RustyBull
Cadet
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Location
- In the Heart of Dixie
Are the Official Records (OR) on-line at any location?
-
Welcome to CivilWarTalk, a forum about the American Civil War! - Join today! It's fast, simple, and FREE!
Official Records (OR)
- Thread starter RustyBull
- Start date
TerryB
Lt. Colonel
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2008
- Location
- Nashville TN
Here's a link. http://digital.library.cornell.edu/m/moawar/waro.html
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
theres a link on my signature line
RustyBull
Cadet
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Location
- In the Heart of Dixie
Thanks for the link!
RustyBull,
If you need further help, let us know. I've come to be handy with finding things in the O.R.s. Also, there are different labels then verses now days. Example Headquarters back then was spelled Head-quarters and sometimes headquarters. Roads often in the context of the report are talking about railroads verses 'road' as in horse/wagon/people roads. If you are looking up history for a particular unit, such as 1st Alabama Infantry, it can be also listings under First Alabama Infantry. You may also find useful just putting in 1st Alabama or First Alabama and you may find more in the body of the report. Though it is slow, you find nuggets in other's who make reports but don't always identify the unit fully, e.g. 1st Alabama Battery, Cavalry, Infantry.
Good luck in searching!
Respectfully submitted,
M. E. Wolf
If you need further help, let us know. I've come to be handy with finding things in the O.R.s. Also, there are different labels then verses now days. Example Headquarters back then was spelled Head-quarters and sometimes headquarters. Roads often in the context of the report are talking about railroads verses 'road' as in horse/wagon/people roads. If you are looking up history for a particular unit, such as 1st Alabama Infantry, it can be also listings under First Alabama Infantry. You may also find useful just putting in 1st Alabama or First Alabama and you may find more in the body of the report. Though it is slow, you find nuggets in other's who make reports but don't always identify the unit fully, e.g. 1st Alabama Battery, Cavalry, Infantry.
Good luck in searching!
Respectfully submitted,
M. E. Wolf
Bear Creek, Alabama (in the O.R.s) sampler:
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME 1 [S# 1] CHAPTER IV.
CORRESPONDENCE AND ORDERS RELATING SPECIALLY TO THE OPERATIONS
IN FLORIDA FROM JANUARY 6 TO AUGUST 31, 1861.
CONFEDERATE CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.
WAR DEPARTMENT, A. G. O.,
Montgomery, March 23, 1861.
Col. W. J. HARDEE, Commanding Fort Morgan:
SIR: It is a matter of considerable importance to ascertain whether communication can be made between Mobile and Pensacola, so as to avoid the long transit from Blakely to the latter place. A view of the map would seem to indicate that a communication can be made by water portage and land carriage from Bonsecours Bay, by Bear Creek Bay, La Launch, and Perdido Bay, to Pensacola. The Secretary of War, therefore, directs that you will organize a boat expedition to make the necessary examination, the result of which you will report as soon as possible. Brigadier-General Bragg has been directed to cause a similar examination to be made from the other end of the proposed line of communication.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
S. COOPER,
Adjutant-General.
-----
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME 7 [S# 7]
FEBRUARY 6-10, 1862.--Expedition to Florence, Ala.
NO. 4. -- Report of J. G. Norman.
TUSCUMBIA, ALA., February 9, 1862.
Enemy's gunboats (two in number) came to Florence yesterday. Two steamers were burned below Eastport, three others at Florence were burned by the owners, and another scuttled and sunk, to prevent their falling into enemy's hands. The enemy also captured a considerable amount of Government stores at Florence and two steamboats. Gunboats retired down the river last night. The railroad bridge at Florence was not destroyed. The enemy disclaimed any intention to destroy private property. It was rumored here to-day that the enemy were landing troops in force at Eastport to destroy the bridge at Big Bear Creek; this is not credited here. Colonel Chalmers is guarding that bridge with portions of his and Colonel Looney's regiments. Since the fall of Fort Henry, there is nothing to prevent the enemy during high water from ascending the Tennessee with their gunboats and invading North Alabama and North Mississippi.
J. G.NORMAN.
Hon. J.P. BENJAMIN.
--------------------------------------------------
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME X/1 [S# 10]
OPERATIONS IN KENTUCKY, TENNESSEE, NORTH MISSISSIPPI, NORTH ALABAMA, AND SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA.
March 4-June 10, 1862.(*)
excerpt
April 12-13, 1862. -- Expedition to Bear Creek, Ala.
-------------------------------
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME X/1 [S# 10]
APRIL 12-13, 1862.— Expedition to Bear Creek, Ala.
REPORTS.
No. 1.— Brig. Gen. William T. Sherman, U.S. Army.
No. 2— Maj. Samuel M. Bowman, Fourth Illinois Cavalry.
-----
M. E. Wolf
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME 1 [S# 1] CHAPTER IV.
CORRESPONDENCE AND ORDERS RELATING SPECIALLY TO THE OPERATIONS
IN FLORIDA FROM JANUARY 6 TO AUGUST 31, 1861.
CONFEDERATE CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.
WAR DEPARTMENT, A. G. O.,
Montgomery, March 23, 1861.
Col. W. J. HARDEE, Commanding Fort Morgan:
SIR: It is a matter of considerable importance to ascertain whether communication can be made between Mobile and Pensacola, so as to avoid the long transit from Blakely to the latter place. A view of the map would seem to indicate that a communication can be made by water portage and land carriage from Bonsecours Bay, by Bear Creek Bay, La Launch, and Perdido Bay, to Pensacola. The Secretary of War, therefore, directs that you will organize a boat expedition to make the necessary examination, the result of which you will report as soon as possible. Brigadier-General Bragg has been directed to cause a similar examination to be made from the other end of the proposed line of communication.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
S. COOPER,
Adjutant-General.
-----
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME 7 [S# 7]
FEBRUARY 6-10, 1862.--Expedition to Florence, Ala.
NO. 4. -- Report of J. G. Norman.
TUSCUMBIA, ALA., February 9, 1862.
Enemy's gunboats (two in number) came to Florence yesterday. Two steamers were burned below Eastport, three others at Florence were burned by the owners, and another scuttled and sunk, to prevent their falling into enemy's hands. The enemy also captured a considerable amount of Government stores at Florence and two steamboats. Gunboats retired down the river last night. The railroad bridge at Florence was not destroyed. The enemy disclaimed any intention to destroy private property. It was rumored here to-day that the enemy were landing troops in force at Eastport to destroy the bridge at Big Bear Creek; this is not credited here. Colonel Chalmers is guarding that bridge with portions of his and Colonel Looney's regiments. Since the fall of Fort Henry, there is nothing to prevent the enemy during high water from ascending the Tennessee with their gunboats and invading North Alabama and North Mississippi.
J. G.NORMAN.
Hon. J.P. BENJAMIN.
--------------------------------------------------
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME X/1 [S# 10]
OPERATIONS IN KENTUCKY, TENNESSEE, NORTH MISSISSIPPI, NORTH ALABAMA, AND SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA.
March 4-June 10, 1862.(*)
excerpt
April 12-13, 1862. -- Expedition to Bear Creek, Ala.
-------------------------------
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME X/1 [S# 10]
APRIL 12-13, 1862.— Expedition to Bear Creek, Ala.
REPORTS.
No. 1.— Brig. Gen. William T. Sherman, U.S. Army.
No. 2— Maj. Samuel M. Bowman, Fourth Illinois Cavalry.
-----
M. E. Wolf
proud texan
Sergeant
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Location
- East T E X A S
I don't know if this has been discussed. Are these records (South and north) to be believed as gospel? They were written with the author KNOWING that they were going to be part of history. Many Generals are known to play a cutt-throat game of self-glorification. Wouldn't personal letters and some other documentation be more reliable?
Pogster
Private
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2006
- Location
- South of the Mason-Dixon Line
The accounts could be skewed, of course, to reflect favorably upon the writer. I know of one report in the OR that does not show a complete and accurate account of the event described. I suspect there are others.
Proud Texan;
You wrote:
It has been discussed before however, can be discussed again.
The records of the South and North are battle reports made at the time of the conflict. Majority of these reports were gone over with a fine tooth comb by both former Southern/CSA Generals and former Northern/Union Generals. There was a strict boundary in including the reports as to address the very thing you are concerned about -- credibility.
The official title: "Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, both of the Union and Confederate Armies," has been boiled down to "Official Records (Union and Confederate) of the War of the Rebellion," in 1880's and just referred to as the O.R.s.
O.R.--GENERAL INDEX [SN #130]
PREFACE.
[excerpt]
The work of compiling and publishing the civil war records was projected near the close of the first Administration of President Lincoln, and has been continued during the Administrations of succeeding Presidents, under the direction of Secretaries of War Edwin M. Stanton, Ulysses S. Grant, John M. Schofield, John A. Rawlins, William T. Sherman. William W. Belknap, Alphonso Taft, James D. Cameron, George W. McCrary, Alexander Ramsey, Robert T. Lincoln, William C. Endicott, Redfield Proctor, Stephen B. Elkins, Daniel S. Lamont, Russell A. Alger and Elihu Root.
In accordance with this resolution the work of preparing the records of the war for convenient use was begun by Col. E. D. Townsend, Assistant Adjutant-General, United States Army (then in charge of the Adjutant-General's Office and subsequently Adjutant-General), who reported October 31, 1864, that a large part of the official reports of the operations of the armies of the United States had been copied, and that the work was progressing.
Especial attention does not appear to have been given to the subject of the Confederate records until Maj. Gen. H. W. Halleck's visit to Richmond shortly after its capture, when, on May 11, 1865, he wrote Secretary Stanton of his efforts to secure and preserve the archives of the Confederacy, and reported that over ninety large boxes had been shipped to Washington. Shortly thereafter (July 21, 1865) a division was organized in the Adjutant-General's Office "for the collection, safe-keeping and publication of the rebel archives that have come into the possession of the Government," and Dr. Francis Lieber was placed in charge of the work. In his annual report of November following, the Secretary of War reported that eight volumes of the war records, with maps and indexes, had been sent to the printer, but it appears that none of this matter was actually printed, no funds therefor having been appropriated.
[excerpt]
From the outset of the work there was a great deficiency of Confederate records. During the last year of the war the reports rendered by Confederate officers were generally meager and incomplete. Toward the close of hostilities many papers of great historical value were intentionally destroyed by their holders, and a still greater number was concealed. Others were burned with public buildings or were carried off by relic hunters, and in various ways the official Confederate files were depleted.
In view of the distrust with which the Southern people for a while naturally regarded the movements made by the Government with a view to the procurement of the records of the Confederacy, it is not surprising that the efforts of the Department to complete its Confederate files met at first with slight success or assistance. However, Marcus J. Wright, formerly a brigadier-general in the Confederate Army, was appointed July 1, 1878, agent for the collection of Confederate archives, and in this capacity he continued employed until the completion of the work. Through his efforts and tact the attitude of the Southern people toward the compilation became more cordial, and, as their confidence increased, records were brought out from their places of concealment and forwarded to the Department as gifts or deposited as loans. Purchases of collections of Confederate records have been made as follows:
From Marcus J. Wright, October 28, 1875 $2,000
From William P. Johnston, July 2, 1878 10,000
From Thomas L. Snead, July 3, 1878 4,000
From Thomas L. Snead, March 11, 1879 6,000
Total 22,000
The policy of purchasing records was soon abandoned, owing to the great expenditure it would necessitate and the unfair discrimination which such purchases would involve in respect to those who had gratuitously delivered up valuable collections to the Department; but, notwithstanding this change of policy, the war papers of many prominent Confederate as well as Union officers were subsequently donated to the Government. Among the notable collections in the possession of the War
Department may be mentioned the records of the commands of the Confederate Generals R. E. Lee, Joseph E. ,Johnston, G. T. Beauregard, James Longstreet, Stephen D. Lee, Sterling Price, Leonidas Polk, E. Kirby Smith, J. B. Hood, James R. Chalmers, Samuel Jones, R. S. Ripley, A. P. Stewart and William Steele.
As the fact of these donations became generally known and confidence in the impartiality of the publication increased, numerous and constantly increasing contributions from all parts of the country followed. The former President of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis, during his lifetime, and his widow after his death, afforded the Government access to his papers relating to the late war, and from this source were obtained copies of archives of the greatest historical value.
As the magnitude of the task that had been undertaken became better appreciated and larger means were provided for its prosecution, other former Confederate officers were appointed to assist in the compilation of the Confederate archives, to represent the Confederate interests and to assure impartiality. Among these were Maj. Gens. Cadmus M. Wilcox, Charles W. Field, L. L. Lomax and Henry Heth, Col. E. J. Harvie and Maj. Jed. Hotchkiss, chief topographer of the Army of Northern Virginia.
[excerpt]
In its report to Congress upon this bill, December 7, 1882, the War Department invited attention to an inclosed report from Lieutenant-Colonel Scott, which pointed out the confusion and controversies to which such legislation would inevitably lead. In his report Lieutenant-Colonel Scott remarked:
The experience of this office has demonstrated the utter unreliability of recollections of the war. I have had a Union colonel apply for permission to retract a statement never made in his report of Ball's Bluff. A general officer has complained that his report of Shiloh was garbled, but when shown his original report he acknowledged that it was correctly printed. Again, a Confederate major-general denied ever having made a report that he saw noted in our catalogue, and on inspection it was found to be in his own handwriting, and he so acknowledged. As another instance I would mention that an attempt to ascertain who commanded a certain Confederate brigade in the Gettysburg campaign has developed two claimants for the position.
The bill was not enacted, and the Department, regarding this as an indorsement of its course, continued its previous policy of excluding post-bellum matter.
[end of excerpt]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I see it, those working as to compile the records saw the potential problem by having people make changes in their original reports. So, they proffered to Congress, to whom funded the project of compiling the records of the Civil War; to exclude any post-War changes to official reports.
Taking reports from the original submission - the good, the bad and the ugly; permits -- at least in my legal mind and reason, that these former participants in the American Civil War did the best they could to be extremely fair with what papers they could hold in their hands and put them into order, as to publish 128 volumes and later another 128 volumes that are known as 'supplements' to the O.R.s., published in hardback volumes by Stackpole Press. Each volume is approximately $124.00. As you can see-not an average income can purchase 128 additional volumes easily.
When I wrote official reports -- I did not think of 'writing for history.' I wrote in the moment, the details of which were important to record, the elements of which were required to document the investigation. Professional military officers I have spoken to, throughout my life -- as I lived in a neighborhood filled with former W.W. II veterans to include my father. World War II, has been the second and or third most documented and studied war in my lifetime. The other being the American Civil War and the Revolution. At times the War of 1812 pops up and or the other wars with the Native American Indians. However, when asking about what they are interested in most--most respond to either World War II or American Civil War.
When going through reports, you will always have to deal with the pride/ego and cause for writing the way they do. If a general lost a battle--sure, it is natural to blame others. But, we (in a general sense) are aware of these human traits and read other reports as to get the nuggets of agreeable truths from observations. Treat it like a crime scene with multiple witnesses. Depending on their location, depends on what they see. So from the Company level through the Battalion, the Regimental, the Brigade, the Division and or the Corps; the reports are certainly strained and common facts are then formed into the General's reports, which really are a summary.
Personal written accounts can also be written to fit the author's intentions/agenda as well. It is subjected to the same human traits as a General's report. Men want to be seen in the best light as possible and wish for promotion before the eyes of their superiors and wish for the support of their men.
Because humans are flawed. Nothing will be perfect. However, this is all we have to work with and feel those who worked on these Official Records, both Union and Confederate veterans of that War, they have the best judgment as to what 'really' happened and the importance of facts as to permit studies down the generation. I think it was great judgment by Halleck to gather up all the records that could be found as to secure them for inserting into the Official Records. But, clearly as all have stated plainly--so many Confederate records were gone, destroyed and or secured away by individuals. Thus, will always be an issue because these records are missing.
The Generals and or men who wrote their memoirs have done their part and presented their personal opinions and or correct the perception of others. That said, most of the memoirs have used the O.R.s to affirm and or correct their memory of certain events or, to give a personal opinion of tactics, movement's purposes, intentions for this or that part of their command in sequence to other commanding officers--be it friend or foe.
Another aspect to consider. The language of those times were very haughty compared to the language used today. What we (in a general sense) perceive to be snobbish or 'better than thou' was just normal. Just like we (in a general sense) can't fathom the idea after being captured as a general, you were escorted to head-quarters of the general to whom is your enemy, sit down, chat, have a meal and treated like he was a free man...not a P.O.W. Most of these men were former friends, West Point chums. All were American.
Some Confederate veterans would wear the "U.S. Army" uniform post Civil War and retained their former Confederate ranks. What other Nation could go through a bloody Civil War and move on! They did--we, (in a general sense) should too and be proud of those who wore the wool and bore the battle.
The men who worked on the O.R.s, did the best they could with what they had. They took steps so that these records could not be impeached then or now. By excluding any corrections. Excluding late admissions. What they had was 'in the moment.' With political men appointed generals and men to whom were professional soldiers. It would be my personal opinion, that I would be cautious about political generals, e.g. congressmen, governmental positions prior to their commissions more than military based men, e.g. West Pointers, VMI, etc., especially when there was no break in military service.
Furthermore, if a reader is 'pro' one side or the other, selective reading will happen. It is difficult to have an open mind however, to really read both sides and attempt to understand both, it might be more fruitful. I know I came into studies of the American Civil War spoon fed the Confederate gospel. Seeing the O.R.s, to read for myself and being in the legal profession applied these rules of evidence, I was shook. What I was taught was skewed and face saving bull pies. Though I have no blood kin in the Civil War--I can be neutral. There were no angels on the battlefield, save the nurses and surgeons.
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
You wrote:
It has been discussed before however, can be discussed again.
The records of the South and North are battle reports made at the time of the conflict. Majority of these reports were gone over with a fine tooth comb by both former Southern/CSA Generals and former Northern/Union Generals. There was a strict boundary in including the reports as to address the very thing you are concerned about -- credibility.
The official title: "Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, both of the Union and Confederate Armies," has been boiled down to "Official Records (Union and Confederate) of the War of the Rebellion," in 1880's and just referred to as the O.R.s.
O.R.--GENERAL INDEX [SN #130]
PREFACE.
[excerpt]
The work of compiling and publishing the civil war records was projected near the close of the first Administration of President Lincoln, and has been continued during the Administrations of succeeding Presidents, under the direction of Secretaries of War Edwin M. Stanton, Ulysses S. Grant, John M. Schofield, John A. Rawlins, William T. Sherman. William W. Belknap, Alphonso Taft, James D. Cameron, George W. McCrary, Alexander Ramsey, Robert T. Lincoln, William C. Endicott, Redfield Proctor, Stephen B. Elkins, Daniel S. Lamont, Russell A. Alger and Elihu Root.
In accordance with this resolution the work of preparing the records of the war for convenient use was begun by Col. E. D. Townsend, Assistant Adjutant-General, United States Army (then in charge of the Adjutant-General's Office and subsequently Adjutant-General), who reported October 31, 1864, that a large part of the official reports of the operations of the armies of the United States had been copied, and that the work was progressing.
Especial attention does not appear to have been given to the subject of the Confederate records until Maj. Gen. H. W. Halleck's visit to Richmond shortly after its capture, when, on May 11, 1865, he wrote Secretary Stanton of his efforts to secure and preserve the archives of the Confederacy, and reported that over ninety large boxes had been shipped to Washington. Shortly thereafter (July 21, 1865) a division was organized in the Adjutant-General's Office "for the collection, safe-keeping and publication of the rebel archives that have come into the possession of the Government," and Dr. Francis Lieber was placed in charge of the work. In his annual report of November following, the Secretary of War reported that eight volumes of the war records, with maps and indexes, had been sent to the printer, but it appears that none of this matter was actually printed, no funds therefor having been appropriated.
[excerpt]
From the outset of the work there was a great deficiency of Confederate records. During the last year of the war the reports rendered by Confederate officers were generally meager and incomplete. Toward the close of hostilities many papers of great historical value were intentionally destroyed by their holders, and a still greater number was concealed. Others were burned with public buildings or were carried off by relic hunters, and in various ways the official Confederate files were depleted.
In view of the distrust with which the Southern people for a while naturally regarded the movements made by the Government with a view to the procurement of the records of the Confederacy, it is not surprising that the efforts of the Department to complete its Confederate files met at first with slight success or assistance. However, Marcus J. Wright, formerly a brigadier-general in the Confederate Army, was appointed July 1, 1878, agent for the collection of Confederate archives, and in this capacity he continued employed until the completion of the work. Through his efforts and tact the attitude of the Southern people toward the compilation became more cordial, and, as their confidence increased, records were brought out from their places of concealment and forwarded to the Department as gifts or deposited as loans. Purchases of collections of Confederate records have been made as follows:
From Marcus J. Wright, October 28, 1875 $2,000
From William P. Johnston, July 2, 1878 10,000
From Thomas L. Snead, July 3, 1878 4,000
From Thomas L. Snead, March 11, 1879 6,000
Total 22,000
The policy of purchasing records was soon abandoned, owing to the great expenditure it would necessitate and the unfair discrimination which such purchases would involve in respect to those who had gratuitously delivered up valuable collections to the Department; but, notwithstanding this change of policy, the war papers of many prominent Confederate as well as Union officers were subsequently donated to the Government. Among the notable collections in the possession of the War
Department may be mentioned the records of the commands of the Confederate Generals R. E. Lee, Joseph E. ,Johnston, G. T. Beauregard, James Longstreet, Stephen D. Lee, Sterling Price, Leonidas Polk, E. Kirby Smith, J. B. Hood, James R. Chalmers, Samuel Jones, R. S. Ripley, A. P. Stewart and William Steele.
As the fact of these donations became generally known and confidence in the impartiality of the publication increased, numerous and constantly increasing contributions from all parts of the country followed. The former President of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis, during his lifetime, and his widow after his death, afforded the Government access to his papers relating to the late war, and from this source were obtained copies of archives of the greatest historical value.
As the magnitude of the task that had been undertaken became better appreciated and larger means were provided for its prosecution, other former Confederate officers were appointed to assist in the compilation of the Confederate archives, to represent the Confederate interests and to assure impartiality. Among these were Maj. Gens. Cadmus M. Wilcox, Charles W. Field, L. L. Lomax and Henry Heth, Col. E. J. Harvie and Maj. Jed. Hotchkiss, chief topographer of the Army of Northern Virginia.
[excerpt]
In its report to Congress upon this bill, December 7, 1882, the War Department invited attention to an inclosed report from Lieutenant-Colonel Scott, which pointed out the confusion and controversies to which such legislation would inevitably lead. In his report Lieutenant-Colonel Scott remarked:
The experience of this office has demonstrated the utter unreliability of recollections of the war. I have had a Union colonel apply for permission to retract a statement never made in his report of Ball's Bluff. A general officer has complained that his report of Shiloh was garbled, but when shown his original report he acknowledged that it was correctly printed. Again, a Confederate major-general denied ever having made a report that he saw noted in our catalogue, and on inspection it was found to be in his own handwriting, and he so acknowledged. As another instance I would mention that an attempt to ascertain who commanded a certain Confederate brigade in the Gettysburg campaign has developed two claimants for the position.
The bill was not enacted, and the Department, regarding this as an indorsement of its course, continued its previous policy of excluding post-bellum matter.
[end of excerpt]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I see it, those working as to compile the records saw the potential problem by having people make changes in their original reports. So, they proffered to Congress, to whom funded the project of compiling the records of the Civil War; to exclude any post-War changes to official reports.
Taking reports from the original submission - the good, the bad and the ugly; permits -- at least in my legal mind and reason, that these former participants in the American Civil War did the best they could to be extremely fair with what papers they could hold in their hands and put them into order, as to publish 128 volumes and later another 128 volumes that are known as 'supplements' to the O.R.s., published in hardback volumes by Stackpole Press. Each volume is approximately $124.00. As you can see-not an average income can purchase 128 additional volumes easily.
When I wrote official reports -- I did not think of 'writing for history.' I wrote in the moment, the details of which were important to record, the elements of which were required to document the investigation. Professional military officers I have spoken to, throughout my life -- as I lived in a neighborhood filled with former W.W. II veterans to include my father. World War II, has been the second and or third most documented and studied war in my lifetime. The other being the American Civil War and the Revolution. At times the War of 1812 pops up and or the other wars with the Native American Indians. However, when asking about what they are interested in most--most respond to either World War II or American Civil War.
When going through reports, you will always have to deal with the pride/ego and cause for writing the way they do. If a general lost a battle--sure, it is natural to blame others. But, we (in a general sense) are aware of these human traits and read other reports as to get the nuggets of agreeable truths from observations. Treat it like a crime scene with multiple witnesses. Depending on their location, depends on what they see. So from the Company level through the Battalion, the Regimental, the Brigade, the Division and or the Corps; the reports are certainly strained and common facts are then formed into the General's reports, which really are a summary.
Personal written accounts can also be written to fit the author's intentions/agenda as well. It is subjected to the same human traits as a General's report. Men want to be seen in the best light as possible and wish for promotion before the eyes of their superiors and wish for the support of their men.
Because humans are flawed. Nothing will be perfect. However, this is all we have to work with and feel those who worked on these Official Records, both Union and Confederate veterans of that War, they have the best judgment as to what 'really' happened and the importance of facts as to permit studies down the generation. I think it was great judgment by Halleck to gather up all the records that could be found as to secure them for inserting into the Official Records. But, clearly as all have stated plainly--so many Confederate records were gone, destroyed and or secured away by individuals. Thus, will always be an issue because these records are missing.
The Generals and or men who wrote their memoirs have done their part and presented their personal opinions and or correct the perception of others. That said, most of the memoirs have used the O.R.s to affirm and or correct their memory of certain events or, to give a personal opinion of tactics, movement's purposes, intentions for this or that part of their command in sequence to other commanding officers--be it friend or foe.
Another aspect to consider. The language of those times were very haughty compared to the language used today. What we (in a general sense) perceive to be snobbish or 'better than thou' was just normal. Just like we (in a general sense) can't fathom the idea after being captured as a general, you were escorted to head-quarters of the general to whom is your enemy, sit down, chat, have a meal and treated like he was a free man...not a P.O.W. Most of these men were former friends, West Point chums. All were American.
Some Confederate veterans would wear the "U.S. Army" uniform post Civil War and retained their former Confederate ranks. What other Nation could go through a bloody Civil War and move on! They did--we, (in a general sense) should too and be proud of those who wore the wool and bore the battle.
The men who worked on the O.R.s, did the best they could with what they had. They took steps so that these records could not be impeached then or now. By excluding any corrections. Excluding late admissions. What they had was 'in the moment.' With political men appointed generals and men to whom were professional soldiers. It would be my personal opinion, that I would be cautious about political generals, e.g. congressmen, governmental positions prior to their commissions more than military based men, e.g. West Pointers, VMI, etc., especially when there was no break in military service.
Furthermore, if a reader is 'pro' one side or the other, selective reading will happen. It is difficult to have an open mind however, to really read both sides and attempt to understand both, it might be more fruitful. I know I came into studies of the American Civil War spoon fed the Confederate gospel. Seeing the O.R.s, to read for myself and being in the legal profession applied these rules of evidence, I was shook. What I was taught was skewed and face saving bull pies. Though I have no blood kin in the Civil War--I can be neutral. There were no angels on the battlefield, save the nurses and surgeons.
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
16thVA
First Sergeant
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2008
- Location
- Philadelphia
Hey, ME Wolf. I'd like to get your opinion on something that has me puzzled. I have Series 1 Vol. 5 of the OR, and on page 636 it states that on Oct. 1, 1861, Col. Zeigler was in Ceredo, VA with 6 regiments.
http://dlxs2.library.cornell.edu/cg...de=waro0005:3&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=652
Some of those listed, such as the 12th (West) Virginia, were not mustered into service until late 1862, as you can see here-
http://www.lindapages.com/wvcw/12wvi/12wvi-1.htm
Is it possible the table was constructed by one of the compilers from later information? I can't seem to make sense of it. Thanks.
http://dlxs2.library.cornell.edu/cg...de=waro0005:3&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=652
Some of those listed, such as the 12th (West) Virginia, were not mustered into service until late 1862, as you can see here-
http://www.lindapages.com/wvcw/12wvi/12wvi-1.htm
Is it possible the table was constructed by one of the compilers from later information? I can't seem to make sense of it. Thanks.
RustyBull
Cadet
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Location
- In the Heart of Dixie
Anyone have any experience with the CD copies of the OR's sold on Ebay?
16th VA;
I'd go back in time when looking up Colonel Zeigler-- And, yes, for a while Union reports reflected "Virginia" in Union rank and file as the secession of West Virginia was still a 'process' and not 'finalized.'
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME 5 [S# 5]
NOVEMBER 10, 1861.--Affair at Guyandotte, W. Va.
Report of Adjt. J. C. Wheeler, Ninth Virginia Infantry, U. S. Army.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Adjutant-General's Office, Wheeling, November 13, 1861.
The undersigned, adjutant of the Ninth Virginia Regiment, a new regiment just forming at Guyandotte, Va., would beg leave respectfully to report that on Sunday evening, the 10th instant, just after 7 o'clock, the said regiment, consisting of only 150 men yet in camp, was completely surprised by 700 cavalry, under command of Jenkins, [Clark-son], the guerrilla chief, and cut to pieces and captured, with the loss also of about 30 horses, a small stock of Government stores, and 200 Enfield rifles. The dead and wounded on either side could not be clearly ascertained, but supposed to be 10 or 12 killed and 20 or 30 wounded. The enemy captured 70 prisoners and their loss in killed and wounded was equal to if not greater than ours. They left one of their captains dead on the street. His name was Hubbell, or a name similar in sound.
[excerpt]
The rebels held the place until about 8 o'clock the next morning, when the steamboat Boston came up with about 200 of the Fifth Virginia Regiment, under Colonel Zeigler. They were joined by a number of the Home Guards of Lawrence County, Ohio, who had assembled at Proctorsville, opposite, to prevent the rebels from landing in Ohio, which they had threatened to do. On the arrival of the Boston some shots were fired from a small cannon aboard, sending a ball through a rebel's brick house. The rebels immediately left on double-quick time, and the hypocritical secession citizens, who had been instrumental in getting up the attack, came on the bank of the Ohio with a great number of white flags, which they waived with great apparent earnestness. Our troops passed over, fired a few shots at the retreating rebels, whose rear was still in sight, and the armed citizens from Ohio set fire to the town, and a large portion of it in value was burned up. All our papers, books, rolls, &c., were captured. Respectfully submitted.
J. C. WHEELER,
Adjutant Ninth Virginia Regiment of Vols., U. S. Army.
-------------------------
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XII/1 [S# 15]
MAY 8, 1862.-- Engagement near McDowell (Bull Pasture Mountain), Va.
NO. 3.--Report of Brig. Gen. Robert C. Schenck, U.S. Army, commanding brigade.
HDQRS. SCHENCK'S BRIGADE, MOUNTAIN DEPARTMENT,
Camp Franklin, May 14, 1862.
I have had the honor in my dispatches, heretofore transmitted through you, to inform the general commanding of my march with my brigade from Franklin to McDowell to the relief of Brigadier-General Milroy, who, with his force, fallen back to and concentrated at the last-named place, was threatened with attack by the combined armies of the rebel Generals Jackson and Johnson. By leaving my baggage train under a guard in my last camp on the road 14 miles from McDowell, I was able to push forward so as to make the whole distance (34 miles) in twenty-three hours. I added, however, but little numerical strength to the army I was sent to relieve. My brigade, consisting of but three regiments, and with several companies then on detached and other duty, brought into the field an aggregate of only 1.300 infantry, besides De Beck's battery, of the First Ohio Artillery, and about 250 of the First Battalion of Connecticut Cavalry.
[excerpt]
As the evening closed in, and it was ascertained that, from the unexpected severity and protraction of the fight, the ammunition of some of the regiments was almost completely exhausted, I endeavored in person to get a supply of cartridges to the men, and had three wagon loads taken some distance up the Staunton road for that purpose, but the only way it could reach them up the steep mountain side was to be carried by hand or in haversacks. I ordered up the road also the Fifth Regiment West Virginia Infantry, Colonel Zeigler commanding, of my brigade, to the relief of the other troops, if needed, and they most promptly and actively moved to the field, but it was not necessary to bring them into the action. The troops that were engaged, after fighting with a coolness and order and bravery which it is impossible to excel, and after pressing back the enemy over the mountain crest and maintaining unflinchingly and under the most galling and constant fire their ground until darkness set in, were then withdrawn under the immediate order of Colonel McLean, of the Seventy-fifth Ohio, leaving, as I believe, not a prisoner behind, for the 3 men reported missing are supposed to be among the killed.
[excerpt]
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ROBT. C. SCHENCK,
Brigadier-General.
Col. ALBERT TRACY,
Asst. Adjt. Gen., Headquarters Mountain Department.
NOTE THE CHANGE?
----------------------------------
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XII/2 [S# 16]
AUGUST 16-SEPTEMBER 2, 1862.--Campaign in Northern Virginia.
No. 8.--Reports of Brig. Gen. Robert C. Schenck, U. S. Army, commanding First Division (by Lieutenant Chesebrough), of the battles of Groveton and Bull Run.
WASHINGTON, D. C., September 27, 1862.
GENERAL: I have the honor to submit a continuation of the report of the active participation of the First Division in the battles of the 29th and 30th ultimo.
[excerpt]
It was at this time, while all attention was directed to the front, where General Porter was hotly engaged, that a heavy column of the enemy were seen advancing on McLean's front, driving before them a regiment of Zouaves, and also repulsing some other troops who advanced to meet them from his right. Colonel McLean now opened on them with his four pieces of artillery, throwing shell, and as they approached nearer, canister. The infantry also commenced a heavy fire, and in a short time they were compelled to retreat, which they did in great confusion. At this time a large force was seen advancing from a piece of woods to the left and rear, but they were supposed to be friends, from the fact of their clothes being dark. Soon after this another body of the enemy marched out of the woods across the position lately occupied by General Reynolds and commenced a heavy fire on the left flank, which was replied to with interest, and the contest became very severe. Almost at the same time those whom we had taken for our own men opened a heavy fire on our rear. General Schenck then gave the order to change front, so as to repel this attack. This maneuver was well executed, the regiments wheeling by battalion and coming up into line, fronting the enemy in fine order. It was about this time that you ordered General Milroy up to the assistance of Colonel McLean, but owing to some contradictory orders only one regiment, the Fifth Virginia, Colonel Zeigler, went up the hill, the Others going in a different direction.
[excerpt]
I am, very respectfully, your most obedient servant,
WM. H. CHESEBROUGH,
Acting Assistant Adjutant-General.
Upon mentioning to General Schenck that I had been requested to make a report of Saturday's proceedings, and while unable, in his present condition, even to revise what I have written, he yet desires me to say that he wishes to express his approbation of the coolness and bravery displayed by General Stahel, Colonel McLean, and the officers and men of their respective brigades, and also to commend Lieutenant Blume and Lieutenant Hinchman, commanders of the batteries, for the active and efficient service they performed.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
WM. H. CHESEBROUGH,
Aide-de-Camp and Acting Assistant Adjutant-General.
--------------------------------
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XIX/2 [S# 28]
Correspondence, Orders, And Returns Relating To Operations In Northern Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, And Pennsylvania, From September 3 To November 14, 1862.
UNION CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.--#14
DISTRICT OF THE KANAWHA.
Col. J. A. J. LIGHTBURN.
Point Pleasant.
4th West Virginia, Lieut. Col. William H. H. Russell.
8th West Virginia, Lieut. Col. John H. Oley.
13th West Virginia, Lieut.. Col. William R. Brown.
2d West Virginia Cavalry, Lieut. Col. Rollin S. Curtis.
34th Ohio, Lieut. Col. F. E. Franklin.
89th Ohio, Col. John G. Marshall.
91st Ohio, Col. John A. Turley.
92d Ohio, Col. Nelson H. Van Vorhes.
Battery, Lieutenant De Lille.
Ten-Mile Creek.
37th Ohio, Lieut. Col. Louis Von Blessingh
47th Ohio, Maj. Frederick Heser.
Howitzer Battery, Lieut. James Shiels.
Ceredo.
5th West Virginia, Col. John L. Zeigler.
--------------------------------------------------------
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XXI [S# 31]
Correspondence, Orders, And Returns Relating To Operations In Northern Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, And Pennsylvania From November 15, 1862, To January 26, 1863.
UNION CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.--#3
HEADQUARTERS,
Charleston, [W. Va.,] November 28, 1862.
Col. J. L. ZEIGLER,
Commanding Fifth Virginia Cavalry, Ceredo:
Floyd, with some 700 or 800 men, principally cavalry, is reported on the Upper Guyandotte. Send your scouting parties well out in that direction, and report promptly all information you get. If Floyd shows himself in your vicinity, communicate with Colonel Cranor, and take the most effectual measures to drive the enemy back.
By command of Major-General Cox:
G. M. BASCOM,
Major and Assistant Adjutant-General.
---------------------------------------------------------
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XXIII/2 [S# 35]
Correspondence, Orders, And Returns Relating To Operations In Kentucky, Middle And East Tennessee, North Alabama, And Southwest Virginia, From January 21 To August 10, 1863.
UNION CORRESPONDENCE. ETC.--#3
HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE OHIO,
Cincinnati, Ohio, February 14, 1863.
Brig. Gen. JULIUS WHITE,
Commanding District of Eastern Kentucky, Louisa, Ky.:
GENERAL: Yours of the 11th instant, giving information, received by you from Colonel Dils, that the rebels were collecting a force with a view to an attack on his post at Peach Orchard, or at Louisa, and stating the steps you have taken to secure the subsistence stores lately sent to Peach Orchard by Colonel Cranor, has been received.
[excerpt]
The troops in your vicinity, in regard to which you inquire in a former letter, are, first, one West Virginia regiment (the Fifth), at Ceredo, which scouts the valley of the Little Kanawha and up the eastern side of the Big Sandy. Second, the troops, some 6,000 strong, in the valley of the Kanawha, under the immediate command of Brigadier-General Scammon. It would be well to keep in communication with Colonel Zeigler and General Scammon. Third, to the west there are no troops nearer to you than Mount Sterling and Irvine, where there are at the former one battalion and at the latter two battalions of the Fourteenth Kentucky Cavalry. Those at Irvine are not yet fully equipped. This three scouts eastward to West Liberty.
[excerpt]
In conclusion, I would say that the efficiency of the force in the district must depend mainly on the officer in command, since the operations to be undertaken are of such a character as to preclude any but general instructions. All the details must be left by me to his judgment and discretion, and he must act according to the necessities of the ease, ever varying with the movements of the rebels, which cannot generally be provided against by positive instructions from these headquarters.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
H. G.WRIGHT,
Major-General, Commanding.
-----
I'd go back in time when looking up Colonel Zeigler-- And, yes, for a while Union reports reflected "Virginia" in Union rank and file as the secession of West Virginia was still a 'process' and not 'finalized.'
----------------------------------------------
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME 5 [S# 5]
NOVEMBER 10, 1861.--Affair at Guyandotte, W. Va.
Report of Adjt. J. C. Wheeler, Ninth Virginia Infantry, U. S. Army.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Adjutant-General's Office, Wheeling, November 13, 1861.
The undersigned, adjutant of the Ninth Virginia Regiment, a new regiment just forming at Guyandotte, Va., would beg leave respectfully to report that on Sunday evening, the 10th instant, just after 7 o'clock, the said regiment, consisting of only 150 men yet in camp, was completely surprised by 700 cavalry, under command of Jenkins, [Clark-son], the guerrilla chief, and cut to pieces and captured, with the loss also of about 30 horses, a small stock of Government stores, and 200 Enfield rifles. The dead and wounded on either side could not be clearly ascertained, but supposed to be 10 or 12 killed and 20 or 30 wounded. The enemy captured 70 prisoners and their loss in killed and wounded was equal to if not greater than ours. They left one of their captains dead on the street. His name was Hubbell, or a name similar in sound.
[excerpt]
The rebels held the place until about 8 o'clock the next morning, when the steamboat Boston came up with about 200 of the Fifth Virginia Regiment, under Colonel Zeigler. They were joined by a number of the Home Guards of Lawrence County, Ohio, who had assembled at Proctorsville, opposite, to prevent the rebels from landing in Ohio, which they had threatened to do. On the arrival of the Boston some shots were fired from a small cannon aboard, sending a ball through a rebel's brick house. The rebels immediately left on double-quick time, and the hypocritical secession citizens, who had been instrumental in getting up the attack, came on the bank of the Ohio with a great number of white flags, which they waived with great apparent earnestness. Our troops passed over, fired a few shots at the retreating rebels, whose rear was still in sight, and the armed citizens from Ohio set fire to the town, and a large portion of it in value was burned up. All our papers, books, rolls, &c., were captured. Respectfully submitted.
J. C. WHEELER,
Adjutant Ninth Virginia Regiment of Vols., U. S. Army.
-------------------------
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XII/1 [S# 15]
MAY 8, 1862.-- Engagement near McDowell (Bull Pasture Mountain), Va.
NO. 3.--Report of Brig. Gen. Robert C. Schenck, U.S. Army, commanding brigade.
HDQRS. SCHENCK'S BRIGADE, MOUNTAIN DEPARTMENT,
Camp Franklin, May 14, 1862.
I have had the honor in my dispatches, heretofore transmitted through you, to inform the general commanding of my march with my brigade from Franklin to McDowell to the relief of Brigadier-General Milroy, who, with his force, fallen back to and concentrated at the last-named place, was threatened with attack by the combined armies of the rebel Generals Jackson and Johnson. By leaving my baggage train under a guard in my last camp on the road 14 miles from McDowell, I was able to push forward so as to make the whole distance (34 miles) in twenty-three hours. I added, however, but little numerical strength to the army I was sent to relieve. My brigade, consisting of but three regiments, and with several companies then on detached and other duty, brought into the field an aggregate of only 1.300 infantry, besides De Beck's battery, of the First Ohio Artillery, and about 250 of the First Battalion of Connecticut Cavalry.
[excerpt]
As the evening closed in, and it was ascertained that, from the unexpected severity and protraction of the fight, the ammunition of some of the regiments was almost completely exhausted, I endeavored in person to get a supply of cartridges to the men, and had three wagon loads taken some distance up the Staunton road for that purpose, but the only way it could reach them up the steep mountain side was to be carried by hand or in haversacks. I ordered up the road also the Fifth Regiment West Virginia Infantry, Colonel Zeigler commanding, of my brigade, to the relief of the other troops, if needed, and they most promptly and actively moved to the field, but it was not necessary to bring them into the action. The troops that were engaged, after fighting with a coolness and order and bravery which it is impossible to excel, and after pressing back the enemy over the mountain crest and maintaining unflinchingly and under the most galling and constant fire their ground until darkness set in, were then withdrawn under the immediate order of Colonel McLean, of the Seventy-fifth Ohio, leaving, as I believe, not a prisoner behind, for the 3 men reported missing are supposed to be among the killed.
[excerpt]
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ROBT. C. SCHENCK,
Brigadier-General.
Col. ALBERT TRACY,
Asst. Adjt. Gen., Headquarters Mountain Department.
NOTE THE CHANGE?
----------------------------------
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XII/2 [S# 16]
AUGUST 16-SEPTEMBER 2, 1862.--Campaign in Northern Virginia.
No. 8.--Reports of Brig. Gen. Robert C. Schenck, U. S. Army, commanding First Division (by Lieutenant Chesebrough), of the battles of Groveton and Bull Run.
WASHINGTON, D. C., September 27, 1862.
GENERAL: I have the honor to submit a continuation of the report of the active participation of the First Division in the battles of the 29th and 30th ultimo.
[excerpt]
It was at this time, while all attention was directed to the front, where General Porter was hotly engaged, that a heavy column of the enemy were seen advancing on McLean's front, driving before them a regiment of Zouaves, and also repulsing some other troops who advanced to meet them from his right. Colonel McLean now opened on them with his four pieces of artillery, throwing shell, and as they approached nearer, canister. The infantry also commenced a heavy fire, and in a short time they were compelled to retreat, which they did in great confusion. At this time a large force was seen advancing from a piece of woods to the left and rear, but they were supposed to be friends, from the fact of their clothes being dark. Soon after this another body of the enemy marched out of the woods across the position lately occupied by General Reynolds and commenced a heavy fire on the left flank, which was replied to with interest, and the contest became very severe. Almost at the same time those whom we had taken for our own men opened a heavy fire on our rear. General Schenck then gave the order to change front, so as to repel this attack. This maneuver was well executed, the regiments wheeling by battalion and coming up into line, fronting the enemy in fine order. It was about this time that you ordered General Milroy up to the assistance of Colonel McLean, but owing to some contradictory orders only one regiment, the Fifth Virginia, Colonel Zeigler, went up the hill, the Others going in a different direction.
[excerpt]
I am, very respectfully, your most obedient servant,
WM. H. CHESEBROUGH,
Acting Assistant Adjutant-General.
Upon mentioning to General Schenck that I had been requested to make a report of Saturday's proceedings, and while unable, in his present condition, even to revise what I have written, he yet desires me to say that he wishes to express his approbation of the coolness and bravery displayed by General Stahel, Colonel McLean, and the officers and men of their respective brigades, and also to commend Lieutenant Blume and Lieutenant Hinchman, commanders of the batteries, for the active and efficient service they performed.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
WM. H. CHESEBROUGH,
Aide-de-Camp and Acting Assistant Adjutant-General.
--------------------------------
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XIX/2 [S# 28]
Correspondence, Orders, And Returns Relating To Operations In Northern Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, And Pennsylvania, From September 3 To November 14, 1862.
UNION CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.--#14
DISTRICT OF THE KANAWHA.
Col. J. A. J. LIGHTBURN.
Point Pleasant.
4th West Virginia, Lieut. Col. William H. H. Russell.
8th West Virginia, Lieut. Col. John H. Oley.
13th West Virginia, Lieut.. Col. William R. Brown.
2d West Virginia Cavalry, Lieut. Col. Rollin S. Curtis.
34th Ohio, Lieut. Col. F. E. Franklin.
89th Ohio, Col. John G. Marshall.
91st Ohio, Col. John A. Turley.
92d Ohio, Col. Nelson H. Van Vorhes.
Battery, Lieutenant De Lille.
Ten-Mile Creek.
37th Ohio, Lieut. Col. Louis Von Blessingh
47th Ohio, Maj. Frederick Heser.
Howitzer Battery, Lieut. James Shiels.
Ceredo.
5th West Virginia, Col. John L. Zeigler.
--------------------------------------------------------
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XXI [S# 31]
Correspondence, Orders, And Returns Relating To Operations In Northern Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, And Pennsylvania From November 15, 1862, To January 26, 1863.
UNION CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.--#3
HEADQUARTERS,
Charleston, [W. Va.,] November 28, 1862.
Col. J. L. ZEIGLER,
Commanding Fifth Virginia Cavalry, Ceredo:
Floyd, with some 700 or 800 men, principally cavalry, is reported on the Upper Guyandotte. Send your scouting parties well out in that direction, and report promptly all information you get. If Floyd shows himself in your vicinity, communicate with Colonel Cranor, and take the most effectual measures to drive the enemy back.
By command of Major-General Cox:
G. M. BASCOM,
Major and Assistant Adjutant-General.
---------------------------------------------------------
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XXIII/2 [S# 35]
Correspondence, Orders, And Returns Relating To Operations In Kentucky, Middle And East Tennessee, North Alabama, And Southwest Virginia, From January 21 To August 10, 1863.
UNION CORRESPONDENCE. ETC.--#3
HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE OHIO,
Cincinnati, Ohio, February 14, 1863.
Brig. Gen. JULIUS WHITE,
Commanding District of Eastern Kentucky, Louisa, Ky.:
GENERAL: Yours of the 11th instant, giving information, received by you from Colonel Dils, that the rebels were collecting a force with a view to an attack on his post at Peach Orchard, or at Louisa, and stating the steps you have taken to secure the subsistence stores lately sent to Peach Orchard by Colonel Cranor, has been received.
[excerpt]
The troops in your vicinity, in regard to which you inquire in a former letter, are, first, one West Virginia regiment (the Fifth), at Ceredo, which scouts the valley of the Little Kanawha and up the eastern side of the Big Sandy. Second, the troops, some 6,000 strong, in the valley of the Kanawha, under the immediate command of Brigadier-General Scammon. It would be well to keep in communication with Colonel Zeigler and General Scammon. Third, to the west there are no troops nearer to you than Mount Sterling and Irvine, where there are at the former one battalion and at the latter two battalions of the Fourteenth Kentucky Cavalry. Those at Irvine are not yet fully equipped. This three scouts eastward to West Liberty.
[excerpt]
In conclusion, I would say that the efficiency of the force in the district must depend mainly on the officer in command, since the operations to be undertaken are of such a character as to preclude any but general instructions. All the details must be left by me to his judgment and discretion, and he must act according to the necessities of the ease, ever varying with the movements of the rebels, which cannot generally be provided against by positive instructions from these headquarters.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
H. G.WRIGHT,
Major-General, Commanding.
-----
O.R.--SERIES III--VOLUME I [S# 122]
CORRESPONDENCE, ORDERS, REPORTS, AND RETURNS OF THE UNION AUTHORITIES FROM NOVEMBER 1, 1860, TO MARCH 31, 1862.(*)--#27
ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE,
Wheeling, Va., November 20, 1861.
ADJUTANT-GENERAL U.S. ARMY, Washington:
Inclosed find statement of volunteers for U.S. service, as required by telegram of yesterday from Secretary Cameron to Governor Peirpoint to be forwarded you. If details are insufficient, inform me wherein.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
HENRY J. SAMUELS,
Adjutant-General of Virginia.
[lnclosure.]
Virginia Volunteers in U. S. service.
C Complete companies.
I Incomplete companies.
N Number of rank and file.
Arm of service. No. of regiment. Commandant. C I N Headquarters regiment. Remarks.
Infantry
1st Col. Joseph Thoburn. 9 (a) 1 920 Romney Regiment complete by to-morrow.
Do 2d Col. John W. Moss 10 .... 960 Camp Elkwater Regiment complete
Do 3d Col. David T. Hewes 10 .... 960 Clarksburg Companies scattered and complete
Do 4th Col. J. A. J. Lightburn 9 1 850 Point Pleasant Nearly complete.
Do 5th Col. John L. Zeigler 7 3 800 Ceredo Six companies with General Rosecrans.
Do 6th Col. Nathan Wilkinson 12 3 1,340 Wheeling Scattered on Baltimore and Ohio R.R. and
----Northwestern Virginia
Do 7th Col. James Evans. 8 2 820 Romney Nearly complete.
Do 8th Maj. John H. Oley 2 8 700 Charlston, Kanawha County Rifle regiment.
Do 9th Lieut. Joseph C. Wheeler 1 9 150 .... Cut up by Jenkins at Guyandotte.
Do 10th Lieutenant Colonel Starr 2 8 400 Mason City ....
Do 11th Lieutenant-Colonel Rathbone. 3 7 600 Walker's Station, Northwestern Va. R.R. ....
Do. 12th Thomas M. Harris 2 8 400 .... Detachments not concentrated.
Cavalry
1st Col. Henry Anisansel 12 .... 1,100 Clarksburg With companies detached.
Do 2d Col. William M. Bolles 10 .... 808 Parkersburg. All.
Do 3d .... .... .... .... .... About eight or nine incomplete companies scattered through West Virginia are intended to form Third Mounted Regiment.
Artillery
.... Philip Daum 1 .... 82 Romney With General Kelley.
Do .... Samuel Davey 1 .... 156 Ceredo No attachment nor cannon.
Do .... Jerome Foster .... 1 120 Wheeling Do.
Do .... Hickman .... 1 (b) Morgantown. Do.
Do .... Frank Buell .... 1 (c) 80 Camp Carlile. Do.
Independent companies.
Scouts .... John P. Baggs 1 .... 50 In the woods, Wirt and Calhoun counties. ....
Do .... D. C. M. Shell 1 .... 90 In the woods, Hardy County. ....
The colonels, although ordered, have failed to furnish information, except Col. William M. Bolles, who has made daily reports since ordered, but the number of men and the stations of troops are believed to be nearly correct.
H. J. SAMUELS,
Adjutant-General of Virginia.
-----
Colonel John C. Zeigler drops off the radar it seems after this and, I do not see him listed in receiving a Brevet Brigadier-General.
M. E. Wolf
CORRESPONDENCE, ORDERS, REPORTS, AND RETURNS OF THE UNION AUTHORITIES FROM NOVEMBER 1, 1860, TO MARCH 31, 1862.(*)--#27
ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE,
Wheeling, Va., November 20, 1861.
ADJUTANT-GENERAL U.S. ARMY, Washington:
Inclosed find statement of volunteers for U.S. service, as required by telegram of yesterday from Secretary Cameron to Governor Peirpoint to be forwarded you. If details are insufficient, inform me wherein.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
HENRY J. SAMUELS,
Adjutant-General of Virginia.
[lnclosure.]
Virginia Volunteers in U. S. service.
C Complete companies.
I Incomplete companies.
N Number of rank and file.
Arm of service. No. of regiment. Commandant. C I N Headquarters regiment. Remarks.
Infantry
1st Col. Joseph Thoburn. 9 (a) 1 920 Romney Regiment complete by to-morrow.
Do 2d Col. John W. Moss 10 .... 960 Camp Elkwater Regiment complete
Do 3d Col. David T. Hewes 10 .... 960 Clarksburg Companies scattered and complete
Do 4th Col. J. A. J. Lightburn 9 1 850 Point Pleasant Nearly complete.
Do 5th Col. John L. Zeigler 7 3 800 Ceredo Six companies with General Rosecrans.
Do 6th Col. Nathan Wilkinson 12 3 1,340 Wheeling Scattered on Baltimore and Ohio R.R. and
----Northwestern Virginia
Do 7th Col. James Evans. 8 2 820 Romney Nearly complete.
Do 8th Maj. John H. Oley 2 8 700 Charlston, Kanawha County Rifle regiment.
Do 9th Lieut. Joseph C. Wheeler 1 9 150 .... Cut up by Jenkins at Guyandotte.
Do 10th Lieutenant Colonel Starr 2 8 400 Mason City ....
Do 11th Lieutenant-Colonel Rathbone. 3 7 600 Walker's Station, Northwestern Va. R.R. ....
Do. 12th Thomas M. Harris 2 8 400 .... Detachments not concentrated.
Cavalry
1st Col. Henry Anisansel 12 .... 1,100 Clarksburg With companies detached.
Do 2d Col. William M. Bolles 10 .... 808 Parkersburg. All.
Do 3d .... .... .... .... .... About eight or nine incomplete companies scattered through West Virginia are intended to form Third Mounted Regiment.
Artillery
.... Philip Daum 1 .... 82 Romney With General Kelley.
Do .... Samuel Davey 1 .... 156 Ceredo No attachment nor cannon.
Do .... Jerome Foster .... 1 120 Wheeling Do.
Do .... Hickman .... 1 (b) Morgantown. Do.
Do .... Frank Buell .... 1 (c) 80 Camp Carlile. Do.
Independent companies.
Scouts .... John P. Baggs 1 .... 50 In the woods, Wirt and Calhoun counties. ....
Do .... D. C. M. Shell 1 .... 90 In the woods, Hardy County. ....
The colonels, although ordered, have failed to furnish information, except Col. William M. Bolles, who has made daily reports since ordered, but the number of men and the stations of troops are believed to be nearly correct.
H. J. SAMUELS,
Adjutant-General of Virginia.
-----
Colonel John C. Zeigler drops off the radar it seems after this and, I do not see him listed in receiving a Brevet Brigadier-General.
M. E. Wolf
16thVA
First Sergeant
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2008
- Location
- Philadelphia
ME Wolf, thank you very much for that information. I think I have a better understanding of that page that bothered me. I see that the 12th, as well as some of the earlier regiments, were still in the process of formation, and the muster date is just the formal completion of the regiment. I've printed your information so I can keep it handy.
If anyone is interested, the most information I've found on Col. Zeigler is in Jack Dickinson's "Wayne County, West Virginia, in the Civil War". Col. Zeigler was twice brought up on charges of incompetence and insubordination, and he resigned from the army in April of 1863. He was originally from Pennsylvania, and he used the town of Ceredo, the colony started by Massachusett's abolitionist Eli Thayer as a recruiting center.
If anyone is interested, the most information I've found on Col. Zeigler is in Jack Dickinson's "Wayne County, West Virginia, in the Civil War". Col. Zeigler was twice brought up on charges of incompetence and insubordination, and he resigned from the army in April of 1863. He was originally from Pennsylvania, and he used the town of Ceredo, the colony started by Massachusett's abolitionist Eli Thayer as a recruiting center.
There is another set of records by the way. In 1995 there is a Supplement to the O.R. I saw a hard copy in Arkansas on my trip, but have not found a digitized copy. Dyer's has only 10 sentences on the regiment I am researching and the Supplement had 40 pages of stuff, including Company histories. For example, I thought my ancestor was in Humboldt Tn Dec 20 involved in a skirmish and the Supplement said his company was in Jackson Tn.
Blessmag,
I wouldn't mind having a digital copy of the supplements, as I have no room for 128 volumes of books. I'm hard pressed for space as it is.
Having it on digital is just easier to store and research.
Respectfully submitted,
M. E. Wolf
I wouldn't mind having a digital copy of the supplements, as I have no room for 128 volumes of books. I'm hard pressed for space as it is.
Having it on digital is just easier to store and research.
Respectfully submitted,
M. E. Wolf
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
Similar threads
Similar threads
- Learn About Us
- ►About CivilWarTalk
- ►Contact the Webmaster
- ►Meet the Staff
- ►Link to CivilWarTalk
- Join Our Community
- ►Register
- ►Browse Forums
- ►View Today's Discussions
- ►Search the Forum
- Get Help
- ►FAQ
- ►Student Guide
- ►Forum Rules & Etiquette
- ►Copyright / DMCA
Bringing the