The Army, through the Command and General Staff College in Leavenworth, KS, has produced some really nice "Staff Ride Handbooks". A Staff Ride is a hands on tour of a battlefields for study purposes. The Staff Ride for Chickamauga is designed to provide the student with an overview of the battle and battlefield to understand how it was fought.
Staff Ride Handbook
for the
Battle of Chickamauga
18-20 September 1863
by
Dr. William Glenn Robertson
Lieutenant Colonel Edward P. Shanahan
Lieutenant Colonel John I. Boxberger
Major George E. Knapp
Combat Studies Institute
U.S. Army Command and General Staff College
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027-6900
Foreword
Visiting Civil War battlefields offers unique insights into military operations, leadership, and men in battle. Annually, for almost ten years, students from the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College have visited the Chickamauga battlefield for the final phase of a ten-week course of study of the campaign and battle. Fought in the wooded terrain of northwest Georgia in 1863, the battle began with a meeting engagement on 19 September that culminated on 20 Septembare in attempts by the North to create a coordinated defense and by the South to generate a breakthrough.
This Staff Ride handbook is designed to place students on the actal terrain of the battle, evoke the conditions experienced by the participants at the time, and provide vignettes and discussion topics to increase their understanding of the battle. Throught this process, students will gain an enhanced unerstanding of Chickamauga. Realizing that in-depth prior study may not always be possible, this handbook is written to be of value to both novices and more serious students of the battle.
September 1992 RICHARD M. SWAIN
Colonel, Field Artillery
Director, Combat Studies Institute |
|
CSI publications cover a variety of military history topics. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense. |
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Staff ride handbook for the Battle of Chickamauga, 18-20 September
1863 /by William Glenn Robertson... [et al.]
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references (p. ).
1. Chickamauga (Ga.), Battleof, 1863. 2. Chickamauga-Chattanooga
National Militry Park (Ga. and Tenn.)-Guidebooks. I. Robertson,
William Glenn, 1944- . II. U.S. Army Command and General Staff
College. Combat Studies Institute.
E475.8l.S73 1992
973.7'35--dc20 92-26778
CIP
CONTENTS
Illustrations
Tables
Introduction
I. Civil War Armies
Organization
Weapons
Tactics
Logistical Support
Engineer Support
Communications Support
Medical Support
II. Chickamauga Campaign Overview
III. Suggested Route and Vignettes
Introduction
Day 1 (19 September 1863)
Day 2 (20 September 1863)
IV. Support for a Staff Ride to Chickamauga
Appendixes
A. Order of Battle: Army of the Cumberland
B. Order of Battle: Army of Tennessee
C. Chickamauga Medal of Honor Recipients
D. Meteorological Data Relevant to the Chickamauga Campaign
Bibliography
The Authors of the Handbook
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figures
1. Organization Of the Army of the Cumberland, 31 August-20 September 1863
2. Organization of the Army of Tennessee, 1-19 September 1863
3. Reorganization of the Army of Tennessee, 19-20 September 1863
4. Regimental line of battle from march column
5. Maneuvering brigades at Chickamauga, 20 September 1863
6. The "grand column"
Maps
1. Sites of maps 2 through 5 in relation to the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park for day 1
2. Day 1, stands 1 through 16
3. Day 1, stands 17 through 20
4. Day 1, stands 21 through 25
5. Day 1, stands 26 through 28
6. Sites of maps 7 through 10 in relation to the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park for day 2
7. Day 2, stands 1 through 15
8. Day 2, stands 16 through 22
9. Day 2, stands 23 through 28
10. Day 2, stands 29 through 39
TABLES
1. Federal and Confederate organized forces
2. Typical staffs
3. Rosecrans and Bragg's effective strengths
4. Types of artillery available at the Battle of Chickamauga
5. Variety of weapons in Wilder's brigade, 30 September 1863
6. Sample of Federal logistical data
7. Casualties of the battle
INTRODUCTION
Ad bellum Pace Parati: prepared in peace for war. This sentiment was much on the mind of Captain Arthur L. Wagner as he contemplated the quality of military education at the Infantry and Cavalry School at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, during the 1890s. Wagner believed that the school's curricula during the long years of peace had become too far removed from the reality of war, and he cast about for ways to make the study of conflict more real to officers who had no experience in combat. Eventually, he arrived at a concept he called the Staff Ride, which consisted of detailed classroom study of an actual campaign followed by a visit to the sites associated with that campaign. Although Wagner never lived to see the Staff Ride added to the Leavenworth curricula, an associate of his, Major Eben Swift, implemented the Staff Ride at the General Service and Staff School in 1906. In July of that year, Swift led a contingent of twelve students to Chattanooga, Tennessee, to begin a two-week study of the Atlanta campaign of 1864.
The Staff Ride concept pioneered at Leavenworth in the early years of the twentieth century remains a vital part of officer professional development today. At the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, the Army War College, ROTC detachments, and units throughout the world, U.S. Army officers are studying war vicariously in peacetime through the Staff Ride methodology. That methodology (in-depth preliminary study, rigorous field study, and integration of the two) need not be tied to a formal schoolhouse environment. Units stationed near historic battlefields can experience the intellectual and emotional stimulation provided by standing on the hallowed ground where soldiers once contended for their respective causes. Yet units may find themselves without many of the sources of information on a particular campaign that are readily available in an academic environment. For that reason, the Combat Studies Institute has begun a series of handbooks on significant campaigns that will provide practical information to assist officers to conduct Staff Rides to these campaigns on their own. These handbooks are not intended to be used as a substitute for serious study by Staff Ride leaders or participants. Instead, they represent an effort to assist officers in locating sources, identifying teaching points, and designing meaningful field study phases. As such, they represent a starting point from which a more meaningful professional development experience may be crafted.
The campaign and Battle of Chickamauga, August-September 1863, is an excellent vehicle for a Staff Ride. Because of the size of the forces involved and the difficulty of the terrain encountered, it represents an opportunity to raise many challenging teaching points relevant to today's officer. Second, the nation has wisely preserved most of the primary battle area in the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park and has marked most unit positions for detailed study by visitors. These markers are linked by an extensive trail network that permits access to all significant areas of the field. Thus, the park is an excellent physical laboratory for the study of conflict at the tactical and human level. Finally, because of its proximity to the city of Chattanooga, Tennessee, the battle site is easily supportable logistically for Staff Ride groups of any size. In sum, this campaign offers a great opportunity for study by the professional officer, as generations of American soldiers have already discovered.
The Staff Ride Handbook for the Battle of Chickamauga, 18-20 September 1863, provides a systematic approach to the analysis of this great Civil War battle. Part I describes the organization of the Federal and Confederate Armies, detailing their weapons, tactics, and logistical, engineer, communications, and medical support.
In part II, the Chickamauga campaign is discussed, placing the battle in historical perspective and illustrating how the battle fits into the overall context of the Chickamauga campaign.
Part III furnishes a suggested route to follow in order to get a firsthand, concrete view of how the battle developed. By following this route, various phases of the battle can be discussed and significant points made concerning the evolving battle. Also in part III are various vignettes by participants in the battle that describe the fight and offer insights into the emotional disposition of the combatants.
Part IV furnishes current information on the Chickamauga site, sources of assistance, and logistical data for conducting a Staff Ride. In addition, appendixes give order of battle information for the two armies, meteorological data, and a list of Medal of Honor recipients in the battle. A bibliography is also provided.
I. CIVIL WAR ARMIES
Organization
The U.S. Army in 1861
The Regular Army of the United States on the eve of the Civil War was essentially a frontier constabulary whose 16,000 officers and men were organized into 198 companies scattered across the nation at 79 different posts. At the start of the war, 183 of these companies were either on frontier duty or in transit, while the remaining 15, mostly coastal artillery batteries, guarded the Canadian border and Atlantic coast or 1 of the 23 arsenals. In 1861, this Army was under the command of Lieutenant General Winfield Scott, the 75-year-old hero of the Mexican-American War. His position as general in chief was traditional, not statutory, because secretaries of war since 1821 had designated a general to be in charge of the field forces without formal congressional approval. The field forces themselves were controlled through a series of geographic departments, whose commanders reported directly to the general in chief. This department system, frequently modified, would be used by both sides throughout the Civil War for administering regions under Army control.
Army administration was handled by a system of bureaus whose senior officers were, by 1860, in the twilight of long careers in their technical fields. Six of the ten bureau chiefs were over seventy years old. These bureaus, modeled after the British system, answered directly to the War Department and were not subject to the orders of the general in chief. Predecessors of many of today's combat support and combat service support branches, the following bureaus had been established by 1861:
Quartermaster Medical
Ordnance Adjutant General
Subsistence Paymaster
Engineer Inspector General
Topographic Engineer* Judge Advocate General
*Merged with the Engineer Bureau in 1863.
During the war, Congress elevated the Office of the Provost Marshal and the Signal Corps to bureau status and created a Cavalry Bureau. Note that no operational planning or intelligence staff existed: American commanders before the Civil War had never required such a structure.
This system provided suitable civilian control and administrative support to the small field army prior to 1861. Ultimately, the bureau system would respond effectively, if not always efficiently, to the mass mobilization required over the next four years. Indeed, it would remain essentially intact until the early twentieth century. The Confederate government, forced to create an army and support organization from scratch, established a parallel structure to that of the U.S. Army. In fact, many important figures in Confederate bureaus had served in one of the prewar bureaus.
Raising the Armies
With the outbreak of war in April 1861, both sides faced the monumental task of organizing and equipping armies that far exceeded the prewar structure in size and complexity. The Federals maintained control of the Regular Army, and the Confederates initially created a regular force, mostly on paper. Almost immediately, the North lost many of its officers to the South, including some of exceptional quality. Of 1,108 Regular officers serving as of 1 January 1861, 270 ultimately resigned to join the South. Only a few hundred of 15,135 enlisted men, however, left the ranks.
The Federal government had two basic options for the use of the Regular Army. It could be divided into training and leadership cadre for newly formed volunteer regiments or be retained in units to provide a reliable nucleus for the Federal Army in coming battles. At the start, Scott envisioned a relatively small force to defeat the rebellion and therefore insisted that the Regulars fight as units. Although some Regular units fought well at the First Battle of Bull Run and in other battles, Scott's decision ultimately limited the impact of Regular units on the war. Battle losses and disease soon thinned the ranks of Regulars, and officials could never recruit sufficient replacements in
the face of stiff competition from the states that were forming volunteer regiments. By November 1864, many Regular units had been so depleted that they were withdrawn from frontline service. The war, therefore, was fought primarily with volunteer officers and men,
the vast majority of whom had no previous military training or experience.
Neither side had difficulty in recruiting the numbers initially required to fill the expanding ranks. In April 1861, President Abraham Lincoln called for 75,000 men from the states' militias for a 3-month period. This figure probably represented Lincoln's informed guess as to how many troops would be needed to quell the rebellion quickly. Almost 92,000 men responded, as the states recruited their "organized," but untrained, militia companies. At the First Battle of Bull Run in July 1861, these ill-trained and poorly equipped soldiers generally fought much better than they were led. Later, as the war began to require more manpower, the Federal government set enlistment quotas through various "calls," which local districts struggled to fill. Similarly, the Confederate Congress authorized the acceptance of 100,000 one-year volunteers in March 1861, One-third of these men were under arms within a month. The Southern spirit of voluntarism was so strong that possibly twice that number could have been enlisted, but sufficient arms and equipment were not then available.
As the war continued and casualty lists grew, the glory of volunteering faded, and both sides ultimately resorted to conscription to help fill the ranks. The Confederates enacted the first conscription law in American history in April 1862, followed by the Federal government's own law in March 1863. Throughout these first experiments in American conscription, both sides administered the programs in less than a fair and efficient way. Conscription laws tended to exempt wealthier citizens, and initially, draftees could hire substitutes or pay commutation fees. As a result, the health, capability, and morale of the average conscript was poor. Many eligible men, particularly in the South, enlisted to avoid the onus of being considered a conscript. Still, conscription or the threat of conscription ultimately helped provide a sufficient quantity of soldiers for both sides.
Conscription was never a popular program, and the North, in particular, tried several approaches to limit conscription requirements. These efforts included offering lucrative bounties, or required quotas. In addition, the fees paid to induce volunteers to fight Federals offered a series of reenlistment bonuses, including money, thirty-day furloughs, and the opportunity for veteran regiments to
maintain their colors and be designated as "veteran" volunteer infantry regiments. The Federals also created an Invalid Corps (later renamed the Veteran Reserve Corps) of men unfit for frontline service who performed essential rear-area duties. The Union also recruited almost 179,000 blacks, mostly in federally organized volunteer regiments. By February 1864, blacks were being conscripted in the
North as well. In the South, recruiting or conscripting slaves was so politically sensitive that it was not attempted until March 1865, far too late to influence the war.
Whatever the faults of the manpower mobilization, it was an impressive achievement, particularly as a first effort on that scale. Various enlistment figures exist, but the best estimates are that approximately 2 million men enlisted in the Federal Army during 1961-65. Of that number, 1 million were under arms at the end of the war. Because the Confederates' records are incomplete or lost, estimates of their enlistments vary from 600,000 to over 1.5 million. Most likely, between 750,000 and 800,000 men served the Confederacy during the war, with a peak strength never exceeding 460,000. Perhaps the greatest legacy of the manpower mobilization efforts of both sides was the improved Selective Service System that created the armies of World Wars I and II.
The unit structure into which the expanding armies were organized was generally the same for Federals and Confederates, reflecting the common roots for both armies. The Federals began the war with a Regular Army organized into an essentially Napoleonic, musket-equipped structure. Each of the 10 prewar infantry regiments consisted of ten 87-man companies with a maximum authorized strength of 978. At the beginning of the war, the Federals added nine Regular infantry regiments with a newer "French model" organizational structure. The new regiments contained 3 battalions, with a maximum authorized strength of 2,452. The new Regular battalion, with eight 100-man companies, was in effect equivalent to the prewar regiment. Essentially an effort to reduce staff officer slots, the new structure was unfamiliar to most leaders, and both sides used a variant of the old structure for newly formed volunteer regiments. The Federal War Department established a volunteer infantry regimental organization with a strength that could range from 866 to 1,046 (varying in authorized strength by up to 180 infantry privates). The Confederate Congress fixed its 10-company infantry regiment at 1,045 men. Combat strength in battle, however, was always much lower because of casualties, sickness, leaves, details, desertions, and straggling.
The battery remained the basic artillery unit, although battalion and larger formal groupings of artillery emerged later in the war in the eastern theater. Four understrength Regular regiments existed in the U.S. Army at the start of the war, and one Regular regiment was added in 1861, for a total of sixty batteries. Nevertheless, most batteries were volunteer organizations. A Federal battery usually
consisted of 6 guns and had an authorized strength of 80 to 156 men. A battery of six 12-pounder Napoleons could include 130 horses. If organized as "horse" or flying artillery, cannoneers were provided individual mounts, and more horses than men could be assigned to the
battery. Their Confaderate counterparts, plagued by limited ordnance and available manpower, usually operated with a four-gun battery, often with guns of mixed types and calibers. Confederate batteries seldom reached their initially authorized manning level of eighty soldiers.
Prewar Federal mounted units were organized into five Regular regiments (two dragoon, two cavalry, and one mounted rifle), and one Regular cavalry regiment was added in May 1861. Originally, ten companies comprised a regiment, but congressional legislation in July 1862 officially reorganized the Regular mounted units into standard regiments of twelve "companies or troops" of seventy-nine to ninetyfive men each. Although the term "troop" was officially introduced, most cavalrymen continued to use the more familiar term "company" to describe their units throughout the war. The Federals grouped two companies or troops into squadrons, with four to six squadrons comprising a regiment. Confederate cavalry units, organized on the prewar model, authorized ten 76-man companies per regiment. Some volunteer cavalry units on both sides also formed into smaller cavalry battalions. Later in the war, both sides began to merge their cavalry regiments and brigades into division and corps organizations.
For both sides, the unit structure above regimental level was similar to today's structure, with a brigade controlling three to five regiments and a division controlling two or more brigades. Federal brigades generally contained regiments from more than one state, while Confederate brigades often had several regiments from the same state. In the Confederate Army, a brigadier general usually
commanded a brigade, and a major general commanded a division. The Federal Army, with no rank higher than major general until 1864, often had colonels commanding brigades and brigadier generals commanding divisions.
The large numbers of organizations formed, as shown in table 1, are a reflection of the politics of the time. The War Department in 1861 considered making recruitment a Federal responsibility, but this proposal seemed to be an unnecessary expense for the short war initially envisioned. Therefore, the responsibility for recruiting remained with the states, and on both sides, state governors
continually encouraged local constituents to form new volunteer regiments. This practice served to strengthen support for local, state, and national politicians and provided an opportunity for glory and high rank for ambitious men. Although such local recruiting created regiments with strong bonds among the men, it also hindered filling the ranks of existing regiments with new replacements. As the war progressed, the Confederates attempted to funnel replacements into units from their same state or region, but the Federals continued to create new regiments. Existing Federal regiments detailed men back home to recruit replacements, but these efforts could never successfully compete for men joining new local regiments. The newly formed regiments thus had no seasoned veterans to train the recruits, and the battle-tested regiments lost men faster than they could recruit replacements. Many regiments on both sides were reduced to combat ineffectiveness as the war progressed. Seasoned regiments were often disbanded or consolidated, usually against the wishes of the men assigned.
Table 1. Federal and
Confederate Organized Forces
Legions were a form of combined arms team, with artillery, cavqlry, and infantry. They were arproximately the strength of a large regiment. Long before the end of the war, legions lost their combined arms organization.
The Leaders
Because the organization, equipment, tactics, and training of the Confederate and Federal Armies were similar, the performance of units in battle often depended on the quality and performance of their individual leaders. General officers were appointed by their respective central governments. At the start of the war, most, but certainly not all, of the more senior officers had West Point or other military school experience. In 1861, Lincoln appointed 126 general officers, of which 82 were, or had been, professional officers. Jefferson Davis appointed eighty-nine, of which forty-four had received professional training. The remainder were political appointees, but of these, only sixteen Federal and seven Confederate generals had had no military experience.
Of the volunteer officers who comprised the bulk of the leadership for both armies, colonels (regimental commanders) were normally appointed by state governors. Other field grade officers were appointed by their states, although many were initially elected within their units. Company grade officers were usually elected by their men. This long-established militia tradition, which seldom made military leadership and capability a primary consideration, was largely an extension of the states' rights philosophy and sustained political patronage in both the Union and the Confederacy.
Much has been made of the West Point backgrounds of the men who ultimately dominated the senior leadership positions of both armies, but the graduates of military colleges were not prepared by such institutions to command divisions, corps, or armies. Moreover, though many leaders had some combat experience from the Mexican War era, very few had experience above the company or battery level in the peacetime years prior to 1861. As a result, the war was not initially conducted at any level by "professional officers" in today's terminology. Leaders became more professional through experience and at the cost of thousands of lives. General William T. Sherman would later note that the war did not enter its "professional stage" until 1863.
Civil War Staffs
In the Civil War, as today, the success of large military organizations often depended on the effectiveness of the commanders' staffs. Modern staff procedures have evolved only gradually with the increasing complexity of military operations. This evolution was far from complete in 1861, and throughout the war, commanders personally handled many vital staff functions, most notably operations and intelligence. The nature of American warfare up to the midnineteenth century had not yet clearly overwhelmed the capabilities of single commanders.
Civil War staffs were divided into a "general staff " and a "staff corps." This terminology, defined by Winfield Scott in 1855, differs from modern definitions of the terms. Table 2 lists typical staff positions at army level, although key functions are represented down to regimental level. Except for the chief of staff and aides-de-camp, who were considered personal staff and would often depart when a commander was reassigned, staffs mainly contained representatives of the various bureaus, with logistical areas being best represented. Later in the war, some truly effective staffs began to emerge, but this was the result of the increased experience of the officers serving in those positions rather than a comprehensive development of standard staff procedures or guidelines.
Table 2. Typical Staffs
George. B. McClellan, when he appointed his father-in-law as his chief of staff, was the first to officially use this title. Even though many senior commanders had a chief of staff, this position was not used in any uniform way and seldom did the man in this role achieve the central coordinating authority of the chief of staff in a modern headquarters. This position, along with most other staff positions, was used as an individual commander saw fit, making staff responsibilities somewhat different under each commander. This inadequate use of the chief of staff was among the most important shortcomings of staffs during the Civil War. An equally important weakness was the lack of any formal operations or intelligence staff. Liaison procedures were also ill-defined, and various staff officers or soldiers performed this function with little formal guidance. Miscommunication or lack of knowledge of friendly units proved disastrous time after time.
The Armies at Chickamauga
Major General William S. Rosecrans' Army of the Cumberland was organized into four infantry corps and a cavalry corps (see figure 1). Eleven infantry divisions would see action at Chickamauga. Rosecrans' effective strength was over 80,000 men, but only 62,000 would be available for the battle; most of the Reserve Corps and several additional units were securing the army's lines of
communication, which stretched to Nashville. Although some recently recruited green regiments were included, most of the Army of the Cumberland had considerable campaign and battle experience, with many units having fought at Shiloh, Perryville, and Stones River, as well as in many smaller skirmishes. Among these units was one Regular infantry brigade, comprised of battalions from the 15th, 16th, 18th, and 19th Infantry Regiments. Of Rosecrans' senior subordinates, George H. Thomas, a most capable and loyal Virginian, was clearly the best. He, Gordon Granger, and Alexander M. McCook (a member of the famous "fighting McCook family") were West Point graduates, although McCook was a young and immature corps commander. Rosecrans' other corps commander, Thomas L. Crittenden, though a veteran of the Mexican War, was relatively inexperienced at corps command. David S. Stanley, an excellent cavalry corps commander, became ill in midcampaign and was replaced just days prior to the battle by the ineffective Robert B. Mitchell. Although a few of his division commanders would prove inadequate, on the whole, Rosecrans was served by a better-than-average set of Civil War commanders.
Figure 1 - Organization of the Army of the Cumberland, 31 August-20 September 1863
On the Confederate side, General Braxton Bragg's Army of Tennessee grew to almost 60,000 men in the three weeks before the Battle of Chickamauga. (For a comparison of Rosecrans' and Bragg's effective strengths, see table 3.) Bragg's men were mainly veterans, though some regiments had no battle experience. Counting the reinforcements who would arrive by 20 September, Bragg's army contained eleven infantry divisions, organized initially into five corps. (For the organization of the Army of Tennessee, 1-19 September 1863, and its reorganization on 19-20 September 1863, see figures 2 and 3.) Bragg's senior subordinates were probably as capable as their Federal counterparts. Unfortunately, many had lost faith in their commander and tended to question many of his orders. Daniel H. Hill, Simon B. Buckner, William H. T. Walker, and John B. Hood were West Pointers, as was Episcopal Bishop Leonidas Polk. By the second day of battle, James Longstreet, a West Pointer with a strong reputation from service under Robert E. Lee in Virginia, joined Bragg along with 7,700 men. Joseph Wheeler and Nathan B. Forrest (the latter a particularly gifted soldier) commanded Bragg's two cavalry corps. The quality of some of Bragg's division commanders was exceptional: Alexander P. Stewart and Patrick R. Cleburne were among the best division commanders of the entire war.
Rosecrans' army staff was better organized than Bragg's. Although both men tended to handle too many details themselves, Rosecrans' logistical staff was more experienced, and he used his chief of staff, Brigadier General (later President) James A. Garfield, as an operational assistant during the battle. Bragg's headquarters was far more loosely run and employed lax procedures. Bragg also tended to use his staff more haphazardly, sending whoever seemed closest on liaison missions, including his chief of staff who never effectively coordinated staff activities. Much of Bragg's personal time was devoted to logistical details. Atrocious staff procedures in Leonidas Polk's corps headquarters contributed to the confusion and delays surrounding the initiation of the Confederate attack on 20 September.
Table 3. Rosecrans' and Bragg's Effective Strengths
Rosecrans' army was in excellent fighting trim. His delays after the Stones River and Tullahoma campaigns had allowed him to refit, and his soldiers had the high morale that only a series of victories can bring. In addition, he carried only 4 percent of his men on the sick rolls, a remarkably low figure for the Civil War. Morale and logistical support in Bragg's army could not match that of the Federals. Nevertheless, his soldiers possessed a stubborn pride born of adversity, and they were defending their home regions. In addition, Bragg's men knew of the coming reinforcements from Virginia.
Weapons
Infantry
During the 1850s, in a technological revolution of major proportions, the rifle-musket began to replace the relatively inaccurate smoothbore musket in ever-increasing numbers, both in Europe and America. This process, accelerated by the Civil War, ensured that the rifled shoulder weapon would be the basic weapon used by infantrymen in both the Federal and Confederate Armies.
Figure 2. Organization of the Army of Tennessee, 1-19 September 1863
Figure 3. Reorganization of the Army of Tennessee, 19-20 September 1863
The standard and most common shoulder weapon used in the American Civil War was the Springfield .68-caliber rifle-musket, Models 1855, 1861, and 1863. In 1855, the U.S. Army adopted this weapon to replace the .69-caliber smoothbore musket and the .54 caliber rifle. In appearance, the rifle-musket was similar to the smoothbore musket. Both were single-shot muzzle-loaders, but the rifled bore of the new weapon substantially increased its range and accuracy. The rifling system chosen by the United States was designed by Claude Minié, a French Army officer. Whereas earlier rifles fired a round, nonexpanding ball, the Minié system used a hollow-based cylindro-conoidal projectile slightly smaller than the bore that could be dropped easily into the barrel. When the powder charge was ignited by a fulminate of mercury percussion cap, the released powder gases expanded the base of the bullet into the rifled grooves, giving the projectile a ballistic spin.
The Model 1855 Springfield rifle-musket was the first regulation arm to use the hollow-base, .58-caliber Minié bullet. The slightly modified Model 1861 was the principal infantry weapon of the Civil War, although two subsequent models in 1863 were produced in about equal quantities. The Model 1861 was 56 inches long overall, had a 40-inch barrel, and weighed 9 pounds 2 ounces. It could be fitted with a 21-inch socket bayonet (with an 18-inch triangular blade, 3-inch socket) and had a rear sight graduated to 500 yards. The maximum effective range of the Springfield rifle-musket was approximately 500 yards, although it had killing power at 1,000 yards. The round could penetrate 11 inches of white-pine board at 200 yards and 3 1/4 inches at 1,000 yards, with a penetration of 1 inch being considered the equivalent of disabling a human being. Range and accuracy were increased by the use of the new weapon, but the soldiers' vision was still obscured by the clouds of smoke produced by its black powder propellant.
To load a muzzle-loading rifle, the soldier took a paper cartridge in hand and tore the end of the paper with his teeth. Next, he poured the powder down the barrel and placed the bullet in the muzzle. Then, using a metal ramrod, he pushed the bullet firmly down the barrel until seated. He then cocked the hammer and placed the percussion cap on the cone or nipple, which, when struck by the hammer, ignited the gunpowder. The average rate of fire was three rounds per minute. A well-trained soldier could possibly load and fire four times per minute, but in the confusion of battle, the rate of fire was probably slower, two to three rounds per minute.
In addition to the Springfields, over 100 types of muskets, rifles, rifle-muskets, and rifled muskets-ranging up to .79 caliber-were used during the American Civil War. The numerous American-made weapons were supplemented early in the conflict by a wide variety of imported models. The best, most popular, and most numerous of the foreign weapons was the British .577-caliber Enfield rifle, Model 1853, which was 54 inches long (with a 39-inch barrel), weighed 8.7 pounds (9.2 with the bayonet), could be fitted with a socket bayonet with an 18-inch blade, and had a rear sight graduated to a range of 800 yards. The Enfield design was produced in a variety of forms, both long and short barreled, by several British manufacturers and at least one American company. Of all the foreign designs, the Enfield most closely resembled the Springfield in characteristics and capabilities. The United States purchased over 436,000 Enfield-pattern weapons during the war. Statistics on Confederate purchases are more difficult to ascertain, but a report dated February 1863 indicates that 70,980 long Enfields and 9,715 short Enfields had been delivered by that time, with another 23,000 awaiting delivery.
While the quality of imported weapons varied, experts considered the Enfields and the Austrian Lorenz rifle-muskets very good. Some foreign governments and manufacturers took advantage of the huge initial demand for weapons by dumping their obsolete weapons on the American market. This practice was especially prevalent with some of the older smoothbore muskets and converted flintlocks. The greatest challenge, however, lay in maintaining these weapons and supplying ammunition and replacement parts for calibers ranging from .44 to .79. The quality of the imported weapons eventually improved as the procedures, standards, and astuteness of the purchasers improved. For the most part, the European suppliers provided needed weapons, and the newer foreign weapons were highly regarded.
All told, the United States purchased about 1,165,000 European rifles and muskets during the war, nearly all within the first two years. Of these, 110,853 were smoothbores. The remainder were primarily the French Minié rifles (44,250), Austrian Model 1854s (226,294), Prussian rifles (59,918), Austrian Jagers (29,850), and Austrian Bokers (187,533). Estimates of total Confederate purchases range from 340,000 to 400,000. In addition to the Enfields delivered to the Confederacy (mentioned above), 27,000 Austrian rifles, 21,040 British muskets, and 2,020 Brunswick rifles were also purchased, with 30,000 Austrian rifles awaiting shipment.
Breech-loaders and repeating rifles were available by 1861 and were initially purchased in limited quantities, often by individual soldiers. Generally, however, rifles were not issued to troops in large numbers because of technical problems (poor breech seals, faulty ammunition), fear by the Ordnance Department that the troops would waste ammunition, and the cost of rifle production. The most famous of the breech-loaders was the single-shot Sharps, produced in both carbine and rifle models. The Model 1859 rifle was .52 caliber, was 47 1/8 inches long, and weighed 8 3/4 pounds, while the carbine was .52 caliber, 39 1/8 inches long, and weighed 7 3/4 pounds. Both weapons used a linen cartridge and a pellet primer feed mechanism. Most Sharps carbines were issued to Federal cavalry units.
The best known of the repeaters was probably the seven-shot Spencer, .52 caliber, which also came in both rifle and carbine models. The rifle was 47 inches long and weighed 10 pounds, while the carbine was 39 inches long and weighed 8 1/4 pounds, The first mounted infantry unit to use Spencer repeating rifles in combat was Colonel John T. Wilder's "Lightning Brigade" on 24 June 1863 at Hoover's Gap, Tennessee. The Spencer was also the first weapon adopted by the U.S. Army that fired a metallic rimfire, self-contained cartridge. Soldiers loaded rounds through an opening in the butt of the stock, which fed into the chamber through a tubular magazine by the action of the trigger guard. The hammer still had to be cocked manually before each shot.
Better than either the Sharps or the Spencer was the Henry rifle. Never adopted by the U.S. Army in large quantity, it was purchased privately by soldiers during the war. The Henry was a sixteen-shot, .44-caliber rimfire cartridge repeater. It was 43 1/2 inches long and weighed 9 1/4 pounds. The tubular magazine located directly beneath the barrel had a fifteen-round capacity with an additional round in the chamber. Of the approximately 13,500 Henrys produced, probably 10,000 saw limited service. The government purchased only 1,731.
The Colt repeating rifle (or revolving carbine), Model 1855, also was available to Civil War soldiers in limited numbers. The weapon was produced in several lengths and calibers, the lengths varying from 32 inches to 42 1/2 inches while its calibers were .36, .44, and .56. The .36 and .44 calibers were made to chamber six shots, while the .56 caliber had five chambers. The Colt Firearms Company was also the primary supplier of revolvers, the .44-caliber Army revolver and the .36 caliber Navy revolver being the most popular (over 146,000
purchased). This was because they were simple, sturdy, and reliable.
Cavalry
Initially armed with sabers and pistols (and in one case, lances), Federal cavalry troopers quickly added the breech-loading carbine to their inventory of weapons. However, one Federal regiment, the 6th Pennsylvania Cavalry, carried lances until 1863. Troopers preferred
the easier-handling carbines to rifles and the breech-loaders to awkward muzzle-loaders. Of the single-shot breech-loading carbines that saw extensive use during the Civil War, the Hall .52 caliber accounted for approximately 20,000 in 1861. The Hall was quickly replaced by a variety of carbines, including the Merrill .54 caliber (14,495), Maynard .52 caliber (20,002), Gallager .63 caliber (22,728), Smith .52 caliber (30,062), Burnside .56 caliber (55,567), and Sharps .54 caliber (80,512). The next step in the evolutionary process was the repeating carbine, the favorite by 1865 being the Spencer .52-caliber seven-shot repeater (94,194). Because of the South's limited industrial capacity, Confederate cavalrymen had a more difficult time arming themselves. Nevertheless, they too embraced the firepower revolution, choosing shotguns and muzzle-loading carbines as their primary weapons. In addition, Confederate cavalrymen made extensive use of battlefield salvage by recovering Federal weapons. However, the South's difficulties in producing the metallic-rimmed cartridges required by many of these recovered weapons limited their usefulness.
Field Artillery
In 1841, the U.S. Army selected bronze as the standard material for fieldpieces and at the same time adopted a new system of field artillery. The 1841 field artillery system consisted entirely of smoothbore muzzle-loaders: 6-and 12-pounder guns; 12-, 24-, and 32 pounder howitzers; and 12-pounder mountain howitzers. A pre-Civil War battery usually consisted of six fieldpieces-four guns and two howitzers. A 6-pounder battery contained four 6-pounder guns and two 12-pounder howitzers, while a 12-pounder battery had four 12-pounder guns and two 24-pounder howitzers. The guns fired solid shot, shell, spherical case, grapeshot, and canister rounds, while howitzers fired shell, spherical case, grapeshot, and canister rounds.
The 6-pounder gun (effective range 1,523 yards) was the primary fieldpiece used from the time of the Mexican War until the Civil War. By 1861, however, the 1841 artillery system based on the 6-pounder was obsolete. In 1857, a new and more versatile fieldpiece, the 12-pounder gun-howitzer (Napoleon), Model 1857, appeared on the scene. Designed as a multipurpose piece to replace existing guns and howitzers, the Napoleon fired canister and shell, like the 12-pounder howitzer, and solid shot comparable in range to the 12-pounder gun. The Napoleon was a bronze, muzzle-loading smoothbore with an effective range of 1,619 yards (see table 4 for a comparison of artillery data). Served by a nine-man crew, the piece could fire at a sustained rate of two aimed shots per minute. With less than fifty Napoleons initially available in 1861, obsolete 6-pounders remained in the inventories of both armies for some time, especially in the western theater.
Table 4. Types of Artillery Available at the Battle of Chickamauga
Another new development in field artillery was the introduction of rifling. Although rifled guns provided greater range and accuracy, smoothbores were generally more reliable and faster to load. Rifled ammunition was semifixed, so the charge and the projectile had to be
loaded separately. In addition, the canister load of the rifle did not perform as well as that of the smoothbore. Initially, some smoothbores were rifled on the James pattern, but they soon proved unsatisfactory because the bronze rifling eroded too easily. Therefore, most rifled artillery was either wrought iron or cast iron with a wrought-iron reinforcing band.
The most commonly used rifled guns were the 10-pounder Parrott and the Rodman, or 3-inch ordnance rifle. The Parrott rifle was a castiron piece, easily identified by the wrought-iron band reinforcing the breech. The 10-pounder Parrott was made in two models: the Model 1861 had a 2.9-inch rifled bore with three lands and grooves and a slight muzzle swell, while the Model 1863 version had a 3-inch bore and no muzzle swell. The Rodman or ordnance rifle was a long-tubed, wrought-iron piece that had a 3-inch bore with seven lands and grooves. Ordnance rifles were sturdier and considered superior in accuracy and reliability to the 10-pounder Parrott.
By 1860, the ammunition for field artillery consisted of four general types for both smoothbores and rifles: solid shot, shell, case, and canister. Solid shot was a round cast-iron projectile for smoothbores and an elongated projectile, known as a bolt, for rifled guns. Solid shot, with its smashing or battering effect, was used in a counterbattery role or against buildings and massed formations. The conical-shaped bolt lacked the effectiveness of the cannonball because it tended to bury itself on impact instead of bounding along the ground like a bowling ball.
Shell, also known as common or explosive shell, whether spherical or conical, was a hollow projectile filled with an explosive charge of black powder that was detonated by a time fuse. Shell was designed to break into jagged pieces, producing an antipersonnel effect, but the low-order detonation seldom produced more than three to five fragments. In addition to its casualty-producing effects, shell had a psychological impact when it exploded over the heads of troops. It was also used against field fortifications and in a counterbattery role. Case or case shot for both smoothbore and rifled guns was a hollow projectile with thinner walls than shell. The projectile was filled with round lead or iron balls set in a matrix of sulphur that surrounded a small bursting charge. Case was primarily used in an antipersonnel role. This type of round had been invented by Henry Shrapnel, a British artillery officer, hence the term "shrapnel."
Lastly, there was canister, probably the most effective round and the round of choice at close range (400 yards or less) against massed troops. Canister was essentially a tin can filled with iron balls packed in sawdust with no internal bursting charge. When fired, the can disintegrated, and the balls followed their own paths to the target. The canister round for the 12-pounder Napoleon consisted of twenty-seven 1 1/2-inch iron balls packed inside an elongated tin cylinder. At extremely close ranges, men often loaded double charges of canister. By 1861, canister had replaced grapeshot in the ammunition chests of field atteries.
Weapons at Chickamauga
The variety of weapons available to both armies during the Civil War is reflected at Chickamauga. A 5 June 1863 inspection report from the Army of the Cumberland listed the following: 20,603 Springfields; 29,277 Enfields; 4,352 Austrian rifles; 2,033 Spencers;
1,031 smoothbores; 980 Austrian muskets; 725 Belgian muskets; 633 Henry and French rifles; 504 Colt revolving rifles; 327 Whitney rifles; and 54 Minié rifles. On the Confederate side, Lieutenant Colonel Hypolite Oladowski, chief of ordnance for the Army of Tennessee, reported on 13 August 1863 that the following small arms were available: 10,500 Enfields (.577 caliber); 3,600 .58-caliber weapons (probably Springfields); 12,000.69 caliber (mostly smoothbores); 2,000 .54 caliber (Mississippi and Austrian rifles); 3,000 .52-/.53-caliber Hall rifles; and 900 .70-caliber Brunswick rifles, M1835/51, and Austrian Bokers. The remainder probably belonged to the Confederate cavalry, and Oladowski reported those as Sharps, Maynard, Hall, and Smith models, as well as shotguns and musketoons.
The tremendous variety of weapons and calibers of ammunition required on the battlefield by each army presented enormous sustainment problems that ranged from production and procurement to supplying soldiers in the field. Amazingly, operations were seldom affected by the lack of ammunition, although the lack of standardization extended down to regimental level. For example, table 5 shows the variety of weapons even within Wilder's brigade.
Table 5. Variety of Weapons in Wilder's Brigade, 30 September 1863
The Army of the Cumberland at Chickamauga had 35 1/3 batteries of artillery assigned, but during the battle, two of those batteries were not present on the field. One was with Colonel P. Sidney Post's brigade guarding the trains, the other with Brigadier General George D. Wagner's brigade in Chattanooga. The 33 1/3 batteries that were available supported their respective brigades with about 201 tubes; of those, 103 were rifled and 98 were smoothbores. All the Federal batteries consisted of six guns except Battery 1, 4th United States, with four; Battery M, 4th United States, with four; the 18th Indiana with ten, and the Chicago Board of Trade with seven.
The Army of Tennessee had 40 1/2 batteries of artillery, although the total number of tubes is more difficult to determine because of numerous missing and incomplete reports. Published estimates range from 200 pieces (which appears excessive) to 150 (which is definitely too low). Of the 150 guns that can be identified by type and model, only 32 were rifled and 118 were smoothbores. Most of the Confederate batteries were four-gun units except Slocomb's Louisiana with six, Martin's Georgia with six, Jeffress' Virginia with five, Robertson's Florida with six, Baxter's Tennessee with two, Culpepper's South Carolina with three, Havis' Georgia with three, and Massenburg's Georgia with two. Refer again to table 4 for the major types of artillery available to the two armies during the Battle of Chickamauga.
The effectiveness of artillery at Chickamauga was limited because of the rugged terrain and the dense vegetation. Specifically, the Federals' advantage in numbers of longer-range rifled guns was negated by the lack of good fields of fire. For the most part, batteries on both sides simply followed the brigades to which they were assigned. Certainly on 19 September, they spent most of their time moving, unlimbering, and limbering weapons. As the victors, the Confederates acquired the spoils of the battle, including the artillery. Rosecrans' report after the battle acknowledged the loss of thirty-nine fieldpieces by the Army of the Cumberland. Because the captured guns were usually an improvement over their own pieces, many Confederate batteries incorporated the Federal weapons into their own commands shortly after the close of the battle.
Tactics
Tactical Doctrine in 1861
The Napoleonic Wars and the Mexican War were the major influences on American military thinking at the beginning of the Civil War. The campaigns of Napoleon and Wellington provided ample lessons in battle strategy, weapons employment, and logistics, while American tactical doctrine reflected the lessons learned in Mexico (1846-48). However, these tactical lessons were misleading because in Mexico relatively small armies fought only seven pitched battles. Because these battles were so small, almost all the tactical lessons learned during the war focused at the regimental, battery, and squadron levels. Future Civil War leaders had learned very little about brigade, division, and corps maneuver in Mexico, yet these units were the basic fighting elements of both armies in 1861-65.
The U.S. Army's experience in Mexico validated Napoleonic principles-particularly that of the offensive. In Mexico, tactics did not differ greatly from those of the early nineteenth century. Infantry marched in column and deployed into line to fight. Once deployed, an infantry regiment might send one or two companies forward as skirmishers, as security against surprise, or to soften the enemy's line. After identifying the enemy's position, a regiment advanced in closely ordered lines to within 100 yards. There, it delivered a devastating volley, followed by a charge with bayonets. Both sides used this basic tactic in the first battles of the Civil War.
In Mexico, American armies employed artillery and cavalry in both offensive and defensive battle situations. In the offense, artillery moved as near to the enemy lines as possible-normally just outside musket range-in order to blow gaps in the enemy's line that the infantry might exploit with a determined charge. In the defense, artillery blasted advancing enemy lines with canister and withdrew if the enemy attack got within musket range. Cavalry guarded the army's flanks and rear but held itself ready to charge if enemy infantry became disorganized or began to withdraw.
These tactics worked perfectly well with the weapons technology of the Napoleonic and Mexican Wars. The infantry musket was accurate up to 100 yards but ineffective against even massed targets beyond that range. Rifles were specialized weapons with excellent accuracy and range but slow to load and therefore not usually issued to line troops. Smoothbore cannon had a range up to 1 mile with solid shot but were most effective against infantry when firing canister at ranges under 400 yards. Artillerists worked their guns without much fear of infantry muskets, which had a limited range. Cavalry continued to use sabers and lances as shock weapons.
American troops took the tactical offensive in most Mexican War battles with great success, and they suffered fairly light losses. Unfortunately, similar tactics proved to be obsolete in the Civil War because of a major technological innovation fielded in the 1850s-the rifle-musket. This new weapon greatly increased the infantry's range and accuracy and loaded as fast as a musket. The U.S. Army adopted a version of the rifle-musket in 1855, and by the beginning of the Civil War, rifle-muskets were available in moderate numbers. It was the weapon of choice in both the Union and Confederate Armies during the war, and by 1862, large numbers of troops on both sides had riflemuskets of good quality.
Official tactical doctrine prior to the beginning of the Civil War did not clearly recognize the potential of the new rifle-musket, Prior to 1855, the most influential tactical guide was General Winfield Scott's three-volume work, Infantry Tactics (1835), based on French tactical models of the Napoleonic Wars. It stressed close-order, linear formations in two or three ranks advancing at "quick time" of 110 steps (86 yards) per minute. In 1855, to accompany the introduction of the new rifle-musket, Major William J, Hardee published a twovolume tactical manual, Rifle and Light Infantry Tactics. Hardee's work contained few significant revisions of Scott's manual, His major innovation was to increase the speed of the advance to a "double-quick time" of 165 steps (151 yards) per minute, If, as suggested, Hardee introduced his manual as a response to the rifle-musket, then he failed to appreciate the weapon's impact on combined arms tactics and the essential shift, the rifle-musket made in favor of the defense, Hardee's Tactics was the standard infantry manual used by both sides at the outbreak of war in 1861.
If Scott's and Hardee's works lagged behind technological innovations, at least the infantry had manuals to establish a doctrinal basis for training. Cavalry and artillery fell even further behind in recognizing the potential tactical shift in favor of rifle-armed infantry. The cavalry's manual, published in 1841, was based on French sources that focused on close-order offensive tactics. It favored the traditional cavalry attack in two ranks of horsemen armed with sabers or lances. The manual took no notice of the rifle-musket's potential, nor did it give much attention to dismounted operations. Similarly, the artillery had a basic drill book delineating individual crew actions, but it had no tactical manual. Like cavalrymen, artillerymen showed no concern for the potential tactical changes that the rifle-musket implied.
Regular Army infantry, cavalry, and artillery practiced and became proficient in the tactics that brought success in Mexico. As the first volunteers drilled and readied themselves for the battles of 1861, officers and noncommissioned officers taught the lessons learned from the Napoleonic Wars and validated in Mexico. Thus, the two armies entered the Civil War with a good understanding of the tactics that had worked in the Mexican War but with little understanding of how the rifle-musket might upset their carefully practiced lessons.
Early War Tactics
In the battles of 1861 and 1862, both sides employed the tactics proven in Mexico and found that the tactical offensive could still be
successful-but only at a great cost in casualties. Men wielding rifled weapons in the defense generally ripped frontal assaults to shreds, and if the attackers paused to exchange fire, the slaughter was even greater. Rifles also increased the relative number of defenders, since flanking units now engaged assaulting troops with, a murderous enfilading fire. Defenders usually crippled the first assault line before a second line of attackers could come forward in support. This caused successive attacking lines to intermingle with survivors to their front, thereby destroying formations, command, and control. Although both sides favored the bayonet throughout the war, they quickly discovered that rifle-musket fire made successful bayonet attacks almost impossible.
As the infantry found the bayonet charge to be of little value against rifle-muskets, cavalry and artillery made troubling discoveries of their own. Cavalry learned that the old-style saber charge did not work against infantry armed with rifle-muskets. Cavalry, however, continued its traditional intelligence gathering and screening roles and found its place as the "eyes and ears" of the army. Artillery, on its part, found that it could not maneuver freely to canister range as it had in Mexico, because the rifle-musket was accurate beyond that distance. Worse yet, at ranges where gunners were safe from rifle fire, artillery shot and shell were far less effective than canister. Ironically, rifled cannon did not give the equivalent boost to artillery effectiveness that the rifle-musket gave to the infantry. The increased range of cannons proved no real advantage in the broken and wooded terrain over which so many Civil War battles were fought.
There are several possible reasons why Civil War commanders continued to employ the tactical offensive long after it was clear that the defensive was superior. Most commanders believed the offensive was the decisive form of battle. This lesson came straight from the Napoleonic Wars and the Mexican-American War. Commanders who chose the tactical offensive usually retained the initiative over defenders. Similarly, the tactical defensive depended heavily on the enemy choosing to attack at a point convenient to the defender and continuing to attack until badly defeated. Although this situation occurred often in the Civil War, a prudent commander could hardly count on it for victory. Consequently, few commanders chose to exploit the defensive form of battle if they had the option to attack.
The offensive may have been the decisive form of battle, but it was very hard to coordinate and even harder to control. The better generals often tried to attack the enemy's flanks and rear but seldom achieved success because of the difficulty involved. Not only did the commander have to identify the enemy's flank or rear correctly, he also had to move his force into position to attack and then do so in conjunction with attacks made by other friendly units. (For the procedure in moving a regiment into line of battle from march column, see figure 4.) Command and control of the type required to conduct these attacks was quite beyond the ability of most Civil War commanders. Therefore, Civil War armies repeatedly attacked each other frontally, with resulting high casualties, because that was the easiest way to conduct offensive operations. When attacking frontally, a commander had to choose between attacking on a broad front or a narrow front. Attacking on a broad front rarely succeeded except against weak and scattered defenders. Attacking on a narrow front promised greater success but required immediate reinforcement and continued attack to achieve decisive results, As the war dragged on, attacking on narrow fronts against specific objectives became a standard tactic and fed the ever-growing casualty lists.
Figure 4. Regimental line of battle from march column
Later War Tactics
Poor training may have contributed to high casualty rates early in the war, but casualties remained high and even increased long after the armies became experienced. Continued high casualty rates resulted because tactical developments failed to adapt to the new weapons technology. Few commanders understood how the riflemusket strengthened the tactical defensive. However, some commanders made offensive innovations that met with varying success. When an increase in the pace of advance did not overcome defending firepower (as Hardee suggested it would) some units tried advancing in more open order. But this sort of formation lacked the appropriate mass to assault and carry prepared positions and created command and control problems beyond the ability of Civil War leaders to resolve. Late in the war, when the difficulty of attacking field fortifications under heavy fire became apparent, other tactical expedients were employed. Attacking solidly entrenched defenders often required whole brigades and divisions moving in dense masses to rapidly cover intervening ground, seize the objective, and prepare for the inevitable counterattack. Seldom successful against alert and prepared defenses, these attacks were generally accompanied by tremendous casualties and foreshadowed the massed infantry assaults of World War I. Sometimes, large formations attempted mass charges over short distances without halting to fire. This tactic enjoyed limited success at Spotsylvania Court House in May 1864. At Spotsylvania, a Union division attacked and captured an exposed portion of the Confederate line. The attack succeeded because the Union troops crossed the intervening ground very quickly without artillery preparation and without stopping to fire their rifles. Once inside the Confederate defenses, the Union troops attempted to exploit their success by continuing their advance, but loss of command and control made them little better than a mob. Counterattacking Confederate units, in conventional formations, eventually forced the Federals to relinquish much of the ground gained.
As the war dragged on, tactical maneuver focused more on larger formations. Brigade, division, and corps. In most of the major battles fought after 1861, brigades were employed as the primary maneuver formations. But brigade maneuver was at the upper limit of command and control for most Civil War commanders. Brigades might be able to retain coherent formations if the terrain were suitably open, but most often, brigade attacks degenerated into a series of poorly coordinated regimental lunges through broken and wooded terrain. Thus, brigade commanders were often on the main battle line trying to influence regimental fights. Typically, defending brigades stood in line of battle and blazed away at attackers as rapidly as possible. Volley fire usually did not continue beyond the first round. Most of the time, soldiers fired as soon as they were ready, and it was common for two soldiers to work together, one loading for the other to fire. Brigades were generally invulnerable to attacks on their front and flanks if units to the left and right held their ground or if reinforcements came up to defeat the threat.
An example of this sort of brigade maneuver occurred at Chickamauga on the morning of 20 September 1863 when the Confederates attacked the extreme left of the Union line. Major General John C. Breckinridge's Division attempted to turn the Union left, while Major General Patrick R. Cleburne's Division attacked frontally. Two of Breckinridge's brigades, led by Brigadier General Daniel W. Adams and Brigadier General Marcellus A. Stovall, turned the Union flank and threatened its rear, but Brigadier General Benjamin H. Helm's brigade ran into Major General George H. Thomas' main line and made no gains. Meanwhile, Cleburne's three brigades, under Brigadier Generals Lucius E. Polk, James Deshler, and S. A. M. Wood attacked into the strength of the Union line. Union reinforcements, however, drove off Adams and Stovall while the main line easily defeated the frontal attacks (see figure 5).
Two or more brigades comprised a division. When a division attacked, its brigades often advanced in sequence, from left to right or vice versa-depending on terrain, suspected enemy location, and number of brigades available to attack. At times, divisions attacked with two or more brigades leading, followed by one or more brigades ready to reinforce the lead brigades, or maneuver to, the flanks. Two or more divisions comprised a corps that might conduct an attack as part of a larger plan controlled by the army commander. More often, groups of divisions attacked under the control of a corps-level commander. Division and corps commanders generally took a position to the rear of the main line in order to control the flow of reinforcements into the battle, but they often rode forward into the battle lines to influence the action personally.
Figure 5. Maneuvering brigades at Chickamauga, 20 September 1863
Of the three basic branches, cavalry made the greatest adaptation during the war. It learned to use its horses for mobility, then dismount and fight on foot like infantry. Cavalry regained a useful battlefield role by employing this tactic, especially after repeating and breechloading rifles gave it the firepower to contend with enemy infantry. In contrast, artillery found that it could add its firepower to the riflemusket and tip the balance even more in favor of the tactical defensive, but artillery never regained the importance to offensive maneuver that it held in Mexico. If artillery had developed an indirect firing system, as it did prior to World War I, it might have been able to contribute more to offensive tactics. Still, both sides employed artillery decisively in defensive situations throughout the war.
The most significant tactical innovation in the Civil War was the widespread use of field fortifications after armies realized the tactical offensive's heavy cost. It did not take long for the deadly firepower of the rifle-musket to convince soldiers to entrench every time they halted. Eventually, armies dug complete trenches within an hour of halting in a position. Within twenty-four hours, armies could create defensive works that were nearly impregnable to frontal assaults. In this respect, this development during the American Civil War was a clear forerunner of the kind of warfare that came to dominate World War I.
Summary
In the Civil War, the tactical defense dominated the tactical offense because assault formations proved inferior to the defender's firepower. The rifle-musket, in its many forms, provided this firepower and caused the following specific alterations in tactics during the war:
-
It required the attacker, in his initial dispositions, to deploy farther away from the defender, thereby increasing the distance over which the attacker had to pass.
- It increased the number of defenders who could engage attackers (with the addition of effective enfilading fire).
- It reduced the density of both attacking and defending formations.
- It created a shift of emphasis in infantry battles toward firefights rather than shock attacks.
- It caused battles to last longer, because units could not close with each other for decisive shock action.
- It encouraged the widespread use of field fortifications. The habitual use of field fortifications by armies was a major American innovation in nineteenth-century warfare.
- It forced cavalry to the battlefield's fringes until cavalrymen acquired equivalent weapons and tactics.
- It forced artillery to abandon its basic offensive maneuver: that of moving forward to within canister range of defending infantry.
Tactics at Chickamauga
By September 1863, Civil War battle tactics had evolved to the point that brigades were the basic maneuver units. Thus, both sides fought the Battle of Chickamauga by maneuvering brigades and attacking or defending along brigade lines of battle. Usually, a division commander controlled attacks made by two or more brigades under his command. This required tremendous coordination and synchronization, which the Civil War command system generally failed to provide. Further, the Chickamauga battlefield was heavily wooded, which made brigade and divisional maneuver even more difficult. Much of the tactical confusion at Chickamauga resulted from the difficulty of maneuvering large bodies of troops through difficult terrain with a command system that depended mainly on voice
commands.
At Chickamauga, the armies exhibited basic differences in the way they employed their divisions and brigades. Confederate brigades most often advanced with all regiments on line simultaneously. Union brigades generally advanced with two regiments forward and two following in a second line. Use of these formations at Chickamauga usually meant that a Confederate brigade would overlap a Federal
brigade of similar size, giving Confederate divisions the advantage of a wider front. There was less uniformity within each army at division level, but Union divisions tended to defend with two brigades forward and one brigade to the rear in support. Did these formations reflect evolving doctrinal ideas? Were they responses to the restrictive nature of the terrain? Did commanders choose these methods to improve their ability to control their units? Perhaps the answers lie in the personalities, experiences, and abilities of the commanders on both sides. Essentially, the Army of the Cumberland fought a defensive battle. Major General William S. Rosecrans concentrated his army as rapidly as possible in a position from which he could either resume the operational offensive or fall back on Chattanooga and develop a new campaign. On 18, 19, and 20 September, General Braxton Bragg intended to isolate Rosecrans from Chattanooga, but most of his attacks were frontal assaults against increasingly well-prepared and alert defenses. In the main, the battle devolved into a series of poorly coordinated brigade and division assaults. A notable exception was Breckinridge's divisional attack on the extreme left of Thomas' XIV Corps on the morning of the 20th. In this fight, two of Breckinridge's brigades, Adams' and Stovall's, reached the Union rear and were in position to cooperate with attacks against Thomas' front. The complications of coordinating this maneuver, however, defeated it as surely as the rifle-musket fire from Union reinforcements that rushed to the spot. Merely turning Thomas' flank was not damaging enough to cause the Union line to crumble, Thomas' men stayed behind their fortifications, defeated Confederate attacks to their front, and let reinforcements turn back the threat to their flank and rear.
Lieutenant General James Longstreet's assault on 20 September, the stroke that routed Rosecrans' center, was a fluke. Longstreet's center, a column of three divisions organized in five lines, seems to have been more an adaptation to space than a conscious design. Although it was well organized and gallantly led, the grand column had the singular advantage of striking a vacant stretch of Union line. Had that line been properly held, Longstreet's attack might have failed or, at best, achieved only local success at a heavy cost. As it was, the confused breakthrough once again demonstrated the difficulty of Civil War tactical maneuvers, even in a case where the enemy was broken and routed. Although the Confederates held a huge advantage for over an hour, they could not exploit it because the command and control to do so did not exist. Later, Longstreet's attacks against the Snodgrass Hill position were typical frontal assaults that were poorly coordinated and culminated in heavy losses.
At Chickamauga, both armies employed shortsighted tactics and seldom achieved long-range, coordinated objectives. A few units, however, profitably deviated from the norm. One Confederate unit, Major General Alexander P. Stewart's Division, effectively employed a unique battle drill. Stewart moved his brigades forward in a column of brigades, and when a brigade ran short of ammunition, he rotated
another into its place. This had the effect of keeping a continuous pressure of firepower against the Union defenders who fell back from Stewart's attack. Another unit that had great tactical success at Chickamauga was Union Colonel John T. Wilder's mounted infantry brigade. Its five mounted infantry regiments, mostly armed with Spencer repeating rifles, fought dismounted and were supported by an
oversized battery of artillery. In two important firefights, Wilder's brigade shattered Confederate infantry attacks. The firepower of the Spencers, coupled with that of the artillery battery, and the mobility of horses made Wilder's brigade unbeatable at Chickamauga. On the northern end of the battlefield, a Confederate unit, Major General Nathan B. Forrest's Cavalry Corps, employed tactics similar to Wilder's, Forrest's men also used horses for mobility and fought on foot as infantry. Although not armed with repeating rifles, they employed a more open formation in the advance, and they had good success on the northern flank at Chickamauga.
In sum, Chickamauga was like most other Civil War battles in terms of tactics. Attacks were piecemeal, frontal, and uncoordinated, and they generally failed to dislodge defenders. However, some tactical innovations, such as the rotation maneuver used by Stewart's Division and the open order employed by Forrest's cavalry, gave attackers a better chance of success. Employed defensively, Wilder's brigade clearly showed how repeating rifles could dramatically influence battle. Unfortunately, these innovations were the exception rather than the rule. The same tactics that failed at Shiloh, Antietam, Fredericksburg, and Murfreesboro failed again at Chickamauga.
Logistical Support
Victory on Civil War battlefields seldom hinged on the quality or quantity of tactical logistics. On the operational and strategic level, however, logistical capabilities and concerns always shaped the plans and sometimes the outcomes of campaigns. And as the war lengthened, the logistical advantage shifted inexorably to the North. The Federals controlled the majority of the financial and industrial resources of the nation, and with their ability to import any needed materials, they ultimately created the best-supplied army the world had yet seen. Despite suffering from shortages of raw materials, the Confederates generated adequate ordnance, but they faltered gradually in their ability to acquire other war materiel. The food supply for Southern armies was often on the verge of collapse, largely because limitations of the transportation network were compounded by political-military mismanagement. Still, the state of supply within field armies on both sides depended more on the caliber of the people managing resources than on the constraints of available materiel.
One of the most pressing needs at the start of the war was for sufficient infantry and artillery weapons. Large quantities of outmoded muskets were on hand for both sides, either in arsenals or private hands, but the Federals initially had only 35,000 modern rifle-muskets, while the Confederates had seized about 10,000. Purchasing agents rushed to Europe to buy existing stocks or contract for future production. This led to an influx of outmoded weapons, which resulted in many soldiers going into battle with Mexican War-era smoothbore muskets. As late as the fall of 1863, soldiers on both sides in the western theater were armed with muskets: several of Grant's regiments in the Vicksburg campaign noted exchanging their muskets for captured Confederate Enfields, and in the Battle of Chickamauga, up to one-third of the Confederates were still armed with muskets. Modern artillery pieces were generally available in adequate quantities, though the Confederates usually were outgunned. Although breech-loading technology was available and the Confederates had imported some Whitworths from England, muzzleloading smoothbore or, rifled cannon were the standard pieces used by both armies.
With most of the government arsenals and private manufacturing capability located in the North, the Federals ultimately produced sufficient modern firearms for their armies, but the Confederates also accumulated adequate quantities-either from battlefield captures or through the blockade. In addition, exceptional management within the Confederate Ordnance Bureau led to the creation of a series of arsenals throughout the South that produced large quantities of munitions and weapons.
The Northern manufacturing capability permitted the Federals eventually to produce and outfit their forces with repeating arms, the best of which had been patented before 1861. Initially, however, the North's conservative Ordnance Bureau would not risk switching to a new, unproven standard weapon that could lead to soldiers wasting huge quantities of ammunition in the midst of an expanding war. By 1864, after the retirement of Chief of Ordnance James Ripley and with President Lincoln's urging, Federal cavalry received seven-shot Spencer repeating carbines, which greatly increased battle capabilities.
Both sides initially relied on the states and local districts to provide some equipment, supplies, animals, and foodstuffs. As the war progressed, more centralized control over production and purchasing emerged under both governments. Still, embezzlement and fraud were common problems for both sides throughout the war. The North, with its preponderance of railroads and developed waterways, had ample supply and adequate distribution systems. The South's major supply problem was subsistence. Arguably, the South produced enough food during the war to provide for both military and civilian needs, but mismanagement, parochial local interests, and the relatively underdeveloped transportation network often created havoc with distribution.
In both armies, the Quartermaster, Ordnance, Subsistence, and Medical Bureaus procured and distributed equipment, food, and supplies. The items for which these bureaus were responsible are not dissimilar to the classes of supply used today. Some needs overlapped, such as the Quartermaster Bureau's procurement of wagons for medical ambulances, but conflicts of interest usually were
manageable. Department and army commanders requested needed resources directly from the bureaus, and bureau chiefs wielded considerable power as they parceled out occasionally limited resources.
When essential equipment and supplies could not be obtained through normal channels, some commanders used their own resources to procure them. One example of this practice was Colonel John T. Wilder, who personally contracted for Spencer rifles for his mounted brigade in the Army of the Cumberland. Wilder obtained an unsecured personal loan to purchase the weapons, and his men reimbursed him from their pay. The Federal government picked up the cost after the rifles' worth was demonstrated in the Tullahoma and Chickamauga campaigns.
Typically, materiel flowed from the factory to base depots as directed by the responsible bureaus. Supplies were then shipped to advanced depots, generally a city on a major transportation artery safely within the rear area of a department. During campaigns, the armies established temporary advance depots served by rail or river transportation. From these points, wagons carried the supplies forward to the field units. This principle is somewhat similar to the modern theater sustainment organization.
The management of this logistical system was complex and crucial. A corps wagon train, if drawn by standard six-mule teams, would be spread out from five to eight miles, based on the difficulty of terrain, weather, and road conditions. The wagons, which were capable of hauling 4,000 pounds in optimal conditions, could carry only half that load in mountainous terrain. Sustenance for the animals was a major restriction, because each animal required up to twenty-six pounds of hay and grain a day to stay healthy and productive. Bulky and hard to handle, this forage was a major consideration in campaign planning. Wagons, delivering supplies more than one day's distance from the depot could be forced to carry excessive amounts of animal forage. If full animal forage was to be carried, the required numbers of wagons to support a corps increased dramatically with each subsequent day's distance from the forward depot. Another problem was created by herds of beef that often accompanied the trains or were appropriated en route. This provided fresh (though tough) meat for the troops but slowed and complicated movement.
The bulk-supply problems were alleviated somewhat by the practice of foraging, which, in the proper season, supplied much of the food for animals and men on both sides. Foraging was practiced with and without command sanction wherever an army went, and it became command policy during Ulysses S. Grant's Vicksburg campaign and William T. Sherman's Atlanta campaign. Rosecrans' decision to endure pressure from Washington and wait for the corn to ripen before starting his campaign in August 1863 was an example of the crucial impact of animal forage on operations and also an illustration of a commander who understood some of the complexities of logistics for a major campaign.
Logistics at Chickamauga
Supplies for Rosecrans' Chickamauga campaign flowed from Louisville (a base depot) to Nashville (an advanced depot) to temporary depots established near the Tennessee River at Stevenson and Tracy City. Bragg's supply system, however, was more politically complicated. Because Virginia could not produce enough food to sustain Robert E. Lee's army continuously, the Confederate government designated Georgia as the sustainment area for the Army of Northern Virginia, with Atlanta as the primary depot. This meant that Bragg could not draw supplies from Atlanta even though it was barely 100 miles away. Although Bragg was ultimately allowed to use the Atlanta depot, such policies created bureaucratic headaches for Confederate Army commanders throughout the war, Bragg established advance'depots along the Western and Atlantic Railroad at Resaca, Dalton, and Catoosa Station (near Ringgold) as the campaign progressed.
Once Rosecrans left his rail lines by crossing the Tennessee River, wagons became even more crucial. Major General Alexander M. McCook's XX Corps, which contained three divisions during the Chickamauga campaign, used over 850 wagons and ambulances pulled by over 4,700 mules and, horses. These wagons, in addition to hauling routine daily supplies, tools, tentage, and personal baggage, initially carried three weeks' rations and enough ammunition to fight two major battles, as well as three days' forage for the animals (for a sample of logistical data, see table 6). During movement, ammunition wagons received priority, followed by food, medical items, and other supplies. Sutlers (private businessmen selling "luxuries," who were precursors of the present-day post exchanges) followed these army wagons. Logisticians had learned early to push supplies as far forward as possible, so this train followed its units on the march and closed to within a few miles of the forward units when battle was imminent. At the start of the Battle of Chickamauga, the bulk of these trains moved to Chattanooga and relative safety, but ammunition wagons remained with the divisions.
Table 6. Sample of Federal Logistical Data
Units at Chickamauga used two techniques of ammunition resupply during the battle. Either small groups of men were detailed to move back to the wagons to hand-carry the 98- to 135-pound boxes of ammunition forward or regiments withdrew to the ammunition wagons to refit. Artillery batteries usually sent empty caissons to the rear to replenish their stocks. Although no written doctrine existed on the subject, many units on both sides had established simple and remarkably effective methods to handle resupply operations. In any number of battle reports, descriptions of resupply techniques resemble some of the standard operating procedures that are taught in branch schools today.
Engineer Support
Engineers on both sides performed many tasks essential to every campaign. Engineers trained at West Point were at a premium; thus, many civil engineers, commissioned as volunteers, supplemented the work being done by engineer officers. The Confederates, in particular, relied on civilian expertise because many of their trained engineer officers sought line duties. State or even local civil engineers planned and supervised much of the work done on local fortifications.
In the prewar U.S. Army, the Corps of Engineers contained a handful of staff officers and one company of trained engineer troops. This cadre expanded to a four-company Regular engineer battalion. Congress also created a single company of topographic engineers, which joined the Regular battalion when the engineer bureaus merged in 1863. In addition, several volunteer pioneer regiments, some
containing up to 2,000 men, supported the various field armies. The Corps of Engineers also initially controlled the fledgling Balloon Corps, which provided aerial reconnaissance. The Confederate Corps of Engineers, formed as a small staff and one company of sappers, miners, and pontoniers in 1861, grew more slowly and generally relied on details and contract labor rather than established units with trained engineers and craftsmen.
Engineer missions for both sides included construction of fortifications; repair and construction of roads, bridges, and, in some cases, railroads; demolition; limited construction of obstacles; and construction or reduction of siege works. The Federal Topographic Engineers, a separate prewar bureau, performed reconnaissance and produced maps. The Confederates, however, never separated these functions in creating their Corps of Engineers. Experience during the first year of the war convinced the Federals that all engineer functions should be merged under a single corps because qualified engineer officers tended to perform all related functions. As a result, the Federals also merged the Topographic Engineers into their Corps of Engineers in March 1863.
Bridging assets included wagon-mounted pontoon trains that carried either wooden or canvas-covered pontoon boats. Using this equipment, trained engineer troops could bridge even large rivers in a matter of hours. The most remarkable pontoon bridge of the war was the 2,200-foot bridge built by Army of the Potomac engineers in 1864 over the James River--one of over three dozen pontoon bridges built in support of campaigns in the east that year. In 1862, the Confederates began developing pontoon trains after they had observed their effectiveness. In fact, during the Atlanta campaign of 1864, General Joseph Johnston had four pontoon trains available to support his army.
Both armies in every campaign of the war traveled over roads and bridges built or repaired by their engineers. Federal engineers also helped clear waterways by dredging, removing trees, or digging canals, Fixed fortifications laid out under engineer supervision played critical roles in the Vicksburg campaign and in actions around Richmond and Petersburg. Engineers also supervised the siege works to reduce those fortifications.
While the Federal engineer effort expanded in both men and materiel as the war progressed, the Confederate efforts continued to be hampered by major problems. The relatively small number of organized engineer units available forced Confederate engineers to rely heavily on details or contract labor. Finding adequate manpower, however, was often difficult because of competing demands for it. Local slave owners were reluctant to provide labor details when labor was crucial to their economic survival. Despite congressional authorization to conscript 20,000 slaves as a labor force, state and local opposition continually hindered efforts to draft slave labor. Another related problem concerned the value of Confederate currency. Engineer efforts required huge sums for men and materiel, yet initial authorizations were small, and although congressional appropriations grew later in the war, inflation greatly reduced effective purchasing power. A final problem was the simple shortage of iron resources, which severely limited the Confederates' ability to increase railroad mileage or even produce iron tools.
In 1861, maps for both sides were also in short supply; for many areas in the interior, they were nonexistent. As the war progressed, the Federals developed a highly sophisticated mapping capability, Federal topographic engineers performed personal reconnaissance to develop base maps, reproduced them by several processes, and distributed them to field commanders. Photography, lithographic presses, and eventually photochemical processes gave the Federals the ability to reproduce maps quickly. Western armies, which usually operated far from base cities, carried equipment to reproduce maps on campaigns with their army headquarters. By 1864, annual map production exceeded 21,000 copies. Confederate topographic work never approached the Federal effort in quantity or quality. Confederate topographers initially used tracing paper to reproduce maps. Not until 1864 did the use of photographic methods become widespread in the South.
Engineers at Chickamauga
Engineers in neither the Army of the Cumberland nor the Army of Tennessee had a tactical role in the Battle of Chickamauga, although the Federal engineers performed essential missions in upgrading roads, railroads, and supply depots, as well as bridging the Tennessee River. Rosecrans' organic engineer assets included two special units: the 1st Michigan Engineers and Mechanics and the
Pioneer Brigade. The former was a regiment of 1,000 men who were specially recruited for their engineering skills. The latter, formed at Rosecrans' direction, had men detailed from virtually every company in his army. In mid-September 1863, the Pioneer Brigade contained nearly 950 men. The technical expertise and construction talents of these men were supplemented by infantry detailed to perform manual labor, such as cutting trees and demolishing buildings for bridging material.
During the Chickamauga campaign, the 1st Michigan built a trestle bridge across the Tennessee River at Bridgeport that was used by two Federal divisions. The Pioneer Brigade was spread along the railway southward from Nashville, building bridges and fortifications as well as constructing platforms at the temporary depot at Stevenson, Alabama. A company from this brigade built the pontoon bridge across the Tennessee River at Caperton's Ferry, Although trained as infantry, neither unit was involved in combat during this campaign, although elements of the 1st Michigan had fought with distinction at Stones River ten months earlier.
Bragg's engineers consisted of 4 companies with a combined effective strength of just over 300 men. These companies, formed by details of infantrymen, were supervised by Bragg's chief engineer, Captain S. W. Presstman. Limited information about their activities exists, although one of the companies built and maintained a pontoon bridge across the Tennessee River at Chattanooga until Bragg evacuated the city in early September.
The engineer staff officers at the army headquarters of both armies created maps. The Army of the Cumberland had refined a portable photochemical process for reproducing maps in the field and therefore created, updated, and distributed maps to at least brigade level. Federal maps depicted the gross terrain features, major roads, and existing towns, including the locations of various isolated houses, but at best, these maps were only general guides. As units moved through areas, commanders noted new roads and other features on their maps and forwarded that information to the army engineers so updated maps could be made and issued. Despite the Confederates' long-term control over the area, their maps were hardly more specific or more available than the Federal maps. Bragg's chief engineer was personally tasked with reconnaissance and mapping only after the army evacuated Chattanooga.
Ultimately, commanders on both sides used local citizens to provide additional information about local terrain. Longstreet's "living map" during the grand assault of 20 September was Thomas Brotherton, a soldier whose cabin was in the center of the line of attack. Rosecrans and some of his subordinate commanders also used local citizens-the McDonalds, Dyers, and Glenns-to provide information about the area during the battle.
Communications Support
Communications systems used during the Civil War consisted of line-of-sight signaling, telegraphic systems, and various forms of the time-honored courier methods. The telegraph mainly offered viable strategic and operational communications, line-of-sight signaling provided operational and limited tactical possibilities, and couriers were most heavily used for tactical communications.
The Federal Signal Corps was in its infancy during the Civil War, Major Albert C. Myer having been appointed the first signal chief in 1860. His organization grew slowly and became officially recognized as the Signal Corps in March 1863 and achieved bureau status by November of that year. Throughout the war, the Signal Corps remained small, its maximum strength reaching just 1,500 officers and men, most of whom were on detached service with the corps. Myer also indirectly influenced the formation of the Confederate Signal Service. Among the men who assisted Myer in prewar testing of his wigwag signaling system* was Lieutenant E. P. Alexander. Alexander used wigwag signals to the Confederates' advantage during the First Battle of Bull Run and later organized the Confederate Signal Corps. Officially established in April 1862, the Confederate Signal Corps was attached to the Adjutant and Inspector General Department. It attained the same size as its Federal counterpart, with nearly 1,500 men ultimately being detailed for service.
*Myer's wigwag system, patented in 1858, used five separate numbered movements of a single flag. Four number groups represented letters of the alphabet and a few simple words and phrases. The systam could also be employed at night by using kerosene torches.
Myer also fought hard to develop a Federal field telegraph service. This field service utilized the Beardslee device, a magneto-powered machine operated by turning a wheel to a specific point, which sent an electrical impulse that keyed the machine at the other end to the same letter. Although less reliable than the standard Morse code telegraph key, the Beardslee could be used by an operator with only several hours' training and did not require bulky batteries fora power source.
Myer's field telegraph units carried equipment on wagons that enabled its operators to establish lines between field headquarters. The insulated wire could also be hooked into existing trunk lines, thus offering the potential to extend the reach of the civilian telegraph network. Control over the existing fixed telegraph system, however, remained with the U.S. Militar Telegraph Service. Myer lost his struggle to keep the field telegraph service under the Signal Corps when Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton relieved Myer as the signal chief in November 1863 and placed all telegraph activity under the Military Telegraph Service.
Although the Confederate Signal Corps' visual communications capabilities were roughly equal to those of the Federals', Confederate field telegraph operations remained too limited to be of operational significance. The Confederates' existing telegraph lines provided strategic communications capabilities similar to those of the Federals, but the lack of resources and factories in the South for producing wire precluded their extending the prewar telegraph networks.
Communications at Chickamauga
The Chickamauga campaign presents, particularly from the Federal side, a view of the complexities of the early development and integration of different communications systems. The fixed telegraph system operated by the U.S. Military Telegraph Service provided strategic communications. Thus, army commanders could send and receive messages from Washington on the same day. The Army of the
Cumberland's chief signal officer, Captain Jesse Merrill, expanded the capabilities of this fixed network by developing "trains" that carried over 100 miles of uninsulated wire and poles on wagons which could extend the telegraph lines to the advancing army. Using these assets, Merrill's trained civilian operators established a number of field stations east of the Tennessee River in early September 1863. On 17 September, Rosecrans ordered Merrill to link the army's field headquarters with Chattanooga. By the morning of 19 September, Merrill had established stations at Crawfish Spring and the Widow Glenn's cabin, along the Dry Valley Road west of Thomas' headquarters, and at Major General Gordon Granger's Reserve Corps headquarters at Rossville.
The Signal Corps detachment of the Army of the Cumberland, under Captain John C. Van Duzer, contained five field units with Beardslee devices. These "flying trains," operated by 1 officer and 16 men, carried some 400 slender poles and 10 miles of insulated telegraph wire on wagons. Although this system could not network directly with the Military Telegraph Service, it did link Thomas' and McCook's corps headquarters near Pond Spring on 17 September. This tactical communications capability remained unused during the actual battle, though some of the insulated wire helped Merrill's telegraph operation.
Both sides also used small signal corps detachments, which set up signal stations on Lookout Mountain and other high ground. These stations sent messages by flag (or lantern at night) as far as line-ofsight and weather conditions permitted. While the Confederates employed semaphore techniques, the Federal signalers used Myer's wigwag system. Both sides used simple codes. The Federals used sets of two concentric rotating disks, one containing the groups of wigwag numbers and the second containing the letters of the alphabet. By prearranging the set of the wheels, the Federals could encode messages and change the set if necessary. This system proved secure, for no evidence exists that the Confederates broke the Federal codes. The Confederates used a sheet with rows of letters, not dissimilar to a page from a modern communications code book, and used prearranged code words to modify the encoding sequence. Confederate encoding procedures were often sloppy, and entries in Federal records show that this code was frequently broken. Although these signal systems were of some use in transmitting orders, they usually proved more helpful in providing information about enemy activities, because movements of both armies were often visible from suitable vantage points. Still, limited capabilities and the commanders' lack of appreciation for telegraph and signal flag systems precluded any real influence on the battle itself.
The courier system, using mounted staff officers or detailed soldiers to deliver orders and messages, was the most viable tactical communications option short of commanders meeting face to face. Although often effective, this system was fraught with difficulties, as couriers were captured, killed, or delayed en route to their destinations; commanders misinterpreted or ignored messages; and
situations changed by the time a message was delivered. The weaknesses of the courier system, though not critical in themselves, did tend to compound other errors or misjudgments during the campaign. For instance, Bragg, using couriers, could not convince his subordinates to attack Major General James S. Negley's isolated division in McLemore's Cove on 10 September, and the young private
sent to notify Lieutenant General Daniel H. Hill that he was to initiate the attack on the morning of 20 September could not locate that general in the dark woods. The Federals, too, had problems: information offered by one of Thomas' couriers prompted Rosecrans, to issue (by courier) the order that moved Brigadier General Thomas J. Wood's division out of line minutes before Longstreet's assault on 20 September.
The effectiveness of communications systems during the battle and campaign was hindered by the number of different systems employed, as well as the senior commanders' inexperience in utilizing the systems. The Federal Army had five different modes of communications: the existing civilian telegraph network, the extended lines provided by Merrill's military telegraph trains, the Signal Corps' "flying trains" (with Beardslee devices), the Signal Corps' wigwag flag stations, and the numerous couriers provided by each headquarters. Most of these systems were not compatible, thereby requiring a transfer of the form of message at each node. Moreover, most of the systems were under the control of different men, none of whom, including the army commander, fully understood the potential capabilities or problems of the overall system.
Medical Support
Federal and Confederate medical systems followed a similar pattern. Surgeons general and medical directors for both sides had served many years in the prewar Medical Department but were hindered by an initial lack of administrative experience in handling large numbers of casualties, as well as the state of medical science in the midnineteenth century. Administrative procedures improved with experience, but throughout the war, the simple lack of knowledge about the true causes of disease and infection led to many more deaths than direct battlefield action.
After the disaster at the Battle of First Bull Run, the Federal Medical Department established an evacuation and treatment system developed by Surgeon Jonathan Letterman. At the heart of the system were three precepts: consolidation of field hospitals at division level, decentralization of medical supplies down to regimental level, and centralization of medical control of ambulances at all levels. A battle casualty evacuated from the front line normally received treatment at a regimental holding area immediately to the rear. From this point, wagons or ambulances carried wounded men to a division field hospital, normally within a mile of the battle lines. Seriously wounded men could then be further evacuated by wagon, rail, or watercraft to general hospitals located usually in towns along lines of communication in the armies' rear areas.
Although the Confederate system followed the same general principles, Confederate field hospitals were often consolidated at brigade rather than division level. A second difference lay in the established span of control of medical activities. Unlike their Federal counterparts, who had control over all medical activities within an army area, a Confederate army medical director had no control of activities beyond his own brigade or division field hospitals. A separate medical director for general hospitals was responsible for evacuation and control. In practice, both sets of medical directors resolved potential problems through close cooperation. By 1863, the Confederacy had also introduced rear area "wayside hospitals," which were intended to handle convalescents en route home on furloughs.
Procedures, medical techniques, and medical problems for both sides were virtually identical, Commanders discouraged soldiers from leaving the battle lines to escort wounded back to the rear, but such practice was common, especially in less-disciplined units. The established technique for casualty evacuation was to detail men for litter and ambulance duty. Both armies used bandsmen, among others, for this task. Casualties would move or be assisted back from the battle line, where litter bearers evacuated them to field hospitals using ambulances or supply wagons. Ambulances were specially designed two- or four-wheel carts with springs to limit jolts, but rough roads made even short trips agonizing for wounded men. Brigade and division surgeons staffed consolidated field hospitals. Hospital site considerations were the availability of water, potential buildings to supplement the hospital tents, and security from enemy cannon and rifle fire, The majority of operations performed at field hospitals in the aftermath of battle were amputations. Approximately 70 percent of Civil War wounds occurred in the extremities, and the soft Minié ball shattered any bones that it hit. Amputation was the best technique then available to limit the chance of serious infection. The Federals were generally well supplied with chloroform, morphine, and other drugs, though shortages did occur on the battlefield. Confederate surgeons often lacked critical drugs and medical supplies.
Medical Support at Chickamauga
Although the Letterman system had been adopted by Grant's Army of the Tennessee by mid-1863, the Army of the Cumberland's medical system was then still in transition. In February 1863, Medical Director Glover Perin, a veteran of sixteen years of Army medical service, had inherited an evacuation system in disarray. As an interim measure, he convinced Rosecrans to give quartermasters control of ambulances, but they were to respond to their respective medical directors or surgeons. This transitional system lasted until January 1864, when Perin finally was able to implement the Letterman system more fully.
The hospital system, however, corresponded with the Letterman model. General hospitals established at cities like Nashville, Memphis, Louisville, and Cincinnati made over 12,000 beds available for Rosecrans' army. In addition, Perin established interim general hospitals at Stevenson, Bridgeport, and Chattanooga as the Chickamauga campaign progressed.
The Confederate medical structure for Bragg's army followed the standard pattern, except for its unique general hospital system. Surgeon Samuel Stout, Bragg's general hospital director, required general hospitals to be mobile. Thus, general hospitals established in Chattanooga and the surrounding towns evacuated and reestablished themselves closer to Atlanta in as little as seventy-two hours as Bragg withdrew from Chattanooga. In a series of general hospitals established between Dalton and Marietta, Bragg's Medical Department had nearly 7,500 available hospital beds.
During the Battle of Chickamauga, seven Federal division hospitals gathered around Crawfish Spring, two miles south of the battlefield, and one was established around the Cloud house just north of the battlefield. Two division hospitals were formed in the rear of the battle lines in Dyer Field and near Snodgrass Hill until enemy attacks forced them to displace rearward. On 20 September, as the Federal bat |
Battlefields & Parks 
