Which "New Mexico" is this?

[Stryker65]

The above order would send one company of Missouri militia and two companies of Missouri cavalry to "New Mexico." The OR seems to think that General Ewing meant the state/territory of New Mexico, but it is very unlikely that Missouri state militiamen would move that far of a distance for any reason, or to even leave the state.

My question is, could he have meant the city of New Mexico in central Missouri? It would make more sense considering the type of troops being sent, but since Ewing's command embraces the state of Kansas and the Missouri/Kansas border, the city of New Mexico would not fall within his command's limits.

Additionally, what would the "escort" part mean?

 

[Nathan Stuart]

My question is, could he have meant the city of New Mexico in central Missouri? It would make more sense considering the type of troops being sent, but since Ewing's command embraces the state of Kansas and the Missouri/Kansas border, the city of New Mexico would not fall within his command's limits.

At first glance, tend to agree that it was not the state/territory of New Mexico (because of the extended distance involved).

But digging a bit deeper. Didn't the central MO town of 'New Mexico' officially change its name to 'Mexico' following the Mexican War. ('Mexico' was incorporated as a town in 1855).

Seems reasonable to believe the correspondence writer, B-G Ewing, who served in the adjoining state of KS in the five years prior to the CW, may have been unfamiliar with the newly changed town name.

Therefore, his mention of 'New Mexico' in the correspondence may have been a reference to the town of 'Mexico' in central MO.

Additionally, what would the "escort" part mean?

Wasn't the town of 'Mexico' situate on the route of the Northern Missouri R.R. (see map at https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3701p.rr001430/?r=0.1,0.134,0.147,0.07,0 )?

Could the reference to 'escort' here be intended to mean to 'accompany a supply train'?

 

[Yankeedave]

View attachment 573631
The above order would send one company of Missouri militia and two companies of Missouri cavalry to "New Mexico." The OR seems to think that General Ewing meant the state/territory of New Mexico, but it is very unlikely that Missouri state militiamen would move that far of a distance for any reason, or to even leave the state.

My question is, could he have meant the city of New Mexico in central Missouri? It would make more sense considering the type of troops being sent, but since Ewing's command embraces the state of Kansas and the Missouri/Kansas border, the city of New Mexico would not fall within his command's limits.

Additionally, what would the "escort" part mean?

Sounds like he wants 3 companies to go along for the ride. If full that's 150 men.

 

[Belfoured]

View attachment 573631
The above order would send one company of Missouri militia and two companies of Missouri cavalry to "New Mexico." The OR seems to think that General Ewing meant the state/territory of New Mexico, but it is very unlikely that Missouri state militiamen would move that far of a distance for any reason, or to even leave the state.

My question is, could he have meant the city of New Mexico in central Missouri? It would make more sense considering the type of troops being sent, but since Ewing's command embraces the state of Kansas and the Missouri/Kansas border, the city of New Mexico would not fall within his command's limits.

Additionally, what would the "escort" part mean?

IMHO it cannot be New Mexico territory. That was in the Department of New Mexico under Carleton. Ewing's District was in the Department of Missouri under Schofield.

 

[Stryker65]

IMHO it cannot be New Mexico territory. That was in the Department of New Mexico under Carleton. Ewing's District was in the Department of Missouri under Schofield.

That was my thought as well, but sources in the OR point to Carleton needing reinforcements, and Kansas is relatively close to New Mexico. There were also Kansas regiments raised for the purpose of serving in New Mexico that did not go in the end.

 

[Belfoured]

That was my thought as well, but sources in the OR point to Carleton needing reinforcements, and Kansas is relatively close to New Mexico. There were also Kansas regiments raised for the purpose of serving in New Mexico that did not go in the end.

Certainly could be but I find it odd that this seems to be getting done without the Dep't of NM's involvement - unless there's something else. Instead, it's Ewing telling his Dep't Commander about location of the forces in his District. He's also emphasizing the current needs of his District as I read it. Kansas ain't that close to New Mexico - especially the portion in Ewing's District. I'll wager it's a good 850 miles give or take. EDIT: To be clear I mean from eastern KS to Santa Fe/Albuquerque. Should have said that.

 

[NFB22]

At first glance, tend to agree that it was not the state/territory of New Mexico (because of the extended distance involved).

But digging a bit deeper. Didn't the central MO town of 'New Mexico' officially change its name to 'Mexico' following the Mexican War. ('Mexico' was incorporated as a town in 1855).

Seems reasonable to believe the correspondence writer, B-G Ewing, who served in the adjoining state of KS in the five years prior to the CW, may have been unfamiliar with the newly changed town name.

Therefore, his mention of 'New Mexico' in the correspondence may have been a reference to the town of 'Mexico' in central MO.

This would be my guess, particularly when you factor in the fact that the correspondence mentions Lafayette and Johnson counties which are just to the west of Audrain County, where Mexico, Missouri is located.

 

[Booner]

Gen. Scholfield is talking about different "tiers" of counties, all in western Mo. I'm assuming the first tier of counties are those that have the heaviest concentration of guerrilla activity (Jackson, Lafayette, Cass, Bates, and Johnson). The second-tier counties are probably the counties to the east and south, in Missouri, from these first-tier counties.

in 1822, what came to be known as the Santa Fe Trail began in Franklin, Mo. (less than 2 miles from where I'm writing this). As Missouri became more settled, the start of the trail in Mo. moved westward until it reached Western Mo. where the town of Westport (now a suburb of Kansas City, MO), became its' eastern terminus. Freighting to the western territories from the Westport and St. Joseph areas became a very profitable business venture for many, along with providing supplies to those emigrating to points further west. Quantrill, and several of his followers were freighters prior to the war, and "Bloody" Bill Anderson and his family lived along the trail prior to the war.

With the beginning of the Civil War, the freighting activities were reduced but never stopped. Forts out west still had to be provisioned, and emigration to those areas still took place. One of the reasons for Quantrill's raid on the city of Lawerence, KS was that Lawerence was a staging area for goods, stolen out of Missouri by Ks Jayhawkers, to be sent to settlers out in the western territories. In my opinion, Gen Scholfield is talking about providing a military escort on the Santa Fe Trail, at least for the portion of the trail that goes through eastern Kansas.

A link to the Santa Fe Trail during the Civil War--->https://www.legendsofamerica.com/we-santafetrailcivilwar/

"New" Mexico, Mo? No, Mexico Mo is in East Central MO, and was served by a railroad, and was not a center of guerrilla activity compared to western Mo until the summer of 1864.

 

[35th MA InfRegt]

View attachment 573631
The above order would send one company of Missouri militia and two companies of Missouri cavalry to "New Mexico." The OR seems to think that General Ewing meant the state/territory of New Mexico, but it is very unlikely that Missouri state militiamen would move that far of a distance for any reason, or to even leave the state.

My question is, could he have meant the city of New Mexico in central Missouri? It would make more sense considering the type of troops being sent, but since Ewing's command embraces the state of Kansas and the Missouri/Kansas border, the city of New Mexico would not fall within his command's limits.

Additionally, what would the "escort" part mean?

I rather doubt Ewing intends to send troops down to the Territory of New Mexico. Why would a lowly district commander care about what's happening hundreds of miles away? He has enough on his plate to worry about in his own AOR. And neither Ewing OR Schofield could transfer troops out of the department without the prior consent of the War Department. An order from Washington would be cited if there was going to be such a transfer. They would be reluctant to do so in any event because of under manning issues. So, I would think the city of Mexico, Missouri is what Ewing is referring to here

 

[Booner]

This would be my guess, particularly when you factor in the fact that the correspondence mentions Lafayette and Johnson counties which are just to the west of Audrain County, where Mexico, Missouri is located.

Ya, 150 miles east of Kansas City.

I rather doubt Ewing intends to send troops down to the Territory of New Mexico. Why would a lowly district commander care about what's happening hundreds of miles away? He has enough on his plate to worry about in his own AOR. And neither Ewing OR Schofield could transfer troops out of the department without the prior consent of the War Department. An order from Washington would be cited if there was going to be such a transfer. They would be reluctant to do so in any event because of under manning issues. So, I would think the city of Mexico, Missouri is what Ewing is referring to here

Because the eastern terminus of the Santa Fe trail is in his district, and the freighting along the trail is being disrupted by guerrilla activity.

As commander of the District of the Border, Gen. Scholfield is in charge of the MO counties of Jackson, Cass, Bates, the Northern part of Vernon County, Lafayette, Johnson, Henry, and St Clair.

In Kansas, he is responsible for Doniphan, Atchison, Leavenworth, Douglas, Johnson, Linn, Maimi and Bourbon. Basically, all of these counties are bordered on the east by Missouri.

This telegram was written in Sept. of 1863. The sacking of Lawrence had occurred a month earlier along with Gen Ewing issuing General order #11 which led to the depopulation of 4 of his (Scholfield's) Mo. counties (Jackson, Cass, Bates and Vernon). Scholfield is moving troops around to force the guerrillas out of their home territory and is under extreme pressure from Senator Lane of Kansas to keep eastern Ks protected.

 

[wuzreb]

The above order would send one company of Missouri militia and two companies of Missouri cavalry to "New Mexico." The OR seems to think that General Ewing meant the state/territory of New Mexico, but it is very unlikely that Missouri state militiamen would move that far of a distance for any reason, or to even leave the state.

My question is, could he have meant the city of New Mexico in central Missouri? It would make more sense considering the type of troops being sent, but since Ewing's command embraces the state of Kansas and the Missouri/Kansas border, the city of New Mexico would not fall within his command's limits.

Additionally, what would the "escort" part mean?

Gentlemen,

It is my honor to present herewith documentation regarding the now 6-month-old question of which New Mexico these orders addressed.

In sum, the question indeed pertains to New Mexico territory and specifically, Fort Union.

I'm attaching as exhibits 3 documents, regarding the commanding officer of one of the companies involved, that being 1st lieutenant Peter F Clark, commanding A company, 11th Missouri Cavalry.

(He is some sort of cousin-by-marriage-but-not-blood, who later married my great-great-grandmother.)

First is a "Return of the New Mexico escort," for the month of November 1863, indicating Lieutenant Peter Clark is "on the march," commanding company A of the 11th Missouri Cavalry.

Second is a return from Fort Union, N. Mex, also for the month of November 63. As we see, the report indicates Lt Clark "arrived at post" Nov 9, 1863 and promptly left the next day, "escort to Fort Leavenworth."

The question of what they were escorting is not specified, but it would seem reasonable to imagine they were guarding supplies, or the movement of people, against threat from Indians or Confederate sympathizers.

Third, Lieutenant Clark's personal service record further mentions an application for 2 weeks leave, to look after his ailing wife at home "in guerrilla infested territory." The 3rd document is his commander's approval indicating Lt Clark has just returned from from N Mexico and he can rejoin his company while in route to Bentonville.

I don't expect that anyone is intending to revisit this old topic, but it was gratifying to read the thread and be able to say hey, I know this one!

Respectfully &c

 

[lupaglupa]

Gentlemen,

It is my honor to present herewith documentation regarding the now 6-month-old question of which New Mexico these orders addressed.

In sum, the question indeed pertains to New Mexico territory and specifically, Fort Union.

I'm attaching as exhibits 3 documents, regarding the commanding officer of one of the companies involved, that being 1st lieutenant Peter F Clark, commanding A company, 11th Missouri Cavalry.

(He is some sort of cousin-by-marriage-but-not-blood, who later married my great-great-grandmother.)

First is a "Return of the New Mexico escort," for the month of November 1863, indicating Lieutenant Peter Clark is "on the march," commanding company A of the 11th Missouri Cavalry.

Second is a return from Fort Union, N. Mex, also for the month of November 63. As we see, the report indicates Lt Clark "arrived at post" Nov 9, 1863 and promptly left the next day, "escort to Fort Leavenworth."

The question of what they were escorting is not specified, but it would seem reasonable to imagine they were guarding supplies, or the movement of people, against threat from Indians or Confederate sympathizers.

Lieutenant Clark's personal service record further mentions an application for 2 weeks leave, to look after his ailing wife at home "in guerrilla infested territory." The 3rd document is his commander's approval indicating Lt Clark has just returned from from N Mexico and he can rejoin his company while in route to Bentonville.

I don't expect that anyone is intending to revisit this old topic, but it was gratifying to read the thread and be able to say hey, I know this one!

Respectfully &c

View attachment 582787

View attachment 582788

View attachment 582789

Thank you for coming back to this with additional info - that is really terrific.

 

[wuzreb]

Thank you for coming back to this with additional info - that is really terrific.

You are welcome! I was quite pleased to stumble across a thread so esoteric, that I actually had some answers for.

 

[Desert Kid]

Well looks like they did long haul it to the actual New Mexico.

 

[wuzreb]

Well looks like they did long haul it to the actual New Mexico.

Indeed it appears they did. Google Maps suggests it would have been somewhere in the neighborhood of 700 miles, one way. Ouch.

Fort Union the historical site has their own Facebook page, and on it a post from 2023, under the heading "A Forgotten Piece if History," that specifically mentions the activities of the 11th Missouri cavalry there.

Interestingly, their post only mentions Company H, whereas Lieutenant Clark was Company A commander. I wonder if there was more than one detail or something. But it does suggest that Fort Union holds some documentation of the 11th Missouri cavalry being there.

Of course Facebook isn't historical documentation and I have not contacted Ft Union to see what sort of documentation they may have in their archives. But I may do so, just for the sake of curiosity. After all, the good Lieutenant is my step-great-great grandpa.

Screenshot is from their post.

____________________

 

[Stryker65]

Gentlemen,

It is my honor to present herewith documentation regarding the now 6-month-old question of which New Mexico these orders addressed.

In sum, the question indeed pertains to New Mexico territory and specifically, Fort Union.

I'm attaching as exhibits 3 documents, regarding the commanding officer of one of the companies involved, that being 1st lieutenant Peter F Clark, commanding A company, 11th Missouri Cavalry.

(He is some sort of cousin-by-marriage-but-not-blood, who later married my great-great-grandmother.)

First is a "Return of the New Mexico escort," for the month of November 1863, indicating Lieutenant Peter Clark is "on the march," commanding company A of the 11th Missouri Cavalry.

Second is a return from Fort Union, N. Mex, also for the month of November 63. As we see, the report indicates Lt Clark "arrived at post" Nov 9, 1863 and promptly left the next day, "escort to Fort Leavenworth."

The question of what they were escorting is not specified, but it would seem reasonable to imagine they were guarding supplies, or the movement of people, against threat from Indians or Confederate sympathizers.

Third, Lieutenant Clark's personal service record further mentions an application for 2 weeks leave, to look after his ailing wife at home "in guerrilla infested territory." The 3rd document is his commander's approval indicating Lt Clark has just returned from from N Mexico and he can rejoin his company while in route to Bentonville.

I don't expect that anyone is intending to revisit this old topic, but it was gratifying to read the thread and be able to say hey, I know this one!

Respectfully &c

View attachment 582787

View attachment 582788

View attachment 582789

Really interesting! Thanks for the response! I always love when posts left unanswered receive an answer, however much later.

Did you by chance find anything about the state legality of having Missouri militiamen serving in a non-neighboring state? In some cases (mostly Confederate, I suppose, but also Kansas), governors protested about having state forces leave the state.

 

[wuzreb]

Really interesting! Thanks for the response! I always love when posts left unanswered receive an answer, however much later.

Did you by chance find anything about the state legality of having Missouri militiamen serving in a non-neighboring state? In some cases (mostly Confederate, I suppose, but also Kansas), governors protested about having state forces leave the state.

I think there really was no issue of the legality. This was Missouri State volunteer cavalry, not Missouri State militia cavalry.

I apologize if I was unclear on that account! Here is one page of a return detailing some of his service closer to home.

 

[Stryker65]

I think there really was no issue of the legality. This was Missouri State volunteer cavalry, not Missouri State militia cavalry.

I apologize if I was unclear on that account! Here is one page of a return detailing some of his service closer to home.

View attachment 582832

My apologies, I was also unclear. The command that was sent to New Mexico consisted of one company of the 11th Missouri Cavalry (a volunteer unit) and one company of the 4th Missouri State Militia Cavalry (self explanatory). I am wondering whether the company of the 4th had any troubles.

(OR V22P2 pp 762)

 

[wuzreb]

My apologies, I was also unclear. The command that was sent to New Mexico consisted of one company of the 11th Missouri Cavalry (a volunteer unit) and one company of the 4th Missouri State Militia Cavalry (self explanatory). I am wondering whether the company of the 4th had any troubles.
View attachment 582839(OR V23P2 pp 762)

Oh where did you find that piece of paper! This is fantastic! It's hard to know what rocks to look under for details like this. I am pleased to see his name mentioned.

And I'm curious how common it was for a 1st lieutenant to lead a company, rather than a captain. Peter held the post from his appointment until he mustered out in late 1864 due to illness.

That is interesting about the state militia cavalry; how did they pull that off? It's been my understanding as well that they didn't typically operate out of state, unless it was a brief foray across state lines in the course of an action.

 

[Stryker65]

Oh where did you find that piece of paper! This is fantastic! It's hard to know what rocks to look under for details like this. I am pleased to see his name mentioned.

If you're interested in seeing it yourself, the book is this one here, at the aforementioned page.

And I'm curious how common it was for a 1st lieutenant to lead a company, rather than a captain. Peter held the post from his appointment until he mustered out in late 1864 due to illness.

I believe it was quite common -- that was, of course, one of the primary reasons that companies HAD two extra lieutenants apart from the captain. I don't think many regiments had the full ten captains throughout the war, whether due to leave/resignations/wounds/disease etc.

That is interesting about the state militia cavalry; how did they pull that off? It's been my understanding as well that they didn't typically operate out of state, unless it was a brief foray across state lines in the course of an action.

My guess is that it was because Missouri militia were much more favorable towards the Union (their enlistment literally says "for the war"), and therefore were less opposed to being utilized outside their state. Still only a guess, though.