Need some help: Joseph E. Hargrave

[Story]

Could be, but I rarely see that.

And yet, I have - several times.

I think it rather odd too that 5 soldiers who all supposedly served in the same company and regiment could not remember the alphabetical and numerical unit designation

So you're implying collusion somewhere along the line?

 

[bdtex]

It might be nothing, but if we take "Belonged to John S Ford's Division when the war closed" at face value, that would imply multiple regiments - right?

Ford was a Colonel, not a General. He commanded the Confederates at Palmito Ranch, the last battle of the war. It was the 2nd Texas Cavalry. Maulding called it "John S. Ford's Regiment" in his witness affidavit to Hargrave's Pension Application.

 

[bdtex]

So you're implying collusion somewhere along the line?

Pretty much. Their uncorroborated statements are strikingly similar. I've not found a single piece of paper outside the pension applications that corroborates anything in them. We're not talking guys who all supposedly enlisted in late 1864 or in 1865 either.

 

[Story]

Ford was a Colonel, not a General. He commanded the Confederates at Palmito Ranch, the last battle of the war. It was the 2nd Texas Cavalry. Maulding called it "John S. Ford's Regiment" in his witness affidavit to Hargrave's Pension Application.

And yet he writes it Division here

I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it, but I've found that being challenged on one's assumptions can lead to backtracking over ground already crossed and sometimes finding clues overlooked.

Like those Regimental information cards in FOLD3.

See also "Max Brooks' 10th Man".

 

[lelliott19]

Better Soldiers and Sailors returns these results when the first name begins with J; middle initial is E or empty; and last name begins with HARG. I always find bettersoldiersandsailors.com preferable to searching the cards and/or NPS database

EDIT TO ADD: Interestingly, results for first name JOHN and last name FORD return a man named John H Ford who also served in those EXACT same regiments but is recorded as a Private

 

[bdtex]

Better Soldiers and Sailors returns these results when the first name begins with J; middle initial is E or empty; and last name begins with HARG. I always find bettersoldiersandsailors.com preferable to searching the cards and/or NPS database
View attachment 556826
View attachment 556827

EDIT TO ADD: Interestingly, results for first name JOHN and last name FORD return a man named John H Ford who also served in those EXACT same regiments but is recorded as a Private
View attachment 556829
View attachment 556830

I found those and found the muster records in fold3. The information doesn't match his death certificate, pension application or census records.

 

[bdtex]

And yet he writes it Division here
View attachment 556825

I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it, but I've found that being challenged on one's assumptions can lead to backtracking over ground already crossed and sometimes finding clues overlooked.

Like those Regimental information cards in FOLD3.

See also "Max Brooks' 10th Man".

I've been to 2 speaker presentations on "Rip" Ford and done my own research. He was not a General and didn't command a division in the Civil War.

John Salmon “Rip” Ford

www.battlefields.org

John Salmon (Rip) Ford: A Texas Pioneer and Historical Figure

Explore the life of John Salmon (Rip) Ford, a soldier, politician, and newspaper editor who played a significant role in Texas history from the 19th century.

www.tshaonline.org

John S. Ford

Summary of service for this honored Texas Ranger

www.texasranger.org

https://txarchives.org/tslac/finding_aids/90002.xml

FIGHTING STOCK: John S. "Rip" Ford of Texas

Richard McCaslin's new biography Fighting Stock: John S. "Rip" Ford of Texas covers comprehensively and quite well all the aforementioned aspects of his subject's life.

history.unt.edu

 

[bdtex]

I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it, but I've found that being challenged on one's assumptions can lead to backtracking over ground already crossed and sometimes finding clues overlooked.

And I'm not unappreciative of your probing and challenges. I've followed all the leads and suggestions and haven't seen anything yet that allays my suspicions. Something ain't right.

 

[bdtex]

Some people will not admit it if they don't know how to do something. Good for you!

I have only used fold3 to research individual soldiers.

 

[Story]

I've been to 2 speaker presentations on "Rip" Ford and done my own research. He was not a General and didn't command a division in the Civil War.

See, that's a problem here - you're binding yourself to what's *official* and not opening your field of vision to what happens outside of official records.

Those TX veterans may have been remembering how they referred to Ford as a General of a hodge-podge conglomeration 'Division' of leftover bits of mounted units. Like other Confederate outfits, the command group could have woke up one morning to find their wagon(s) draft animals stolen by deserters and just set fire to the wagon and all it's records. That did happen.

Your suspicion of collusion is more compelling, but I'd want to know if the same fellow prepared all five pension packets.

And yes, I'm aware of this

FIGHTING STOCK: John S. "Rip" Ford of Texas

Richard McCaslin's new biography Fighting Stock: John S. "Rip" Ford of Texas covers comprehensively and quite well all the aforementioned aspects of his subject's life.

history.unt.edu

 

[bdtex]

Those TX veterans may have been remembering how they referred to Ford as a General of a hodge-podge conglomeration 'Division' of leftover bits of mounted units.

Only 1 of the 5 veterans used the word "Division" and 5 years before that he used the word "Regiment" in Hargrave's Pension Application. None of them called Ford a "General".

 

[Story]

Only 1 of the 5 veterans used the word "Division" and 5 years before that he used the word "Regiment" in Hargrave's Pension Application.

ok

 

[lupaglupa]

I wrote this yesterday and couldn't post so apologies for being late to the party -

Not too surprising when people remember a well known commander as being the head of their unit. Everybody likes that brush with greatness - even when it isn't quite accurate. But this seems like a lot of misremembering all together!

I find a Joseph Hargrave/s in the Company E of the 11th Texas. Interestingly that unit is described as artillery, cavalry, and infantry together. The unit history is really convoluted so they may well have been under Ford at some point. This Hargraves enlisted at Beaumont, fell sick with syphilis and got a discharge. His cards say he was born at Vermillion Pt, LA. and was 32 years old in 1862, which doesn't match your man.

There is a Joseph Hargraves in the 21st Texas, Company G. He enlisted at Beaumont but no real other information is given about him.

I find men named Robert Weir/Wier in the 8th, 14th, and 10th Texas cavalries.

I find a Dewitt C Maulding in a Louisiana unit but not in Texas.

I can't combine these men into a single unit at all. They were either being very creative (ahem) or their spelling and/or handwriting is really bad.

 

[lupaglupa]

I did look at the consolidations, as much as I could, and did not find that as an explanation.

I'de be inclined to think these men served but decided to pad their resumes, so to speak, when applying for their pensions. They may well have had an ad hoc local unit at the end of the War - that wasn't uncommon - and put all those facts down in an enhanced fashion.

 

[bdtex]

I find a Dewitt C Maulding in a Louisiana unit but not in Texas.

Yep. I found that too. My primary focus is Jospeph Hargrave, but that adds to the mystery of all this. For pension purposes, there was no reason for Maulding to embellish his service. After his service in Co. B, 19th Louisiana Infantry, he apparently moved to Texas and enlisted in the Texas State Troops in August 1863 for 6 months. Posted his Texas Muster Card in post #11 on page 1. He was in his 30's at the time.

 

[lupaglupa]

In cases like this I try to use honest wording without either supporting claims I think are false or outright accusing someone of lying. So you can state "Received a pension for..." and be truthful. In the last years of the Confederacy there were few records and a lot of independent units. It makes it tough to say positively one way or another that claims are correct.