Organization Within Understrength Regiments?

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

A full volunteer infantry regiment was 10 companies of 100 men each, with a Captain and 2-3 Lieutenants. Regiment HQ included a Colonel, Lt. Colonel, and Major. So 1000+ men including all regimental and company staff.

By the latter half of the war, various unreplenished losses had reduced many regiments were reduced to only 200-300 men.

In these shrunken regiments, if there was no expectation of new recruits or returning casualties, furloughs, etc. ever increasing the regiment's strength, was the normal regimental organization usually still maintained? Or was it normal to consolidate severely understrength companies when the Captain was promoted or killed? Were these shrunken regiments deliberately left in the hands of LtCols or Majors when the Colonel was promoted or killed because they were now battalion-sized?

 

[RedRover]

A full volunteer infantry regiment was 10 companies of 100 men each, with a Captain and 2-3 Lieutenants. Regiment HQ included a Colonel, Lt. Colonel, and Major. So 1000+ men including all regimental and company staff.

By the latter half of the war, various unreplenished losses had reduced many regiments were reduced to only 200-300 men.

In these shrunken regiments, if there was no expectation of new recruits or returning casualties, furloughs, etc. ever increasing the regiment's strength, was the normal regimental organization usually still maintained? Or was it normal to consolidate severely understrength companies when the Captain was promoted or killed? Were these shrunken regiments deliberately left in the hands of LtCols or Majors when the Colonel was promoted or killed because they were now battalion-sized?

So, it was standard, per the infantry tactics, that each regiment/battalion equalize the number of men in each company in line for the purposes of maneuver. Where the regiment's strength was so reduced, that ten functional companies (of two platoons each) could not be formed, companies could be consolidated if necessary: in other words the ten companies of the regiment might be formed into a lesser number. For example, by Gettysburg, a number of regiments were incapable of forming a ten company battalion. The 49th Pennsylvania could only form a four company battalion with the officers and men of its ten companies.

This was not uncommon. The 116th Pennsylvania did the same after Fredericksburg, forming its personnel and remaining officers into a battalion of four companies...

As mentioned above, the "supernumerary" officers would be sent home for recruiting, or otherwise detailed, etc. Gen. John Beatty, USA noted in late 1862:

The 7th Maine was so reduced that by 1863 it formed only five companies in line of battle...

At the time of the battle of Gettysburg, the personnel of only six companies of the regiment were on hand, as the regiment's colonel and four of the skeleton companies were in Maine yet attempting to recruit the regiment.

Nor was the above simply an issue with the volunteer regiments. The regulars did the same...

Here's an extreme case, where a regiment was so reduced as to form only a single company, attached to another regiment for service...

By the time of the Battle of Gettysburg, the United States Government, and the Army, had acted to systematically and legally deal with the reduced strength of the volunteer regiments. The number of men in line of battle in the field could fluctuate wildly for a variety of reasons, and their commanders had to act as necessary in forming them; but where the number of men on the rolls dropped below a certain number, laws were enacted to allow for consolidations to be rendered by law of the ten companies of a regiment into a fewer number, under the 19th and 20th Section of the Act of Congress of March 2, 1863;

In the cases of section 19 consolidations, the supernumerary officers were to be discharged.

In conformity to the above act came Army General Orders no. 86 of April 2, 1863 regarding under-strength regiments...

An example of that general order in action...

Also shortly after General Order no. 182 of June 20, 1863 provided for reduced regiments that were not yet at or below 1/2 strength on the rolls requiring action per. G.O. no. 86.

The US War Department where necessary, would transfer the personnel of the skeleton regiments into another to recruit it by regimental consolidation. This legal consolidation of volunteer regiments was unpopular, as the smaller of the two regiments was essentially disbanded for the purpose. For example the 32nd Maine, which was so understrength, that it was legally disbanded upon its being consolidated with the 31st Maine in December, 1864:

The legal consolidation of volunteer units, by a combination of two regiments to form a functional one, was terribly unpopular with many of the volunteer soldiers. An extreme case from the time...

The modes of the Confederate Army were the same, but unlike the USA, did not provide any legal means of consolidating companies or regiments, etc. The regiments as they shrank, forming a smaller number of companies in line of battle. After the Battle of Atlanta, Capt. Hugh Black of the 6th Florida Volunteers wrote his wife that the regiment went into action with ten reasonably sized companies, but afterwards, could only form five small ones at best in forming its battalion in line.

The Confederacy did not allow for the dissolution of volunteer regiments except by expiration of service, so where two regiments were so reduced that they could not function as a battalion, they would be consolidated by simple combination or union into a single battalion line of battle. Like the 8th and 19th Arkansas Regiments (Consolidated). The regiments and their ten companies remained distinct in point of paper organization, but in all regimental functions and forming line of battle, acted as one; the personnel of each regiment generally formed perhaps one wing of the battalion, perhaps four or five companies at best...

Although evidently Bragg's headquarters didn't agree with the term "consolidation" in these cases, it was generally the term employed in the Confederate army for the union of two (or more) regiments for service as a single battalion.


Here's an example of the 10th South Carolina, consolidated physically into six companies, and then the regiment consolidated with the 19th South Carolina, itself consolidated into four companies...

As they shrank the number of companies that could be physically formed would too. When the 1st Florida Cavalry (dismounted) and 4th Florida were consolidated in late 1863, the 1st Cavalry could only form two companies... increased to three as sick, stragglers, and exchanged prisoners returned before the Atlanta Campaign.

After the Atlanta campaign, camped at Palmetto, General Hood's army had a general reorganization, with battalions consolidating companies for efficiency, etc. in the upcoming campaign into Tennessee. I recall seeing notice of brigades of the army at that time being consolidated to act in a single battalion formation. The veterans of the 16th Tennessee recall their regiment was consolidated into three small companies by the time of the battle of Franklin...

A situation which continued into 1865, when many Confederate regiments, even consolidated ones, could only form a single company in line of battle. In the last reorganization of the Army of Tennessee, for example, the six regiments of the Florida Brigade were reorganized into a single small battalion.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

So, it was standard, per the infantry tactics, that each regiment/battalion equalize the number of men in each company in line for the purposes of maneuver. Where the regiment's strength was so reduced, that ten functional companies (of two platoons each) could not be formed, companies could be consolidated if necessary: in other words the ten companies of the regiment might be formed into a lesser number. For example, by Gettysburg, a number of regiments were incapable of forming a ten company battalion. The 49th Pennsylvania could only form a four company battalion with the officers and men of its ten companies.

View attachment 541714

This was not uncommon. The 116th Pennsylvania did the same after Fredericksburg, forming its personnel and remaining officers into a battalion of four companies...

View attachment 541715
View attachment 541716
View attachment 541717
View attachment 541718


As mentioned above, the "supernumerary" officers would be sent home for recruiting, or otherwise detailed, etc. Gen. John Beatty, USA noted in late 1862:

View attachment 541760



The 7th Maine was so reduced that by 1863 it formed only five companies in line of battle...

View attachment 541719

At the time of the battle of Gettysburg, the personnel of only six companies of the regiment were on hand, as the regiment's colonel and four of the skeleton companies were in Maine yet attempting to recruit the regiment.

Nor was the above simply an issue with the volunteer regiments. The regulars did the same...

View attachment 541720


Here's an extreme case, where a regiment was so reduced as to form only a single company, attached to another regiment for service...

View attachment 541758


By the time of the Battle of Gettysburg, the United States Government, and the Army, had acted to systematically and legally deal with the reduced strength of the volunteer regiments. The number of men in line of battle in the field could fluctuate wildly for a variety of reasons, and their commanders had to act as necessary in forming them; but where the number of men on the rolls dropped below a certain number, laws were enacted to allow for consolidations to be rendered by law of the ten companies of a regiment into a fewer number, under the 19th and 20th Section of the Act of Congress of March 2, 1863;

View attachment 541726

In the cases of section 19 consolidations, the supernumerary officers were to be discharged.

In conformity to the above act came Army General Orders no. 86 of April 2, 1863 regarding under-strength regiments...

View attachment 541729
View attachment 541730

An example of that general order in action...

View attachment 541728

Also shortly after General Order no. 182 of June 20, 1863 provided for reduced regiments that were not yet at or below 1/2 strength on the rolls requiring action per. G.O. no. 86.

View attachment 541731




The US War Department where necessary, would transfer the personnel of the skeleton regiments into another to recruit it by regimental consolidation. This legal consolidation of volunteer regiments was unpopular, as the smaller of the two regiments was essentially disbanded for the purpose. For example the 32nd Maine, which was so understrength, that it was legally disbanded upon its being consolidated with the 31st Maine in December, 1864:

View attachment 541733
View attachment 541734

The legal consolidation of volunteer units, by a combination of two regiments to form a functional one, was terribly unpopular with many of the volunteer soldiers. An extreme case from the time...

View attachment 541721



The modes of the Confederate Army were the same, but unlike the USA, did not provide any legal means of consolidating companies or regiments, etc. The regiments as they shrank, forming a smaller number of companies in line of battle. After the Battle of Atlanta, Capt. Hugh Black of the 6th Florida Volunteers wrote his wife that the regiment went into action with ten reasonably sized companies, but afterwards, could only form five small ones at best in forming its battalion in line.

The Confederacy did not allow for the dissolution of volunteer regiments except by expiration of service, so where two regiments were so reduced that they could not function as a battalion, they would be consolidated by simple combination or union into a single battalion line of battle. Like the 8th and 19th Arkansas Regiments (Consolidated). The regiments and their ten companies remained distinct in point of paper organization, but in all regimental functions and forming line of battle, acted as one; the personnel of each regiment generally formed perhaps one wing of the battalion, perhaps four or five companies at best...

View attachment 541723

Although evidently Bragg's headquarters didn't agree with the term "consolidation" in these cases, it was generally the term employed in the Confederate army for the union of two (or more) regiments for service as a single battalion.


Here's an example of the 10th South Carolina, consolidated physically into six companies, and then the regiment consolidated with the 19th South Carolina, itself consolidated into four companies...

View attachment 541724
View attachment 541725

As they shrank the number of companies that could be physically formed would too. When the 1st Florida Cavalry (dismounted) and 4th Florida were consolidated in late 1863, the 1st Cavalry could only form two companies... increased to three as sick, stragglers, and exchanged prisoners returned before the Atlanta Campaign.

After the Atlanta campaign, camped at Palmetto, General Hood's army had a general reorganization, with battalions consolidating companies for efficiency, etc. in the upcoming campaign into Tennessee. I recall seeing notice of brigades of the army at that time being consolidated to act in a single battalion formation. The veterans of the 16th Tennessee recall their regiment was consolidated into three small companies by the time of the battle of Franklin...

View attachment 541755
View attachment 541756

A situation which continued into 1865, when many Confederate regiments, even consolidated ones, could only form a single company in line of battle. In the last reorganization of the Army of Tennessee, for example, the six regiments of the Florida Brigade were reorganized into a single small battalion.

Excellent response, @red Rover.

 

[Cavalier]

If I remember correctly the three New York Regiments of the Irish Brigade had been consolidated into a single, small "battalion" by the time they participated in the Battle of Gettysburg.

Not sure of the number of companies in that "battalion" though.

John

 

[RedRover]

If I remember correctly the three New York Regiments of the Irish Brigade had been consolidated into a single, small "battalion" by the time they participated in the Battle of Gettysburg.

Not sure of the number of companies in that "battalion" though.

John

Indeed. An excellent and extreme example. The final report of New York soldiers at Gettysburg shows the battalion formed of the combined three New York regiments included six companies; with each of the regiments forming two of the companies...

All commanded by Lt. Col. Bentley, of the 63rd New York, as a single battalion at Gettysburg.

 

[Cavalier]

@RedRover Thanks for posting that. I don't recall seeing that before now.

John

 

[Stryker65]

@RedRover 8th Missouri's an example of depletion by muster-out, not depletion by losses.

@Joshism in the Western Confederate armies, regiments were usually consolidated when they became understrength. In order to accomodate for the consolidation, companies were consolidated, but the regiment was filled out by the new consolidated regiments. For example, the 32nd/58th Alabama Infantry had five companies of 32nd AL men and five companies of 58th AL men. Sometimes, though, companies were consolidated A-A B-B C-C D-D etc, although that happening was quite rare. Again, for the 19th/24th Arkansas:

In the ANV, there were very few regimental consolidations. Any units that were consolidated were first disbanded and their men redistributed. The 5th Virginia Cavalry is one of the few organized consolidations that took place during the war:

In the ANV, infantry regiments remained understrength for the entirety of the war. The only exception was the annihilation of Edward Johnson's division at Spotsylvania, after which five brigades were each consolidated into one regiment. At the end of the war, the two Louisiana brigade-regiments were consolidated into one battalion of six companies.