing and if I could kill or wound a private, why, my chances were so much the better. I've always looked on officers as harmless personages"
- Sam Watkins Confederate soldier
From Ken Burns Civil war documentary.

Is there any merit to this? Make sense? Or is he just blowing smoke?

It is impossible to prove or disprove since all of San Watkins comrades are not with us anymore. Certainly many soldiers in particular snipers on both sides felt differently.
Leftyhunter

 

[amweiner]

It's a perspective, as valid as any others from a soldier. Some believed in picking off officers first. Everyone had to get through the fighting in their own way, and this could have helped Watkins keep his sanity during trying times.

Just a thought,
Adam

 

[James N.]

It's a perspective, as valid as any others from a soldier. Some believed in picking off officers first. Everyone had to get through the fighting in their own way, and this could have helped Watkins keep his sanity during trying times.

Just a thought,
Adam

Keep in mind, too, that there was often little in the way of formal target practice and instruction concentrated on firing by volley and by file wherein the purpose was to lay down a volume of fire at an opposing line-of-battle rather than picking out individual targets. That made it more impersonal to the average recruit which could have helped salve any guilt that may have occurred at first. As the war continued, however, sharpshooting battalions were created by enterprising brigade and division commanders like Pat Cleburne and any reservations about killing individuals likely vanished. when Stonewall Jackson heard men shouting not to shoot a particularly brave Federal officer at the Battle of Second Manassas he supposedly replied something like, "Shoot them all - I don't want them to be brave!"

 

[AUG]

I think in the midst of battle, with all the black powder smoke obscuring the field and often times fighting over heavily wooded terrain as well, it was probably not always so easy to distinguish between officers and privates. I've read accounts of soldiers just blindly firing away into the smoke or aiming at muzzle flashes without being able to see much of their foe at all. Though I have also read a number of accounts of soldiers taking deliberate aim at individuals along the firing line as well. Of course after a battle had being going on for some time the black powder smoke builds up; obviously, first contact between two lines of battle would allow for either side to see each other more clearly.

However, the above could also be applied to skirmishing and sharpshooting. Skirmishing was an entirely different art in and of itself, which often called for a much more personal manner of fighting than in line of battle.

 

[East Tennessee Roots]

" I always shot at Privates. It was they that did the shooting and killing and if I could kill or wound a private, why, my chances were so much the better. I've always looked on officers as harmless personages"
- Sam Watkins Confederate soldier
From Ken Burns Civil war documentary.

Is there any merit to this? Make sense? Or is he just blowing smoke?

I always took it as his disdain for officers. In his mind, they were so useless, no use in shooting at them. He believed it a good policy to shoot at those that were shooting at him.

 

[Tom Elmore]

Soldiers often directed fire at conspicuous objects in their line of sight, such as enemy colors, an officer who stood out on horseback, or a soldier who may have been wearing unusual apparel. Anything white was particularly noticeable against a darker background, like a horse or a hat. During the Confederate invasion of Pennsylvania in 1863, one soldier in the ranks who had picked up a civilian straw hat along the march decided while advancing into battle to toss the hat aside rather than risk being singled out. Another Confederate on the same field was shot dead while wearing a civilian stovepipe hat.

 

[Cavalry Charger]

I think in the midst of battle, with all the black powder smoke obscuring the field and often times fighting over heavily wooded terrain as well, it was probably not always so easy to distinguish between officers and privates. I've read accounts of soldiers just blindly firing away into the smoke or aiming at muzzle flashes without being able to see much of their foe at all. Though I have also read a number of accounts of soldiers taking deliberate aim at individuals along the firing line as well. Of course after a battle had being going on for some time the black powder smoke builds up; obviously, first contact between two lines of battle would allow for either side to see each other more clearly.

However, the above could also be applied to skirmishing and sharpshooting. Skirmishing was an entirely different art in and of itself, which often called for a much more personal manner of fighting than in line of battle.

Could you tell us a little bit more about your understanding of skirmishing? It seems the Cavalry were often involved in this type of action, as well as pickets.

 

[Scotsman]

" I always shot at Privates. It was they that did the shooting and killing and if I could kill or wound a private, why, my chances were so much the better. I've always looked on officers as harmless personages"
- Sam Watkins Confederate soldier
From Ken Burns Civil war documentary.

Is there any merit to this? Make sense? Or is he just blowing smoke?

I remember reading this comment by Watkins years ago and thought then (and still think now) that it was rather foolish. Officers may have posed less of a personal threat to Watkins, but they were usually integral to the cohesion of the unit opposing him.

Modern militaries better understand strategic and tactical targeting. For instance, special forces soldiers and snipers try to do the most harm to the enemy with the fewest number of resources, often by eliminating high value targets--ie. officers. A bullet in an enemy commanding officer will more likely disrupt your opponent's fighting effectiveness than the death or wounding of a single private. There are countless examples of Civil War regiments failing to execute a key maneuver or charge due to confusion after the death or wounding of an officer.

Or, consider the example of George Washington's close call during the Revolutionary War (a different conflict but a similar situation). British sharpshooter Patrick Ferguson reportedly had Washington in his rifle sights at Brandywine Creek in 1777, but decided against shooting and intentionally let Washington escape. Had he taken the shot, we can only image how the Revolutionary War and the founding of the United States would have differed.

I understand Watkins's argument at the ground level -- he was more worried about the man actually shooting at him than what the entire enemy regiment was doing. But, his categorizing officers as harmless observers rather than targets of opportunity that could turn the tide of a battle reflects a limited view of the war around him.

 

[cash]

" I always shot at Privates. It was they that did the shooting and killing and if I could kill or wound a private, why, my chances were so much the better. I've always looked on officers as harmless personages"
- Sam Watkins Confederate soldier
From Ken Burns Civil war documentary.

Is there any merit to this? Make sense? Or is he just blowing smoke?

I don't know why he would make that part up, but if it's true it means he wasn't a very good soldier, since killing the commissioned officers and the NCOs deprived the other side of leadership and direction, making it much easier to defeat them. In many cases the loss of a single popular officer could demoralize an entire unit.

 

[John Olexa]

I don't know why he would make that part up, but if it's true it means he wasn't a very good soldier, since killing the commissioned officers and the NCOs deprived the other side of leadership and direction, making it much easier to defeat them. In many cases the loss of a single popular officer could demoralize an entire unit.

Sounds like he was just looking out for himself "If I could kill or wound a private, why, my chances were so much the better" of not being shot

< I've fallen off my horse before, but never flipped. lol

 

[AUG]

Could you tell us a little bit more about your understanding of skirmishing? It seems the Cavalry were often involved in this type of action, as well as pickets.

Usually a company or two, sometimes an entire regiment, deployed in open order, with each man generally spaced five paces apart (though grouped in fours), fighting from behind cover and shooting from any position they found comfortable. That's what a skirmish line looked like. The purpose could be to screen the front or flanks, scout out the advance, act as a rear guard in a retreat, harass the enemy lines, counter enemy skirmishers, or drive off artillery batteries. In the case of infantry, they were usually several hundred yards, more or less, in advance of the main line of battle.

Cavalry often fought dismounted as skirmishers, and in doing so usually every fifth man was detailed to hold the horses in the rear.

Sharpshooter units in the ACW were essentially "professional skirmishers", as some here have referred to them as. They were the designated skirmishers for their brigade or division, and usually received extra training in skirmish drill. Not always but in many cases they consisting of picked men, not only for their shooting abilities but also for their personal bravery or physical strength so they could be quick and agile on the skirmish line. They were often designated pickets as well.

A couple accounts of what skirmishing was like:

"There is nothing in this world that is more exciting, more nerve stirring to a soldier, than to participate in a battle line of skirmishers, when you have a fair field and open fight. There it takes nerve and pluck, however, it is allowed each skirmisher to take whatever protection he can in the way of tree or stump. Then on the advance you do not know when to expect an enemy to spring from behind a tree, stump, or bush, take aim and fire. It resembles somewhat the order of Indian warfare, for on a skirmish line 'all is fair in war.'"
- D. Augustus Dickert, History of Kershaw's Brigade, pp. 421-22.

"Skirmishing, as it became reduced to a science, depended on two general rules: every man must keep concealed as much as possible behind trees, logs, fences, buildings, or what not, and each party must run upon the approach of its opponent with anything like determination. If a skirmisher should show himself unnecessarily he stood a great chance of getting hit, and if he waited until the enemy came within forty or fifty yards, it was exceedingly dangerous either getting away or staying. The skirmish line was conducted on principles that looked to personal safety in a great degree, and was the favorite position of the experienced soldier. If however the holding of the position was essential, which was seldom the case, the men knew it intuitively, and the skirmish line required a battle line to drive it."
- Aldace F. Walker, The Vermont Brigade in the Shenandoah Valley, pp. 56-7.

 

[Cavalry Charger]

Usually a company or two, sometimes an entire regiment, deployed in open order, with each man generally spaced five paces apart (though grouped in fours), fighting from behind cover and shooting from any position they found comfortable. That's what a skirmish line looked like. The purpose could be to screen the front or flanks, scout out the advance, act as a rear guard in a retreat, harass the enemy lines, counter enemy skirmishers, or drive off artillery batteries. In the case of infantry, they were usually several hundred yards, more or less, in advance of the main line of battle.

Cavalry often fought dismounted as skirmishers, and in doing so usually every fifth man was detailed to hold the horses in the rear.

Sharpshooter units in the ACW were essentially "professional skirmishers", as some here have referred to them as. They were the designated skirmishers for their brigade or division, and usually received extra training in skirmish drill. Not always but in many cases they consisting of picked men, not only for their shooting abilities but also for their personal bravery or physical strength so they could be quick and agile on the skirmish line. They were often designated pickets as well.

A couple accounts of what skirmishing was like:

"There is nothing in this world that is more exciting, more nerve stirring to a soldier, than to participate in a battle line of skirmishers, when you have a fair field and open fight. There it takes nerve and pluck, however, it is allowed each skirmisher to take whatever protection he can in the way of tree or stump. Then on the advance you do not know when to expect an enemy to spring from behind a tree, stump, or bush, take aim and fire. It resembles somewhat the order of Indian warfare, for on a skirmish line 'all is fair in war.'"
- D. Augustus Dickert, History of Kershaw's Brigade, pp. 421-22.

"Skirmishing, as it became reduced to a science, depended on two general rules: every man must keep concealed as much as possible behind trees, logs, fences, buildings, or what not, and each party must run upon the approach of its opponent with anything like determination. If a skirmisher should show himself unnecessarily he stood a great chance of getting hit, and if he waited until the enemy came within forty or fifty yards, it was exceedingly dangerous either getting away or staying. The skirmish line was conducted on principles that looked to personal safety in a great degree, and was the favorite position of the experienced soldier. If however the holding of the position was essential, which was seldom the case, the men knew it intuitively, and the skirmish line required a battle line to drive it."
- Aldace F. Walker, The Vermont Brigade in the Shenandoah Valley, pp. 56-7.

Very comprehensive explanation which I greatly appreciate. Thank you PS: I also had delivered in the last week the book you recommended, "Stuart's Tarheels" and am looking forward to reading it asap!

 

[Youngblood]

I think its as simple as-it was the muskets firing at him that were likely to hurt him so the less the better. Officers are walking along with a sword not shooting, so less of a threat.

 

[Cavalry Charger]

Usually a company or two, sometimes an entire regiment, deployed in open order, with each man generally spaced five paces apart (though grouped in fours), fighting from behind cover and shooting from any position they found comfortable. That's what a skirmish line looked like. The purpose could be to screen the front or flanks, scout out the advance, act as a rear guard in a retreat, harass the enemy lines, counter enemy skirmishers, or drive off artillery batteries. In the case of infantry, they were usually several hundred yards, more or less, in advance of the main line of battle.

Cavalry often fought dismounted as skirmishers, and in doing so usually every fifth man was detailed to hold the horses in the rear.

Sharpshooter units in the ACW were essentially "professional skirmishers", as some here have referred to them as. They were the designated skirmishers for their brigade or division, and usually received extra training in skirmish drill. Not always but in many cases they consisting of picked men, not only for their shooting abilities but also for their personal bravery or physical strength so they could be quick and agile on the skirmish line. They were often designated pickets as well.

A couple accounts of what skirmishing was like:

"There is nothing in this world that is more exciting, more nerve stirring to a soldier, than to participate in a battle line of skirmishers, when you have a fair field and open fight. There it takes nerve and pluck, however, it is allowed each skirmisher to take whatever protection he can in the way of tree or stump. Then on the advance you do not know when to expect an enemy to spring from behind a tree, stump, or bush, take aim and fire. It resembles somewhat the order of Indian warfare, for on a skirmish line 'all is fair in war.'"
- D. Augustus Dickert, History of Kershaw's Brigade, pp. 421-22.

"Skirmishing, as it became reduced to a science, depended on two general rules: every man must keep concealed as much as possible behind trees, logs, fences, buildings, or what not, and each party must run upon the approach of its opponent with anything like determination. If a skirmisher should show himself unnecessarily he stood a great chance of getting hit, and if he waited until the enemy came within forty or fifty yards, it was exceedingly dangerous either getting away or staying. The skirmish line was conducted on principles that looked to personal safety in a great degree, and was the favorite position of the experienced soldier. If however the holding of the position was essential, which was seldom the case, the men knew it intuitively, and the skirmish line required a battle line to drive it."
- Aldace F. Walker, The Vermont Brigade in the Shenandoah Valley, pp. 56-7.

"each party must run upon the approach of its opponent with anything like determination" Does this mean retreat?
And "If however the holding of the position was essential, which was seldom the case, the men knew it intuitively, and the skirmish line required a battle line to drive it." does this mean supporting troops as back up? Thanks in advance for your reply.

 

[AUG]

"each party must run upon the approach of its opponent with anything like determination" Does this mean retreat?

I think he means with determination, i.e., advance upon the enemy with determination.

And "If however the holding of the position was essential, which was seldom the case, the men knew it intuitively, and the skirmish line required a battle line to drive it." does this mean supporting troops as back up? Thanks in advance for your reply.

I believe he's speaking of an enemy battle line. In other words, if the skirmishers knew that holding the position was crucial they could hold their own (against opposing skirmishers, perhaps) until an enemy battle line ran up and forced them to withdraw.

 

[Specster]

I remember reading this comment by Watkins years ago and thought then (and still think now) that it was rather foolish. Officers may have posed less of a personal threat to Watkins, but they were usually integral to the cohesion of the unit opposing him.

Modern militaries better understand strategic and tactical targeting. For instance, special forces soldiers and snipers try to do the most harm to the enemy with the fewest number of resources, often by eliminating high value targets--ie. officers. A bullet in an enemy commanding officer will more likely disrupt your opponent's fighting effectiveness than the death or wounding of a single private. There are countless examples of Civil War regiments failing to execute a key maneuver or charge due to confusion after the death or wounding of an officer.

Or, consider the example of George Washington's close call during the Revolutionary War (a different conflict but a similar situation). British sharpshooter Patrick Ferguson reportedly had Washington in his rifle sights at Brandywine Creek in 1777, but decided against shooting and intentionally let Washington escape. Had he taken the shot, we can only image how the Revolutionary War and the founding of the United States would have differed.

I understand Watkins's argument at the ground level -- he was more worried about the man actually shooting at him than what the entire enemy regiment was doing. But, his categorizing officers as harmless observers rather than targets of opportunity that could turn the tide of a battle reflects a limited view of the war around him.

Agree entirely

Late in 1864 and into 1865 the South was having trouble filling their ranks with competent officers - they had lost so many. Imagine if SW Jackson had not been shot prior to Gettysburg - many believe that battle would have gone differently.

There is the other side of that coin - officers that are so bad you, as their adversary, want them to live. Commissary Banks, Hugh "Kill Cavalry", Burnside for Fredricksburg and beyond, and Pillow to name a few. I think some of these guys get an unfair rap but Burnside is a thorn in my side. He should have sent Lee a letter telling him he was coming, and exactly where 4 months before the battle. When the pontoon didnt arrive in time he should have stopped the operation.

I have read that the allies in WW2 wanted NOT to kill Hilter because he was screwing up Command royally.

 

[thomas aagaard]

The fact that we have photographs of officers who are wearing subdued rank insignia. tell us that they felt targeted...
(the same can be seen in light infantry units during the 7 year was and Napoleonic wars. Where they often tried to look more like their men, including carrying rifles)

And in well trained light infantry / rifle/ jäger units targeting officers was the norm... if not under a direct treat.

 

[Jimklag]

" I always shot at Privates. It was they that did the shooting and killing and if I could kill or wound a private, why, my chances were so much the better. I've always looked on officers as harmless personages"
- Sam Watkins Confederate soldier
From Ken Burns Civil war documentary.

Is there any merit to this? Make sense? Or is he just blowing smoke?

My uncle was an infantry non-com in WWII and he always said he had no idea who he wss shooting at - just a shape. In the Civil War with all that smoke I would think that, except at close range, no one knew who he was shooting at.

 

[SharonS]

At the time of the Battle of Saratoga in 1777 it was considered shocking and a violation of one of the important unwritten rules of civilized warfare for an officer to be targeted. Then one of Daniel Morgan's sharpshooters aimed for and struck British general Simon Fraser. Not surprising in this battle though... Benedict Arnold told him to do it. Arnold, then a Continental general, usually did think that "rules" were for other people.