Grant Question about ORs

[Norm53]

For each battle, is only one written by one commander, or are several written by different commanders?

 

[A. Roy]

For each battle, is only one written by by one commander, or are several written by different commanders?

I know there are folks here who have worked with the Official Records for much longer than I have. I can tell you for sure, though, that you will find reports from multiple commanders for any given battle. Hope I understood your question correctly.

When I'm researching any event in the OR, I will use the index, looking up the names of commanders who I know to have been involved. That leads me to the page number of that officer's report.

Roy B.

 

[Rebforever]

For each battle, is only one written by by one commander, or are several written by different commanders?

Reports are written all the way down to regiments.

 

[JOHN42768]

Same as after battle reports

 

[Norm53]

Thanks all.

 

[huskerblitz]

Reports are written all the way down to regiments.

But not all the time. Some only go down as far as a brigade commander. Or at the very least, regimental AAR were not always included in the ORs.

 

[Norm53]

Reports are written all the way down to regiments.

Assuming that an entire army is involved in a battle, there would be ORs for each involved regiment, brigade, division, corps, and army?

 

[Rebforever]

Yes.

Assuming that an entire army is involved in a battle, there would be ORs for each involved regiment, brigade, division, corps, and army?

Yes.

 

[James N.]

Assuming that an entire army is involved in a battle, there would be ORs for each involved regiment, brigade, division, corps, and army?

Yes.

That's the desired rule, but of course there are exceptions, some more serious than others. For example, Confederate reports for the 1864 battles of Franklin and Nashville are notably missing, due mainly to the extremely high casualty rate for officers at all command levels, particularly at Franklin.

 

[Belfoured]

But not all the time. Some only go down as far as a brigade commander. Or at the very least, regimental AAR were not always included in the ORs.

Good point. There are a few issues. (1) Not every corps/division/brigade required reports from the bottom up; (2) it could vary from battle to battle for any number of reasons (reporting officer killed/wounded/captured or too much continuous action); and (3) a report just never made its way into the OR. The OR are a required starting point for research but people need to remember their limitations - the ones I listed plus others (for just one example, show me how many reports in which the reporting officer admitted that his unit broke and ran under fire).

 

[Norm53]

Good point. There are a few issues. (1) Not every corps/division/brigade required reports from the bottom up; (2) it could vary from battle to battle for any number of reasons (reporting officer killed/wounded/captured or too much continuous action); and (3) a report just never made its way into the OR. The OR are a required starting point for research but people need to remember their limitations - the ones I listed plus others (for just one example, show me how many reports in which the reporting officer admitted that his unit broke and ran under fire).

Makes sense that a reporting officer might ignore events that make his unit look bad (reminiscent of memorialists), if he thinks that he can get away with it.

Unlikely that I will get into the voluminous ORs and Grant papers to study Grant's behavior. My current approach is to review the notes of the more popular biographies w/o reading much of the text and listing the sources by people who knew Grant personally, under the theory that they are better judges of his behavior than the writers who did not. It so happens (so far) that these sources are often cited by later biographers.

 

[Belfoured]

Makes sense that a reporting officer might ignore events that make his unit look bad (reminiscent of memorialists), if he thinks that he can get away with it.

Unlikely that I will get into the voluminous ORs and Grant papers to study Grant's behavior. My current approach is to review the notes of the more popular biographies w/o reading much of the text and listing the sources by people who knew Grant personally, under the theory that they are better judges of his behavior than the writers who did not. It so happens (so far) that these sources are often cited by the latter biographers.

And it's not just that. The lower level you go (brigade/regiment/battery), the officer wouldn't know much - if any - more than the individual soldiers in his command about the "bigger picture". Especially if the report is written right away. Of course, if it's written too much later accurate memory then becomes a problem. The OR really have to be used carefully.

 

[James N.]

I'll mention another related problem - obviously DURING campaigns few if any commanders took time to write out reports, especially the detailed kind. That left relative "down times" like the winter months for the writing of official reports, often months after the events they describe. Using Stonewall Jackson as a case in point, most of his for the Valley Campaign, Peninsula Campaign, Second Manassas, Antietam, and Fredericksburg were ALL written during the winter of 1862-63. And just as naturally they weren't written BY the officer in question - that was another job for staff officers, particularly the military secretaries known as adjutants or adjutant generals. Sometimes they took down the reports from dictation, supposedly the method used by Nathan Bedford Forrest whose grammar, spelling, and penmanship were all lacking. (He famously once said "I never see a pen but what I think of a snake.") Otherwise, they might cobble together the reports from other reports and memory. In any case, they were supposed to submit the finished reports to their generals for their final approval before submitting them to higher powers.

 

[Norm53]

In any case, they were supposed to submit the finished reports to their generals for their final approval before submitting them to higher powers.

So commanders above could "suggest" that the reports from below be "adjusted" to make their commands look better before approving them, correct?

 

[James N.]

So commanders above could "suggest" that the reports from below be "adjusted" to make their commands look better before approving them, correct?

I imagine that was pretty routine SOP - unless of course there was some kind of tension or rivalry going on, as was frequently the case!

Edit: Probably the most famous case of this sort of behavior was when Lee returned his report of the Battle of Gettysburg to Pickett. That action has been discussed several times here on the fourms and today nobody knows what ever became of it!

 

[Bruce Vail]

That's the desired rule, but of course there are exceptions, some more serious than others. For example, Confederate reports for the 1864 battles of Franklin and Nashville are notably missing, due mainly to the extremely high casualty rate for officers at all command levels, particularly at Franklin.

Yes. In my researches on the 3rd NC Infantry there was never any official regimental report for The Wilderness-Spotsylvania fighting, owing to the fact that so many officers were killed, wounded or captured. Col. Steven Thruston sought to make up for this deficiency by writing an account of the regiment's May 1864 activity shortly after the war, which was then published in the journal of the Southern Historical Society. If the OR is missing something that you are looking for, then searching the Southern Historical Society publications for post-war accounts might be worthwhile.

 

[Dave D]

Yes. In my researches on the 3rd NC Infantry there was never any official regimental report for The Wilderness-Spotsylvania fighting, owing to the fact that so many officers were killed, wounded or captured. Col. Steven Thruston sought to make up for this deficiency by writing an account of the regiment's May 1864 activity shortly after the war, which was then published in the journal of the Southern Historical Society. If the OR is missing something that you are looking for, then searching the Southern Historical Society publications for post-war accounts might be worthwhile.

According to Adjutant McHenry Howard of Steuart's brigade, Col. Thurston had drawn a "plat of the battle of May 5" but the drawing was not published with his account by the Southern Historical Society. Howard made a copy of Thurston's map and it is included in his book, "Recollections of a Maryland Confederate soldier and Staff officer" but I wonder if Thurston's map was any more detailed.

Do you know if there is a scan or reproduction of Thurston's original plat available anywhere?

 

[American87]

The best thing to do is go to the volume and part that you want, for example I believe the Union reports for Gettysburg are Vol. 27 part 1, or something like that. The reports are arranged by order of battle. For example, Meade's (maybe Halleck's) will come first, then the First Corps Commander, then the First Division of the First Corps, then all that corps divisions and the brigades of each division, and so on. If you look up the Order of Battle on Wikipedia, that will essentially be the order that the reports are placed in in the O.R.

There are several ways to find the report(s) of a single general. First, there is a table of contents of sorts in the beginning of the part you are reading, and it gives the number of the report, but not the page number. Thus the best way is to refer to the index, which gives the name of the general and the page numbers of his report, any of his correspondence, and any page in which he is referenced by other officers.

When you find the page number you are looking for, it is important to note that some generals filed multiple "reports." For example, Hancock wrote one official "report" for Gettysburg, but he also wrote two shorter reports that he sent to Meade immediately after the fighting. All three are positioned one after the other, so there is a "Hancock section" that lists all his reports at once. Thus there may be more than one official report, but they are listed together for each general.

Some officers also did not submit reports. There are various reasons for this, but it is true. For example, Sickles never wrote a report for Gettysburg, presumably because he was wounded.

There are also additional writings listed for each general. For example, in Meade's section of the Gettysburg ORs, there are his reports, some of his correspondences that he wrote during the battle, and an excerpt from "Historicus" who criticized his handling of the battle (I believe "Historicus" was one of Sickles' staff officers, but the identity is not mentioned in the ORs).

So really the best thing to do is refer to the index which gives you the page numbers of all the generals writings and references, and the "report" section could be several reports and other materials long.

The correspondence I believe works the same way, in that you may be able to refer to the index for the page numbers of any correspondence sent by a specific general. The correspondence are also listed in chronological order, so if you just wanted to read it for July 3, for example, you could read the 10-15 pages or so of correspondence for that date, but you would have to cross-check it with the reports section of that general as well.

TL;DR: use the index.

 

[Bruce Vail]

According to Adjutant McHenry Howard of Steuart's brigade, Col. Thurston had drawn a "plat of the battle of May 5" but the drawing was not published with his account by the Southern Historical Society. Howard made a copy of Thurston's map and it is included in his book, "Recollections of a Maryland Confederate soldier and Staff officer" but I wonder if Thurston's map was any more detailed.

Do you know if there is a scan or reproduction of Thurston's original plat available anywhere?

Hmmm, no. Thruston's drawings are not very detailed and are only intended to show the relation of the 3rd NC to some key landmarks and some other troop formations in the immediate area. If there is a larger, better map, I suspect it would be in the archives of the Southern Historical Society.

 

[Bruce Vail]

According to Adjutant McHenry Howard of Steuart's brigade, Col. Thurston had drawn a "plat of the battle of May 5" but the drawing was not published with his account by the Southern Historical Society. Howard made a copy of Thurston's map and it is included in his book, "Recollections of a Maryland Confederate soldier and Staff officer" but I wonder if Thurston's map was any more detailed.

Do you know if there is a scan or reproduction of Thurston's original plat available anywhere?

BTW -- I read Howard's Recollections last year and liked it quite a lot. I've been meaning to get a copy for my home library.