The Confederate Army.

[alexjack]

Given that its founders and officers would have come from the pre war Federal army,was it a mirror image of the Union Army in its Table of Organisation or did it differ in any way?

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

The armies had many similarities, naturally, but they began to grow in different directions when it came time to assemble larger formations. (This is more understandable when one considers that the American army had never been so large in its history-- both armies were forced to innovate to figure how to organize, move, and supply such large organizations, and the experiments varied a bit from commander to commander and on both sides of the Mason-Dixon.)

The armies were roughly similar in organization below the brigade level (other than the differences relating to re-filling old regiments vs. creating new ones), but above that, the Confederate formations tended to be larger, to the point where a full-strength Confederate division was sometimes very nearly the size of a Federal corps.

 

[alexjack]

It's interesting that you say that a full strength Confederate division was sometimes approaching the size of a Union corps, ( two or more divisions ? )

 

[jackt62]

It's interesting that you say that a full strength Confederate division was sometimes approaching the size of a Union corps, ( two or more divisions ? )

One reason for that was that the Confederacy did not adopt the corps structure until after the battle of Antietam.

 

[Dave Wilma]

I read that R.E. Lee innovated the field artillery battalion. Until then, batteries were deployed individually and worked individually.

 

[alexjack]

I read that R.E. Lee innovated the field artillery battalion. Until then, batteries were deployed individually and worked individually.

For major battles I suppose Dave. Did the Union army follow suit?

 

[GELongstreet]

Did the Union army follow suit?

Actually they didn´t need to. When McClellan took command in 61 his Chief of Artillery, William F. Barry, urged for a reorganistion. So quickly the artillery was assigned into battalions for each divisions as well as the army reserve artillery; and later when the corps were created into the corps reserves, too. A nice thing to organize it this way - provided you have enough artillery for it.

 

[AUG]

It's interesting that you say that a full strength Confederate division was sometimes approaching the size of a Union corps, ( two or more divisions ? )

It depends on what army and when. In 1864 when both the ANV and AoT had three corps there were about three divisions per corps, with some exceptions. For example, Hardee's Corps in the AoT, ca. 1864 had four divisions throughout the Atlanta Campaign. Each Confederate division generally consisted of 3-5 brigades.

Union armies (at least the large ones) tended to have about two or three divisions per corps by mid war. Each division typically had about two or three brigades, sometimes four. So with Union divisions being slightly smaller in some cases, a Confederate five-brigade division could come close to the size of a Union corps consisting of two divisions with six brigades total.

Note that this organization only applies to the larger armies; other smaller armies in the Western theater or the Trans-Mississippi were organized a lot differently.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

There's also the differences like regiment-sized "brigades," and brigade-sized "divisions" after heavy attrition... but since the question was about T.O...

 

[Miles Krisman]

Given that its founders and officers would have come from the pre war Federal army,was it a mirror image of the Union Army in its Table of Organisation or did it differ in any way?

In the Confederate Army, regimental officers were elected.

 

[Jamieva]

The size of divisions in the confederate army, especially in 1862 ranged widely. In the ANV some divisions were 2 brigades, then you had the Light Division which had 6. The divisions became more standardized as the formalization of Corps occured.

 

[rpkennedy]

Actually they didn´t need to. When McClellan took command in 61 his Chief of Artillery, William F. Barry, urged for a reorganistion. So quickly the artillery was assigned into battalions for each divisions as well as the army reserve artillery; and later when the corps were created into the corps reserves, too. A nice thing to organize it this way - provided you have enough artillery for it.

Eventually the Army of the Potomac went with a brigade organization with a brigade of artillery assigned to each infantry corps, 2 to the cavalry corps, and 5 as an army reserve.

The Army of the Cumberland, at least through Chattanooga, retained artillery assigned to each division with batteries informally assigned to each brigade.

R

 

[James N.]

I've been doing a LOT of reading lately about Lee's army in 1862, and was struck by the fact the Confederate Congress didn't authorize organizations larger than divisions (which fact has already been mentioned by jackt62); a situation circumvented by Lee in Virginia with the creation of what he called "commands" led by major generals James Longstreet and Stonewall Jackson which served throughout the Second Manassas and Maryland Campaigns. In the West, Braxton Bragg adopted what he chose to call "wings" led by Hardee and Polk. Both improvised organizations became the familliar corps, with their respective commanders only then assuming the newly-created ranks of lieutenant general to lead the new formations.

 

[James N.]

Similarly, Lee's cavalry in 1862 was limited to a single division led by Maj. Gen. J.E.B. Stuart with several (four?) brigades which were larger than their Federal counterparts and often operated separately in the manner of divisions, which they ultimately became, I think in 1864. (Stuart never achieved the rank of lieutenant general, though his successor Wade Hampton did.)

 

[Jamieva]

I'm at work but iirc the cavalry of the ANV became a Corps as part of the re-org post Chancellorsville.

 

[rpkennedy]

I'm at work but iirc the cavalry of the ANV became a Corps as part of the re-org post Chancellorsville.

It was still a division at Gettysburg and later at the start of the Overland Campaign.

R

 

[Jamieva]

It was still a division at Gettysburg and later at the start of the Overland Campaign.

R

Ok that's what I get for relying on my memory. The divisions/corps was created in September of 63

 

[PatW]

A major advantage for the CSA was the fact that they had four ranks for generals: brig, major, lieutenant and general. This meant that brigades, divisions, corps and armies were commanded by the respective ranks.

The Union army had brigadiers and major generals. There was the exception of Grant being made a luitenant general in 64. Major generals were set up by seniority which caused problems. Burnside ranked Meade. Banks ranked Grant. McClernand ranked Sherman. And Butler ranked nearly everyone. Guys who made major general early in the war were hard to assign places if their abilities did not match their seniority. I think Banks, Butler, Burnside and McClernand ranked Sherman, Meade, Thomas and Sheridan.

 

[James N.]

A major advantage for the CSA was the fact that they had four ranks for generals: brig, major, lieutenant and general. This meant that brigades, divisions, corps and armies were commanded by the respective ranks.

The Union army had brigadiers and major generals. There was the exception of Grant being made a luitenant general in 64. Major generals were set up by seniority which caused problems. Burnside ranked Meade. Banks ranked Grant. McClernand ranked Sherman. And Butler ranked nearly everyone. Guys who made major general early in the war were hard to assign places if their abilities did not match their seniority. I think Banks, Butler, Burnside and McClernand ranked Sherman, Meade, Thomas and Sheridan.

It's been discussed here before, but that situation was responsible for the awkward chain-of-command in Grant's 1864 Overland Campaign whereby Burnside's IX Corps was NOT considered a part of the Army of the Potomac (since he ranked Meade) although operating right beside it. Burnside received orders directly from Grant's headquarters thereby adding an otherwise unnecessary level of command and making command control and coordination more complicated than it should've been.

 

[GELongstreet]

... Major generals were set up by seniority which caused problems. Burnside ranked Meade. Banks ranked Grant. McClernand ranked Sherman. And Butler ranked nearly everyone. Guys who made major general early in the war were hard to assign places if their abilities did not match their seniority. I think Banks, Butler, Burnside and McClernand ranked Sherman, Meade, Thomas and Sheridan.

Suppose that`s at least one of the reasons why the later where promoted to Major Generals in the regular army during the war. A regular rank always outranks the equal volunteer rank; no matter the seniority.