"I always shot at Privates"

[Camp Randall Armory]

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.

.
Must have been interesting for him then when he became a commissioned officer!

 

[thomas aagaard]

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.

not questioning the fact that he was shot, but much of it is still just Myths about the american rifleman...
This was not something completely new.

The 7 year war saw large use of light infantry and some riflemen and there was plenty of deliberate shooting of officers, both on the European battlefields and in north america. As as mentioned above officers commanding light infantry modified their uniforms and gear to be less conspicuous.. at least in north america.
Might have been shocking for the generals, but not for the young British, american and hessian infantry officers...

 

[SharonS]

not questioning the fact that he was shot, but much of it is still just Myths about the american rifleman...
This was not something completely new.

The 7 year war saw large use of light infantry and some riflemen and there was plenty of deliberate shooting of officers, both on the European battlefields and in north america. As as mentioned above officers commanding light infantry modified their uniforms and gear to be less conspicuous.. at least in north america.
Might have been shocking for the generals, but not for the young British, american and hessian infantry officers...

Some generals still apparently liked to be conspicuous. Many continued riding white or light grey horses through the period (although not Washington--although he owned the grey Old Blew and was often depicted on him, he usually rode the chestnut Nelson in battle). Of course, some generals never learned. Turner Ashby dearly loved the white Tom Telegraph, although he was killed aboard a plain bay.

 

[Cavalry Charger]

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.

That is interesting, what you said about "subdued ranks insignia". I've recently been watching a documentary series "Blood and Fury" (about the CW), and often noticed that the Officer's insignia doesn't match the supposed rank...so a Captain might have a 2nd Lt. insignia, etc. I was thinking the Producers of the series must have got it wrong (which would be a poor showing on their part), and if they provided an explanation for it, I missed it. It seems you have helped provide the explanation. I am researching a Union Captain who was killed arbitrarily by Confederates, and I'm wondering if this may have been the reason why...he was proud to have achieved the rank, and probably displayed his insignia to show that.

 

[East Tennessee Roots]

.
Must have been interesting for him then when he became a commissioned officer!

I believe Corporal was his highest rank.

 

[thomas aagaard]

That is interesting, what you said about "subdued ranks insignia". I've recently been watching a documentary series "Blood and Fury" (about the CW), and often noticed that the Officer's insignia doesn't match the supposed rank...

If you mean "blood and Glory - the civil war in color" then the only good thing in it is the pictures... the rest ... not entirely correct. (there are a topi about it on this forum somewhere)


This topic on the authentic campaigner forum got some pictures of officer with subdued ranks
http://www.authentic-campaigner.com...ignia-Placement-Please&highlight=subdued+rank

 

[Jimklag]

I believe Corporal was his highest rank.

I don't think he even made corporal. Even though he was one of only seven original Co. H men to finish the war, I believe he ended it as a private.

 

[East Tennessee Roots]

I don't think he even made corporal. Even though he was one of only seven original Co. H men to finish the war, I believe he ended it as a private.

You're correct, he ended the war as a Private. The roll for Jan-Feb, 1864 has him listed as 1st Corporal, Company H. He was probably reduced in rank, as they began consolidating regiments. (1st & 27th).

 

[Camp Randall Armory]

You're correct, he ended the war as a Private. The roll for Jan-Feb, 1864 has him listed as 1st Corporal, Company H. He was probably reduced in rank, as they began consolidating regiments. (1st & 27th).

According to other members of this forum (can't remember who exactly) he made Sgt by midwar and lieutenant by the last year. Unfortunately I don't have sources so I'm going off of what others more knowledgeable of Co. Aytch know.

 

[Albert Sailhorst]

I always shot at privates. It was they that did the killing," ....
He goes on to write: "If I shot at an officer it was at long range, but when we got down to close quarters I always tried to kill those that were trying to kill me."

It appears to me that he may have shot at officers. UNLESS the fighting were close, in which case the officer was less of an immediate threat to his personal safety than the Privates who were actually doing the shooting.

 

[Jimklag]

According to other members of this forum (can't remember who exactly) he made Sgt by midwar and lieutenant by the last year. Unfortunately I don't have sources so I'm going off of what others more knowledgeable of Co. Aytch know.

Actually, he achieved the more-or-less honorary rank of '4th Corporal' for capturing a Union flag, but was back to private by the end of the war.

 

[Pvt.Shattuck]

Enlisted men are usually more interested in shooting their own officers.

However, at the Battle of North Point in the War of 1812, the Redcoats, best army in the world at the time, were stopped cold by a couple of teenage Baltimore sharpshooters in the Maryland Militia. Snipers Henry McComas and Daniel Wells (according to local tradition) took out British Major General Robert Ross.
Well done, boys.
The Brits then figured it would be easier to take Baltimore by sea so they got back on their boats, but they ran into Ft McHenry and the rockets red glare and you know the rest of that story.
Outside Washington, D. C. the defenders ran away and the city was burned to the ground. At Baltimore, leather tanners and candle makers grabbed their muskets and gave John Bull a bloody nose.
I'm just saying, two unsung privates picking out an enemy officer saved the United States of America. The fact that I'm from Baltimore in no way colors my judgment.

 

[John Olexa]

I always shot at privates. It was they that did the killing," ....
He goes on to write: "If I shot at an officer it was at long range, but when we got down to close quarters I always tried to kill those that were trying to kill me."

That's interesting, they left that part out of the documentary I saw. Heck, if I had heard that part I wouldn't have even started this thread. lol

 

[E_just_E]

I read the title in a somewhat different way... Oh well...

Sam Watkins' stuff came out in the early 1880s as weekly (I think) serial column in a newspaper and was more of stories (read tales) than History. Eventually they were compiled into the Company H book. Whether he always shot at privates or not, I am not sure, because I suspect that in more than occasion he was shooting as part of a volley without the ability to aim.

But it makes a good story

 

[thomas aagaard]

But it makes a good story

And like everything written 20 years after the events it should not be trusted as anything else... not without support from primary sources.

 

[James N.]

That's interesting, they left that part out of the documentary I saw. Heck, if I had heard that part I wouldn't have even started this thread. lol

... Sam Watkins' stuff came out in the early 1880s as weekly (I think) serial column in a newspaper and was more of stories (read tales) than History. Eventually they were compiled into the Company H book. Whether he always shot at privates or not, I am not sure, because I suspect that in more than occasion he was shooting as part of a volley without the ability to aim.

But it makes a good story

And like everything written 20 years after the events it should not be trusted as anything else... not without support from primary sources.

And as I always like to point out when discussions about Sam like this come up, despite the impression he carefully cultivated in his writings as "just one of the boys", he ended the war a lieutenant!

 

[Toothman]

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

In my opinion, Sam may have been exaggerating a bit..... If I was in Sam's shoes, I would have been shooting officers and noncoms. They are the people who were pushing the privates on. If they were put out of action, the privates have no sense of direction, unless they were battle hardened.
By the way, "Co. Aytch" is some good reading!

 

[Toothman]

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.

In my opinion, Fredricksburg, Dec. 13, 1862 was a big mistake for Burnside. He waited three weeks after he got his pontoon bridge to cross the river, going into fredricksburg, then marched his men, facing a long line of Confederate troops.
It is like the british, during the first world war, walking into a force of Germans armed with machine guns at Sommes, France. Burnsides had a problem of hesitation....He hesitated at Fredricksburg, at Antietam and Petersburg, at the Crater. He did get a long furlough for his failures.

 

[BillO]

In my opinion, Fredricksburg, Dec. 13, 1862 was a big mistake for Burnside. He waited three weeks after he got his pontoon bridge to cross the river, going into fredricksburg, then marched his men, facing a long line of Confederate troops.
It is like the british, during the first world war, walking into a force of Germans armed with machine guns at Sommes, France. Burnsides had a problem of hesitation....He hesitated at Fredricksburg, at Antietam and Petersburg, at the Crater. He did get a long furlough for his failures.

Well he did manage to spank Longstreet pretty bad once.

 

[Specster]

In my opinion, Fredricksburg, Dec. 13, 1862 was a big mistake for Burnside. He waited three weeks after he got his pontoon bridge to cross the river, going into fredricksburg, then marched his men, facing a long line of Confederate troops.
It is like the british, during the first world war, walking into a force of Germans armed with machine guns at Sommes, France. Burnsides had a problem of hesitation....He hesitated at Fredricksburg, at Antietam and Petersburg, at the Crater. He did get a long furlough for his failures.

Although I appreciate your post I cannot find a parallel between Haig at the Somme and Burnside at Fredricksburg. The entire Fredricksburg strategy hinged on surprise. Once those pontoons were late, any competent General would have called it a day. To allow the Rebels to fortify and entrench from heights was pure stupidity. I think Burnside felt he had to win the day and he thought he could do that based solely on numbers. Once the Union tried to cross the Rappahanic and had engineers picked off in droves, the game was up. To continue this charade was pure folly.

It is sad some many brave Union soldiers threw their lives away in this fiasco. I dont believe Burnside ever recovered from this disaster. The Somme on the other hand....the British pommeled the Germans for weeks IIRC they threw like a 1000000 shells at the Germans and no one thought anyone could survive such a barrage. Further, the brits dug a mine loaded with tons upon tons of explosives (this is the video so frequently shown depicting WW1 conditions). The Brits did not realize the German bunkers went down 6 storys of concrete and iron reinforced cells. For the most part the Germans were untouched.

Even into the 70s and 80s, British comics lampooned Haig for his order "walk slowly toward the enemy, in line abreast" Make a jolly good target for the jerrys. The germans lacked nothing in those bunkers. The Brits had good reason to believe they blew the Germans to hell. The Union had not reason to believe they had achieved any kind of upper hand at Fredricksburg.

Oddly, the North line of the Somme was prosecuted by the French, who made their objectives that first week. The French had been fighting the Germans in trenches for years and knew something of tactics. In spite of their numbers and supplies, the Brits could not nearly say the same.