Shiloh Papers

[USS ALASKA]

Mississippi State University
Scholars Junction
Theses and Dissertations
12-9-2011

A Terrain And Meteorological Analysis Of The Battlefield At Shiloh, Tennessee
Charles Blakely McClendon

This Graduate Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Scholars Junction. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholars Junction. For more information, please contact [email protected].

A terrain analysis of the Shiloh Battlefield is presented in conjunction with a meteorological assessment of the conditions prevalent during the battle. The intent of the analysis was to ascertain the effect that conditions might have played upon the strategic and tactical actions prior to, and during the Battle of Shiloh, 1862. The significance of this study was to determine the influence of meteorological and geographical factors upon the two armies. Values for temperature and precipitation were estimated using the PDSI and data from NOAA. According to the model it was a very wet year. Weather and geography clearly played a role in how and when the Battle of Shiloh was fought. Due to the high number of casualties, however, the Battle of Shiloh would change how warfare would be conducted in the United States.

https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1325&context=td

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[Belfoured]

Mississippi State University
Scholars Junction
Theses and Dissertations
12-9-2011

A Terrain And Meteorological Analysis Of The Battlefield At Shiloh, Tennessee
Charles Blakely McClendon

This Graduate Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Scholars Junction. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholars Junction. For more information, please contact [email protected].

A terrain analysis of the Shiloh Battlefield is presented in conjunction with a meteorological assessment of the conditions prevalent during the battle. The intent of the analysis was to ascertain the effect that conditions might have played upon the strategic and tactical actions prior to, and during the Battle of Shiloh, 1862. The significance of this study was to determine the influence of meteorological and geographical factors upon the two armies. Values for temperature and precipitation were estimated using the PDSI and data from NOAA. According to the model it was a very wet year. Weather and geography clearly played a role in how and when the Battle of Shiloh was fought. Due to the high number of casualties, however, the Battle of Shiloh would change how warfare would be conducted in the United States.

https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1325&context=td

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

Thanks for linking this. A couple of related items: (1) I've always liked Tim Smith's map of the battlefield in his 2012 book. It depicts in a clear way how the topography/streams/ravines more or less "steered" the attack towards the center of the field; (2) In his Lincoln's Brown Water Navy, Gary Joiner discusses how the river still being pretty much at flood-stage enabled the gunboats to hit the Confederate lines during the night of April 6-7.

 

[Ole Miss]

Thank you for sharing
Regards
David

 

[UCVRelics]

Great Paper and it falls in line with what we know now it was a slop fest for both sides and caused the South a victory.
Merry Christmas.

 

[USS ALASKA]

Collection; Master of Military Art and Science Theses
Title; Confederate high command at Shiloh.
Author; Hall, Thomas K.

Abstract
This is a study of the actions of the senior Confederate commanders at the battle of Shiloh. The senior commander, General Albert Sidney Johnston and his second in command, General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard, did not come to a complete agreement on how to fight the battle. This disconnect between the two generals was the main reason for the South's failure to achieve victory. The research method consisted of comparing the official records to other sources. These sources included books, biographies, telephone interviews, and one unpublished paper from the Shiloh National Military Park Library. Official records sometimes did not survive the test of scrutiny, particularly General Braxton Bragg's assertion of actions at the close of April 6. The most important lesson that a student of military history can learn from this study is that commanders at all levels must ensure that the commander's intent is clearly understood. Failure to do so almost guarantees confusion up and down the chain of command which will, most likely, result in defeat.

Series; Command and General Staff College (CGSC) MMAS thesis
Publisher; Fort Leavenworth, KS : US Army Command and General Staff College,
Date, Original; 1997-06-06
Date, Digital; 2007
Call number; ADA 331861
Release statement; Approved for public release; Distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)
Repository; Combined Arms Research Library
Library; Combined Arms Research Library Digital Library
Date created; 007-04-20

Master of Military Art and Science Theses

cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[USS ALASKA]

Collection; Master of Military Art and Science Theses
Title; Shiloh: a case study in surprise.
Author; McCaffrey, William J.
Branch/Country; United States Army

Abstract
The commander must remain ever vigilant against surprise, for attacks born of the unexpected have the potential to alter quickly and irreversibly the relative combat power of opposing forces. A commander is better prepared to meet this threat when he is familiar with those factors which have contributed to surprise during past conflicts. This thesis investigates the surprise phenomenon through a case study of the battle at Shiloh Church. General Ulysses S. Grant, during the American Civil War, bivouacked his army near Shiloh Church on the Tennessee River's west bank while he awaited General Don Carlos Buell and the Army of the Ohio. On Buell's arrival the combined armies were to attack Corinth, Mississippi, where the Confederate forces under General Albert Sidney Johnston were known to be entrenched. Realizing the combined strength of the two Union armies would eventually prove overwhelming, Johnston decided to attack Grant's position before Buell could reinforce. He therefore attacked early Sunday morning, 6 April 1862. Apparently unaware that an attack was Imminent, Grant had encamped his army with little regard for defense. The Confederates enjoyed success and forced the Union army against the Tennessee River. However, Buell reinforced Grant that evening, and on the following day the Union armies counterattacked and drove the Confederates back toward Corinth. Thus, the battle ended on a rather indecisive note. The official records, letters, books, and memoirs of Union and Confederate participants were investigated to gain an understanding of the battle. The methodology adopted was a chronological approach which examined pertinent events, circumstances, and errors relating to the battle. Through this means the investigation revealed the degree of surprise achieved by the Confederate attack and disclosed those elements which made surprise possible. Among the more important conclusions of the thesis are: 1. Although the Union forces below division level anticipated the Confederate attack. Grant and his command echelon were completely surprised. 2. Surprise was achieved because the Union had violated several principles of war, chiefly: objective, offensive, maneuver, unity of command, and security. 3. The Confederates were not without fault, for, had certain mistakes been avoided, their army might have won a total victory.

Publisher; Fort Leavenworth, KS : US Army Command and General Staff College,
Date, Original; 1970-06-05
Date, Digital; 2013
Call number; AD0733391
Release statement; Approved for public release; Distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)
Repository; Combined Arms Research Library
Library; Combined Arms Research Library Digital Library
Date created; 2014-01-14

Master of Military Art and Science Theses

cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[USS ALASKA]

A HISTORY OF SHILOH NATIONAL MILITARY PARK
by Charles E. Shedd, Jr.
Park Historian
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
1954

In the 60 years since its establishment, Shiloh National Military Park has been the scene of vast change and progressive development. From an isolated rural wilderness, the park has become a memorial to American valor, preserving the story of an epic chapter of the Nation's past.

http://www.npshistory.com/publications/shil/history.pdf

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[Ole Miss]

Looking forward to reading these papers!
Thank you
Regards
David

 

[USS ALASKA]

A paper from 1902...

BATTLE OF SHILOH
Author(s): T. M. Hurst
Source: The American Historical Magazine
JANUARY, 1902, Vol. 7, No. 1 (JANUARY, 1902), pp. 22-37
Published by: Tennessee Historical Society

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42657448

Full article on JSTOR with Google sign-in (if you have a Gmail account, you have a Google sign-in and this will allow for free reading of 100 articles a month).

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[USS ALASKA]

Staff Ride Handbook for the Battle of Shiloh
6-7 April 1862
LTC Jeffrey J. Gudmens
Combat Studies Institute
Combat Studies Institute Press
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027

Foreword
Since the early 20th century the US Army has used Civil War and other battlefields as "outdoor classrooms" in which to educate and train its officers. Employing a methodology developed at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, in 1906, both the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College and US Army War College conducted numerous battlefield staff rides to prepare officers for duties in both war and peace. Often interrupted by the exigencies of the nation's wars, the tradition was renewed and reinvigorated at Fort Leavenworth in the early 1980s. Since 1983 the Leavenworth Staff Ride Team has guided military students on battlefields around the world. For those unable to avail themselves directly of the team's services the Combat Studies Institute has begun to produce a series of staff ride guides to serve in lieu of a Fort Leavenworth instructor. The newest volume in that series, Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Gudmens' Staff Ride Handbook for the Battle of Shiloh, 6-7 April 1862 is a valuable study that examines the key considerations in planning and executing the campaign and battle. Modern tacticians and operational planners will find themes that still resonate. Gudmens demonstrates that leaders in Blue and Gray, in facing the daunting tasks of this, the bloodiest battle to this point on the continent, rose to the challenge. They were able to meet this challenge through planning, discipline, ingenuity, leadership, and persistence—themes worthy of reflection by today's leaders.

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/educational-services/staff-rides/StaffRideHB_Shiloh.pdf

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[wausaubob]

A.S. Johnston achieved surprise. Grant had both gunboats and transports on the river at his encampment. Why would Johnston attack Grant where the US river boats available and reinforcements on the way? Ultimately bad roads, an aspect of friction that was not unusual in American conditions cost Johnston the benefit surprise.
We think its important because it involved Grant. But in his attempt to get Grant, Johnston gave up Island No. 10, was not able to support New Orleans, and caused Bragg to evacuate Pensacola.
It would have been a good trade for the US, a knight for a queen, rook and pawn, if Johnston had won. But he was KIA, and the US lost very little.

 

[wausaubob]

Grant came close to losing, but he was just another Major General at that point. He was expendable if the US gained Island No. 10 and New Orleans in the process.

 

[USS ALASKA]

Louisiana State University
LSU Digital Commons
LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses
Graduate School
1966

Shiloh and the Western Campaign of 1862.
O. Edward Cunningham

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected].

https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2117&context=gradschool_disstheses

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[Ole Miss]

Good post as his dissertation was developed into a really good book!
Regards
Dav

 

[USS ALASKA]

Good post as his dissertation was developed into a really good book!
Regards
Dav

Sir, I did laugh at his first line in his abstract - "During the winter of 1862, the Union army and navy captured Kentucky..."

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[USS ALASKA]

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY
Department of History in the College of Arts and Sciences
Lynchburg, Virginia
2022

Fog of War; Cloud of Memory : The Fifty-Third Ohio Volunteer Infantry's Shiloh Story
Jared Williams

© 2022 Jared Williams ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Abstract
The Fifty-Third Ohio Volunteer Infantry was created on September 6, 1861. Men throughout the southern counties of Ohio flocked to Jackson, Ohio to join the new regiment. Poor leadership, supply issues, and inexperience immediately plagued the Fifty-Third Ohio. The Ohioans first experienced enemy fire on the morning of April 6, 1862 at the Battle of Shiloh. Throughout the war, the Fifty-Third Ohio fought at many battles including Vicksburg, Chattanooga, and Atlanta. More than any other conflict, the regiment's first combat experience remained linked to its reputation and honor. During the opening fight at Shiloh, the regiment was ordered to retreat by its commanding officer, Colonel J.J. Appler. However, two companies remained on the line and order was restored to the majority of the regiment through the efforts of Ephraim C. Dawes, James Percy, Wells S. Jones, and others. Even though the regiment remained heavily engaged in the fight, and continued to engage the enemy the following day, it was publicly berated for cowardice by its division commander, General William Tecumseh Sherman. Union leadership's desire to clear themselves from the accusation of surprise at Shiloh created scapegoats out of regiments like the Fifty-Third Ohio. Due in large part to the concepts of honor and manhood during the Civil War Era, the men of the regiment sought to clear their individual honor and collective reputation from the perceived stain of Shiloh. Newspapers and Union leadership initially derided the regiment for Shiloh. Even after the blame for the early withdraw was attached directly to Appler, the Fifty-Third Ohio was not entirely free from the accusations and innuendos of Shiloh. The regiment's successful service later in the war was unjustly tainted by the lingering perceptions of its first combat experience at Shiloh. Unfortunately, the reputation of the Fifty-Third Ohio remained frozen in negativity due to the lack of major scholarly interpretations on Shiloh during the first half of the Twentieth Century.

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5152&context=doctoral

Because of copywrite, please use above link

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[USS ALASKA]

Lindenwood University
Digital Commons@Lindenwood University
Student Scholarship
Research and Scholarship
4-2023

History and Myths Around the Battle of Shiloh
Trey Lowenthal
Lindenwood University

This Capstone Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Research and Scholarship at Digital Commons@Lindenwood University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Student Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Lindenwood University. For more information, please contact [email protected].

On April 6th and 7th, 1862, the deadliest battle in American history up to that time was waged, with a staggering total of twenty three thousand dead, wounded, and missing.1 Though as guns fell silent on the evening of the 7th, another battle began, the battle for the narrative. It was a battle for the truth of what happened, and it is one that is still waged to this day. Unlike the physical confrontation that took place in 1862, the lines of battle and allegiance are not so easily defined. It is a patchwork of veterans, generals, newspapers, and historians. Some wrote to preserve their image or to tarnish that of others, while others wrote about their perspective as honestly as they knew how. As the years dragged on after the war, even shortly after the battle's conclusion, it became clear to many that there is an air of misunderstanding surrounding it. Ulysses S. Grant, then commander of Union forces at the battle, stated that it, "has been perhaps less understood, or, to state the case more accurately, more persistently misunderstood, than any other engagement between National and Confederate troops during the entire rebellion." Accounts from other Generals share this same sentiment, and so do those in contemporary newspapers. All sorts of misinformed myths and malfeasances formed about the battle, and this fractured narrative still persists. These myths will be examined from their formation in the battle's immediate wake, up to the publishing of the Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant. All the while asking the question, what role did Ulysses S. Grant play, through action or inaction, in the battle being remembered the way it is? The overall conclusion is that there was a tremendous difference in how veterans reported and reflected on the battle versus the news media. For the first step in this process, the historiography must be acknowledged

https://digitalcommons.lindenwood.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=student-research-papers

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[wausaubob]

Lindenwood University
Digital Commons@Lindenwood University
Student Scholarship
Research and Scholarship
4-2023

History and Myths Around the Battle of Shiloh
Trey Lowenthal
Lindenwood University

This Capstone Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Research and Scholarship at Digital Commons@Lindenwood University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Student Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Lindenwood University. For more information, please contact [email protected].

On April 6th and 7th, 1862, the deadliest battle in American history up to that time was waged, with a staggering total of twenty three thousand dead, wounded, and missing.1 Though as guns fell silent on the evening of the 7th, another battle began, the battle for the narrative. It was a battle for the truth of what happened, and it is one that is still waged to this day. Unlike the physical confrontation that took place in 1862, the lines of battle and allegiance are not so easily defined. It is a patchwork of veterans, generals, newspapers, and historians. Some wrote to preserve their image or to tarnish that of others, while others wrote about their perspective as honestly as they knew how. As the years dragged on after the war, even shortly after the battle's conclusion, it became clear to many that there is an air of misunderstanding surrounding it. Ulysses S. Grant, then commander of Union forces at the battle, stated that it, "has been perhaps less understood, or, to state the case more accurately, more persistently misunderstood, than any other engagement between National and Confederate troops during the entire rebellion." Accounts from other Generals share this same sentiment, and so do those in contemporary newspapers. All sorts of misinformed myths and malfeasances formed about the battle, and this fractured narrative still persists. These myths will be examined from their formation in the battle's immediate wake, up to the publishing of the Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant. All the while asking the question, what role did Ulysses S. Grant play, through action or inaction, in the battle being remembered the way it is? The overall conclusion is that there was a tremendous difference in how veterans reported and reflected on the battle versus the news media. For the first step in this process, the historiography must be acknowledged

https://digitalcommons.lindenwood.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=student-research-papers

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

This undergraduate paper is excellent. The young man has a narrative gift.
He could have added how little Halleck and Lincoln were swayed by the newspaper stories. While the Confederates concentrated at Shiloh, Pope captured the Island No. 10 garrison and the US river navy began a successful campaign the gave the US control of the river even beyond Memphis. And from the standpoint of Lincoln and Wells, whatever happened at Shiloh did not matter, as Farragut and Butler were soon in New Orleans. And New Orleans was one of the few places in the Confederacy that people in London and Paris knew about.
The student missed a bit of drama when he decided not to mention that Jefferson C. Davis shot and killed Nelson, and no one seemed to have doubted that Nelson had it coming. Buell's performance at Perryville removed whatever credibility Buell had. And Buell preceded McClellan into inaction.
Henry Halleck moved Grant out of the public eye. But eight months later Halleck and Lincoln were sustaining Grant even when they had to countermand Grant's stupid Order No. 11.

 

[USS ALASKA]

Ouachita Baptist University
Scholarly Commons @ Ouachita
Honors Theses
Carl Goodson Honors Program
2-22-2022

Memory and Memoirs: A Study of Civil War Soldiers' Perspectives on the Battle of Shiloh
Brianna Taylor
Ouachita Baptist University

Introduction
The most acceptable answer in today's political climate is that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Even in the rural South where I grew up, academics cast a wary eye when it is suggested that the Civil War was fought for any other reason. Historical writing is often careful to mention that other causes of the war are still interrelated with slavery, thus adding nuance1. Yet still, slavery was the central cause of the Civil War, as there would have not been a war without the presence of institutionalized slavery in America. What history may remember as the spirit of the war and the reality of the war can be very different.

https://scholarlycommons.obu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1923&context=honors_theses

Not sure of the copywrite, please see the above link.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[USS ALASKA]

STUDENT REPORT
REPORT NUMBER 84-2340
TITLE A HISTORICAL ANALYSIS - THE BATTLE OF SHILOH APRIL 6-7, 1862
AUTHOR(S) MAJOR F. JOHN SEMLEY, USAF
AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE
AIR UNIVERSITY
MAXWELL AFB, AL 36112

PREFACE
Great battles of history are studied for numerous reasons. First of all, they can become learning instruments for gaining a better understanding of and appreciation for our past. Studying battles can both resolve and stimulate our curiosity about these warriors and their struggles with their foes, the environment around them, and their efforts at mastering the tools of their trade. The most important reason for military men to study great battles, however, is to learn more about warfighting. The Civil War is a fascinating model of our history since it involved Americans fighting Americans on our own soil. The Civil War Battle of Shiloh took place early in the war on April 6 and 7, 1862. It was fought at a place called Pittsburg Landing on the Tennessee River close to the southern border of Tennessee. The battle was named after a small log cabin Methodist chapel on the battlefield itself. The chapel was called "Shiloh" which ironically is a biblical word meaning "place of peace." The area around this log cabin was far from a "peaceful" place on those two days of 1862. Close to 100,000 men were involved with the fighting. The casualties at Shiloh totaled more than the combination of losses from all the battles of the Civil War up to that time. Confederate and Union forces killed, wounded, or missing totaled almost 24,000. This was a shock to both sides, and it shattered any notion of a short, glorious war. This battle also involved some of the great generals of the Civil War. Commanding the Union forces was Major General Ulysses S. Grant. Under him was Brigadier General William Tecumseh Sherman. The Confederate side was commanded by Generals Albert Sidney Johnston and P. G. T. Beauregard. Major General Braxton Bragg commanded a corps at Shiloh and later became the commanding general of the Army of Tennessee. This battle came close to being an overwhelming success for the South, which could have changed the entire complexion of the war. As it ended, Grant was closer to splitting the Confederacy in half, and his reputation grew as one of the North's finest fighters. This paper will present a concise synopsis of the Battle of Shiloh. I will then analyze the battle in relation to the principles of war in Air Force Manual 1-1. The principles of war are a set of guidelines to be considered in a conflict situation. Their adherence will not necessarily guarantee success, but their misapplication can lead to disaster. In section three, I will give a series of discussion questions to help understand the relationship of the principles of war to this battle. Requirements for this research paper limited the discussion of the battle itself. I highly recommend Shiloh-In Hell Before Night to those who wish to study the battle in greater detail.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA144009.pdf

Cheers,
USS ALASKA