Who killed Cobb?

[Jamieva]

@lelliott19 saw this and didn't know if you had seen it. The Cobb house is doing a series on it

The T.R.R. Cobb House in Athens, Ga., is reprising debate over who killed general at Fredericksburg. Clues and claims are featured each Wednesday on social media

civil-war-picket.blogspot.com

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Since the artillery shell that fatally wounded Cobb also supposedly hit several other officers at the same time, I'm surprised there's even a debate.

 

[lelliott19]

Thanks for bringing this up @Jamieva. I hate to post a spoiler, but it's just another one of those recurring myths --- in spite of the existence of MANY contemporary sources, people still fall for it. The myth that Thomas Reade Rootes Cobb might have been mortally wounded by small arms fire and not by a ball from an exploding case shot or a fragment of a shell. Mostly based on a veteran who, in 1880's or 90's, claimed to have been present when another veteran gave a dying declaration/confession. Basically an unsubstantiated, unconfirmed, second hand fairy tale (IMHO). This dying veteran claimed to have committed an act of "fragging" in retaliation for Cobb preventing him from filling his canteen at a stream crossing. I tend to discount second hand accounts. But if one is inclined to consider such a remote possibility, let me set the record straight.

There are numerous contemporary primary sources that consistently state the manner and circumstances of Cobb's mortal wounding. First of all, contemporary primary sources consistently report that on December 13, 1862, a group of officers was standing in the sunken road conferring with Cobb at the time he was mortally wounded. Several of them (including Cobb) were struck at the same time by fragments of the same exploding shell that mortally wounded Cobb.

Lt. John McPherson Berrien was acting as Cobb's adjutant. He was struck by a fragment of the same shell and wounded severely in the hip at the same time. Brig Gen John Rogers Cooke was struck in the head by a fragment or ball from the same shell. General Cooke's skull was fractured and the wound was expected to be mortal, but he survived. Capt. Henry Alexander Butler, originally served in the 3rd AR, was serving as adjutant to Gen Cooke was also standing in the sunken road at the time. He survived the wound and the war. Lt. Colonel Robert Thomas Cook of Phillips Legion was in the group; he was killed by a fragment of the same shell. Captain Walter Scott Brewster of G/24th Georgia acting as volunteer aide to Cobb was also in the group. A fragment of the same shell hit Brewster in the leg, just above the knee. The wound was considered severe, but was not expected to be mortal. His leg was amputated and he died the next day.

Maybe the old veteran fragged them all? The whole group? Maybe he squeezed off a shot that hit Cobb at the exact moment the others were struck by fragments of an exploding shell? Let me assure you that is NOT the case.

The most convincing evidence comes from a letter from John Marshall Roquemore of A/Cobb's Legion dated "Camp Jennie, Near Fredericksburg, December 18th, 1862." Roquemore was hospital steward. He was with Cobb at the hospital and remained with him until he died. Roquemore confirms that Cobb's wound was caused by an exploding shell:

He received the fatal wound about 12 m. while bravely cheering his troops, and died at the Hospital four hours afterwards. A grape shot [almost certainly a ball or fragment from an exploding case shot; not actual "grape shot"] shattered his thigh. The hemorrhage and nervous shock was too great for his attenuated system. He soon sank unmurmuringly into the arms of death - quietly, as a child going to sleep. I was with him to the last.​

Some people seem to enjoy baseless speculation. They like discussing unsubstantiated rumors and dubious second hand myths. Maybe it's the shock value or the outrage? I prefer to just stick with the primary sources, giving special consideration to contemporary accounts like this one - written by the hospital steward who sat by Cobb's bedside and watched him succumb to the effects of the wound. I can't imagine John Marshall Roquemore would have any reason to lie.

 

[lelliott19]

Since the artillery shell that fatally wounded Cobb also supposedly hit several other officers at the same time, I'm surprised there's even a debate.

Thanks so much for weighing in Josh. I don't think most people even know that pieces of the same shell K/MW/W others at the same time. It's like nobody cares about Fredericksburg. It's so weird. Most historians seem to look at Fredericksburg like an open and shut book. The Federals made all these attempts; they were repulsed. The same artillery on the hill mowed them down. The same few regiments of Confederate troops stood there behind that wall, popped up, and shot them. Like that's all there was to it. And there was soooooo much more to the Battle of Fredericksburg than that. There's probably as much to learn about Fredericksburg as there is to know about Gettysburg, but there doesn't seem to be the same interest in scholarship. Thanks again

 

[RyanQ1864]

The Cobb House knows it was a shell. The series was designed as an educational program for students (8th graders, as the posted article says) to weigh sources and see which ones presented the best evidence. Weighing evidence is something dreadfully in short supply in today's civics, so the program is well-designed. NPS park staff assisted the Cobb House.

 

[lelliott19]

The Cobb House knows it was a shell. The series was designed as an educational program for students (8th graders, as the posted article says) to weigh sources and see which ones presented the best evidence. Weighing evidence is something dreadfully in short supply in today's civics, so the program is well-designed. NPS park staff assisted the Cobb House.

That's awesome Ryan!! I didn't click the link or read the description. But I couldn't agree more! Weighing evidence is certainly something that all students can benefit from - especially since it seems to have become less of a focus in traditional curriculum. I'm so glad the program was developed and that the NPS is involved. Who knows? Maybe a budding historian will be inspired by this fabulous opportunity to pursue history as a life-long hobby or vocation. Well done!

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Admittedly, was personally unaware at first of the controversy over the cause of Thomas Cobb's mortal wounding at Fredericksburg. So did a little further digging for information.

The accepted conventional view of Cobb's mortal wounding was espoused in Francis O'Reilly's extremely well-researched authoritative work, 'The Fredericksburg Campaign' (@ pp. 296-97) as follows, ..."A Union shell crashed through the Stephens house and burst, wounding Captain John M. Berrien in the hip and Cobb on the right thigh. A piece of shrapnel had struck Cobb just above the knee, snapping the bone and lacerating the femoral artery."...

But apparently there were alternative views put forward by some Georgian veterans long after the war ended that Cobb was mortally wounded by rifle fire.

One veteran's account in the Marietta Journal (Mar. 21, 1901) claimed that Cobb was deliberately shot by a disgruntled and vengeful Confederate soldier named 'Sam' of Phillip's Legion, with whom Cobb had had a confrontation in an earlier incident.

However, another veteran's account that appeared in the Atlanta Journal (Apr. 6, 1901) claimed Cobb was mortally wounded by enemy rifle fire in close quarters fighting, as he entered a house with several comrades.

Similarly, another account by Pvte. William Hauser of Cobb's Legion in the Atlanta Journal (Apr. 6, 1901) supposedly said that Cobb was mortally wounded by enemy rifle fire.

But perhaps yet another account appearing in the Atlanta Journal (May 4, 1901) by Capt. A. J. McBride of the 10th. GA was the most conclusive. McBride stated that there were written statements by several witnesses present, including Cobb's brigade surgeon, Dr. E. J. Eldridge, his regimental surgeon, Dr. E. D. Newton, his preferred courier, John Clark, and the general's pastor, Rev. R. K. Porter (who was supporting Cobb's head when he died), that left no doubt on the nature of Cobb's wound being caused by an artillery shell fragment.

It seems reasonable to believe that the controversy can be definitively resolved by accepting the statements of those present afterwards who treated, or saw, the type of wound (shrapnel or bullet) that Cobb suffered, before he expired. Cobb was mortally wounded by a fragment from a fired enemy artillery shell.

 

[lelliott19]

including Cobb's brigade surgeon, Dr. E. J. Eldridge, his regimental surgeon,

Dr. Erwin James Eldridge was the 29yo surgeon of the 16th Georgia. Eldridge was a "real doctor" having graduated from Jefferson Medical college Philadelphia, PA in 1854. He also studied in Vienna and served in medical service during the Crimean War. In 1861, he was Asst Surgeon, but was promoted to Surgeon July 1862. At least one card in his file indicates surgeon of Cobb's Legion --- but he was assigned to the 16th Georgia with his friend Lt Col/Col Goode Bryan's regiment. At some point [possibly prior to Fredericksburg] Eldridge was promoted to brigade surgeon. He is documented as brigade surgeon of Wofford's brigade at Gettysburg.

Regarding Cobb's wound, Eldridge was there at Fredericksburg and responded when a surgeon was called for. I infer that Cobb was already evacuated from the sunken road and that Eldridge encountered him along the way, being carried back toward the field hospital on a litter. Dr. Eldridge recalled that two pieces of shell entered Cobb's leg, above the knee, tearing the large artery, causing shock and loss of blood. Dr. Eldridge wrote, "He was carried to the rear and died, never reviving after I saw him, but remaining conscious for some time."

Dr. Edwin Dorset Newton was the 27 yo Assistant Surgeon of Cobb's Legion. He was "real doctor" too, having earned his medical degree from Jefferson Medical college in 1859 and practicing medicine a year at Athens, GA before the war. When Dr. Eldridge started for the front to respond, Newton remained back at the field hospital to prepare for Cobb's arrival.

Dr. Newton stated, "A bed was quickly prepared in a frame house, and in a few moments Gen. Cobb, deathly pale, was brought in on a litter... As soon as he was placed on the bed, we asked him if he was suffering pain. He said yes and we administered morphine and gave him a glass of wine....The upper portion of the thigh was torn away and the thigh bone [femur] broken and the femoral artery cut by a fragment of the shell."


Dr. John Taylor Gilmore was also present. He was a "real doctor" too and had just celebrated his 27th birthday six days prior. Gilmore graduated from Jefferson Medical college in 1858. He was originally Surgeon of the 13th Mississippi, but was quickly promoted to brigade surgeon of Barksdale's brigade May 14, 1861, and by June 1862, was Chief Surgeon of McLaws' division. Dr. Edwin Dorset Newton recalled: "Whispering to Dr. Gilmore, we asked if there was hope? He shook his head."

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Thanks. Those explicit medical witness testimonies/statements leave absolutely no doubt Cobb was mortally wounded by a fired shell fragment (or fragments). (There was no injury caused by any shot rifle ball, as some Georgian soldiers may have claimed many years afterwards).

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Some people seem to enjoy baseless speculation. They like discussing unsubstantiated rumors and dubious second hand myths. Maybe it's the shock value or the outrage?

Conspiracy theories tend to all have similar psychological underpinnings. I think this is especially true for the deaths of famous or otherwise beloved individuals.

The possibility of such individuals being struck down, especially in their prime, by accidents or other chance occurrence (or suicide) is deeply unsettling for many people. Not only for the loss of that individual, but also the obvious implication that their loved ones could likewise die suddenly and tragically. So people cope by clinging to the possibility, no matter how dubious, that the death was a deliberate malicious act.

As for the original claims, decades after the battle, of fragging? Maybe it was the equivalent of trolling back then. Or maybe Sam was real and really mad at Cobb, and through the game of telephone / fish story process the story grew beyond it's wartime truth, of a soldier being mad at an officer who shortly thereafter died, evolved into an false story of fragging.

 

[lelliott19]

Or maybe Sam was real and really mad at Cobb, and through the game of telephone / fish story process the story grew beyond it's wartime truth, of a soldier being mad at an officer who shortly thereafter died, evolved into an false story of fragging.

A very well-stated analysis. Some things I hadn't really thought about before. I too believe there is a kernel of truth to the disgruntled Sam story. I'm sure at some point Sam was angry at Cobb for some perceived injustice. But when it comes to the manner and circumstances of Cobb's death, I believe the contemporary primary sources over a cryptic 1901 second-hand dying declaration. Especially when all the pieces of the dying declaration don't align with reality.

I seem to recall a modern historian (I don't recall who or when) did a plausibility study to determine if it could have happened. S/he found that a similar situation -- with river crossings and soldiers not allowed to stop for canteen filling -- occurred or could have occurred on the march from Antietam. This historian determined that there was a guy (or several) named "Sam" or "Samuel" in Phillips Legion. The dying declaration claimed the incident happened on the march back to VA after Antietam. Sure enough, Phillips Legion had crossed a stream (or twenty) on that march. And there were occasions when canteen filling was strictly prohibited. And Cobb, being a "rule follower" would have enforced the prohibition. If all this was true, then the supposed incident between Sam/Cobb could have or might have happened.

However, if we are to believe the perceived injustice did happen, we have to overcome a few inconsistencies. Phillips Legion was in Drayton's brigade on the march from Antietam. They weren't transferred to Cobb's brigade until November 17, 1862. And TRR Cobb was just a colonel at the time -- Col of Cobb's Legion not a BG. At the time, his brother Howell Cobb was the brigadier general of Cobb's brigade. And of course there's another inconsistency to overcome -- TRR Cobb was absent on extended leave home during the Maryland Campaign from August to Nov. He wasn't even present at Antietam. He didn't rejoin the army until mid-late November when they were concentrating around Fredericksburg.

So Phillips Legion wasn't in Cobb's brigade on the march from Antietam; TRR Cobb wasn't present on the return march; and he couldn't have interfered with Sam's canteen filling (at least not on the march from Antietam). The perceived injustice between Sam and TRR Cobb may have happened. But if it did, it was prior to late August when Cobb went on leave. Not on the march from Antietam. Even if some encounter that "Sam" perceived as an injustice did happen at some point, there are numerous consistent accounts, contemporary to the incident, that all say Cobb's mortal wound was inflicted by a ball or piece of shell from an exploding artillery projectile. Sam might have been mad, but he didn't shoot Cobb.

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

Sam might have been mad, but he didn't shoot Cobb

I've read, by now, many many accounts (written 30+ years later) where soldiers talk about how "they were going to shoot the leader/officer next chance they got."

IF that had happened as many times as I've read, I think only Robert E. Lee would be left standing!

I'm sure it happened actually amongst fellow soldiers more commonly than we know in battle, but I don't think there was wholesale fragging going on. If there was, they wouldn't be writing about it in their memoirs.

I have no doubt that there were enlisted men, some who were very wicked and vile, who met justice on the battlefield by their own compatriots and we never hear about it.

 

[rpkennedy]

People love drama. That's why soap operas are so popular. Cobb being wounded by a shell fragment because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time is so mundane. Now, a disgruntled soldier under his command taking matters into his own hands? That's a great story.

Ryan

 

[Stryker65]

Thanks so much for weighing in Josh. I don't think most people even know that pieces of the same shell K/MW/W others at the same time. It's like nobody cares about Fredericksburg. It's so weird. Most historians seem to look at Fredericksburg like an open and shut book. The Federals made all these attempts; they were repulsed. The same artillery on the hill mowed them down. The same few regiments of Confederate troops stood there behind that wall, popped up, and shot them. Like that's all there was to it. And there was soooooo much more to the Battle of Fredericksburg than that. There's probably as much to learn about Fredericksburg as there is to know about Gettysburg, but there doesn't seem to be the same interest in scholarship. Thanks again

Certainly was to me! I didn't know about the stuff on the left flank with Franklin vs Jackson at all!

 

[lelliott19]

Certainly was to me! I didn't know about the stuff on the left flank with Franklin vs Jackson at all!

See. That's exactly what I meant when I said people don't really pay attention to Fredericksburg. And they should. There's so much about that battle that determined what happened later in the war. And helps people understand it. Think of the casualties on both sides. Some valuable ranking officers were killed or wounded and out of commission as a result. There was immediate disruption sure, but I'm talking more about long-term impact.

I'm not sure I'd count Cobb among the "military geniuses" lost at Fredericksburg. He was a political appointment. I mean he was inspirational, incredibly well-respected, valuable as a motivational factor, and all that. But Goode Bryan (Col 16thGA) was West Point educated. From a strictly military perspective, he would have probably been a better choice to succeed Howell Cobb in command of the Brigade after Antietam. From a military perspective, Bryan should have been the original Colonel of the 16th GA instead of Howell Cobb -- who was also a political appointment. Lt Col Bryan did all the drilling and training of the regt. Anyway, after TRR Cobb was mortally wounded, everybody from the old brigade (16th GA, 24th GA and Cobb's Legion) seemed to think Goode Bryan was a shoe-in for the appointment. Bryan was probably the only West Point educated Georgian who wasn't already a BG or higher by then?

But by December 1862, Phillips Legion had been transferred into Cobb's brigade (from Drayton's) and the 18th GA from Hood's. So William Tatum Wofford from the 18th GA was appointed to succeed Cobb. What if Goode Bryan had been promoted instead of Wofford? Or if Goode Bryan had even been elevated to command of another brigade earlier? Would that have made any big difference? Probably not, but it might have.

One guy who was possibly in the category of "military geniuses" lost at Fredericksburg. Union cavalry Gen George D Bayard was not yet 27 years old, but by December 1862, he was senior cavalry commander in the Army of the Potomac. Had Bayard not been mortally wounded at Fredericksburg he might have been made commander the Cavalry Corps in 1863 - instead of Alfred Pleasanton. How would that have changed things? I don't personally know enough to make an educated guess. But I feel like some things would have turned out different if Bayard hadn't been mortally wounded at Fredericksburg.

Meade and Gibbon, both severely wounded, were out for months. The Union Jackson (can't recall his name off the top of my head) was killed. Birney missed Chancellorsville due to his wounds which likely impacted his division's performance there. [Was he out for good as a result of his Fredericksburg wound?] I'm not sure how or how much all these impacted the Army of the Potomac - someone else who is more knowledgeable can probably give a better analysis. But it had to have had an impact.

IMHO ignoring Fredericksburg is disregarding how things got to where they were in 1864. Or even 1863. It's like climbing a ladder that's missing two or three rungs in the middle. You might be able to eventually get to the top of the ladder, but it would be a lot easier if you had those missing rungs.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

One guy who was possibly in the category of "military geniuses" lost at Fredericksburg. Union cavalry Gen George D Bayard was not yet 27 years old, but by December 1862, he was senior cavalry commander in the Army of the Potomac.

Coincidentally, Bayard also bled out from an leg wound caused by artillery, and was also near a house when wounded.

 

[Ben Ford 987]

Thanks so much for weighing in Josh. I don't think most people even know that pieces of the same shell K/MW/W others at the same time. It's like nobody cares about Fredericksburg. It's so weird. Most historians seem to look at Fredericksburg like an open and shut book. The Federals made all these attempts; they were repulsed. The same artillery on the hill mowed them down. The same few regiments of Confederate troops stood there behind that wall, popped up, and shot them. Like that's all there was to it. And there was soooooo much more to the Battle of Fredericksburg than that. There's probably as much to learn about Fredericksburg as there is to know about Gettysburg, but there doesn't seem to be the same interest in scholarship. Thanks again

John Pelham's actions being only one of the "soooooo much more..." items.
Barksdale's Mississippians being another one.
Both are classis accounts fascinating to me.

 

[gjpratt]

One guy who was possibly in the category of "military geniuses" lost at Fredericksburg. Union cavalry Gen George D Bayard was not yet 27 years old, but by December 1862, he was senior cavalry commander in the Army of the Potomac. Had Bayard not been mortally wounded at Fredericksburg he might have been made commander the Cavalry Corps in 1863 - instead of Alfred Pleasanton. How would that have changed things? I don't personally know enough to make an educated guess. But I feel like some things would have turned out different if Bayard hadn't been mortally wounded at Fredericksburg.

@lelliott19 This "what if" may be even more significant than you posit. If he had been given command of the Cavalry Corps instead of Stoneman, Chancellorsville may not have happened. Hooker's plan called for Stoneman to make a sweeping raid in Lee's rear to destroy railroads and supplies and otherwise disrupt logistics. He failed miserably, barely getting across the Rapidan.