Who all wrote After Action Reports?

[huskerblitz]

Just as the title states, who all was required to write up after action reports? My understanding the ORs are curated and selected but maybe not all AARs were included. Where would those other reports be? How far down the chain were reports written? Did it stop at brigade commanders or did individual regimental commanders also submit reports, and if so, where would those reports be?

 

[Belfoured]

Just as the title states, who all was required to write up after action reports? My understanding the ORs are curated and selected but maybe not all AARs were included. Where would those other reports be? How far down the chain were reports written? Did it stop at brigade commanders or did individual regimental commanders also submit reports, and if so, where would those reports be?

The 1863 regulations provide the following under the category "Battles":

742. Written reports for the General commanding-in-chief are made by commandants of regiments, batteries, and separate squadrons, and by all commanders of a higher grade, each in what concerns his own command, and to his immediate commander.
743. When an officer or soldier deserves mention for conduct in action, a special report shall be made in his case, and the General commanding-in-chief decides whether to mention him in his report to the government and in his orders. But he shall not be mentioned in the report until he has been mentioned in the orders to the army. These special reports are examined with care by the intermediate commanders, to verify the facts, and secure commendation and rewards to the meritorious only.
744. The report of battles, which must frequently be made before these special reports of persons are scrutinized, is confined to general praise or blame, and an account of the operations.

As you correctly point out, what shows up in the OR is random. In addition, it's almost certain that the specification was frequently "honored in the breach" where for one reason or another - responsible officer K or W, no time to comply based on active campaigning, etc - a report wasn't submitted.

 

[huskerblitz]

So where can someone find some of these reports that ultimately didn't find their way into the ORs? Of course, if they were written following an engagement.

 

[Belfoured]

So where can someone find some of these reports that ultimately didn't find their way into the ORs? Of course, if they were written following an engagement.

My guess is that some could be found in original papers of the recipients, although that's almost certainly random. It seems less likely that the senders would have kept copies. There is also material buried completely at random in the NARA. One example is Hunt's September 12, 1862 tactical directions to Army of the Potomac gunners. That was discovered several years ago by Bob Huddleston in the NARA on a microfilm while he was looking for something else. The rest of the reel contained records that had no relationship to it (or to several others on the reel) by subject or date. As for Confederate reports, I'd multiply the potential problems using an exponent.

Artillery reports are probably more complete just for the reason that there were fewer layers - generally, battery to artillery "brigade" commander if there was one. If you look at the Gettysburg OR, there is a large number of Federal battery reports. That's likely due to the fact that in his 1862 directions Hunt not only required reports, but required that they contain specific information. A good percentage of those reports complied.

 

[Miles Krisman]

It was many years ago, but during my research of the 5th Alabama Infantry Regiment, I found an unpublished Confederate after battle report by Colonel Edwin L. Hobson, commander of Battle's Brigade at the Battle of Cedar Creek, October 19, 1864, at the Virginia Historical Society. I believe it was in a cache of Hobson's personal papers that had been donated by his family after his death. The report remains unpublished to my knowledge and contains a wealth of details of a brigade that was heavily involved in the fighting.

 

[Belfoured]

It was many years ago, but during my research of the 5th Alabama Infantry Regiment, I found an unpublished Confederate after battle report by Colonel Edwin L. Hobson, commander of Battle's Brigade at the Battle of Cedar Creek, October 19, 1864, at the Virginia Historical Society. I believe it was in a cache of Hobson's personal papers that had been donated by his family after his death. The report remains unpublished to my knowledge and contains a wealth of details of a brigade that was heavily involved in the fighting.

That's an interesting find. Who knows whether Hobson kept a copy, never got around to filing the original, or at some point after the war somebody else who had it got it back to him or his family. "More questions than answers". But in your case none of that mattered.

 

[C. Cash]

Gen. Cleburne's report of Pickett's Mill was reportedly written by Capt. I. Buck of his staff. It is full of omissions and bias and I am not convinced that Cleburne had much to do with it. Buck would later write Cleburne's biography.

 

[Tom Elmore]

Several official reports from Gettysburg that appeared in different places after the war have been reprinted by Broadfoot Publishing Company in their Supplement to the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies.