Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Diary of E. Hart, 40th Ill and Missionary Ridge Part 1

Expand Messages
  • FLYNSWEDE@AOL.COM
    Much has been said about the slowness of Sherman, but here are the words of Sgt E. Hart, Company E, 40th Illinois of what occured going back to the 1st of
    Message 1 of 6 , Jun 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Much has been said about the slowness of Sherman, but here are the words of Sgt E. Hart, Company E, 40th Illinois of what occured going back to the 1st of November.

      November 1st.  Marched in the morning, going in an eastern direction, passed by some tolerably good farms, but they exhibited, as is usual among the plantations of the South, a want of skillful improvement and cultivation.  We marched near ten miles the first day and camped on Shoal creek.  Continued the march without any interruption, the weather being admirable.  The country was high and rolling, with numerous bright streams of water rushing through the rocks, presenting beautiful scenery.    Came to the Elk river on the 3d, and after spending the greater part of the day in trying to cross, found that it could not be effected, and moved back to a small town, called Rogersville, where we camped over night.  On the morning of the 4th we moved out, following the Pulaski road leading northward, to find a place where the Elk river, which was much swollen could be crossed. We  marched about fifteen miles , the roads being pretty good.  The country was level, with but a few improvements.  Camped at Prospect Station on the night of the 5th.  This station, a small town of little note, is on the Tennessee Central.  The conditions of the roads worsen and in consequence, our teams had great difficulty in getting along which very much hindered the advancement of the column.,  Reached a considerable stream, called Richland creek, on the 6th, which we ferried in an old flat boat.  After crossing we continued our journey, and soon came on a macadamized road, on which we marched for four or five miles and camped.  This is the Nashville and Hunstville turnpike.

      November 7th.  We resumed our journey; leaving the Huntsville road, and bearing to the left, we marched over a very hilly country,.  Marching about fourteen miles, we camped for the night.  Some rations were procured by a foraging party that had been out all day for that purpose.  The 8th we reached Fayetteville, Tenn.,  where we crossed Elk river on a a large stone bridge, and camped about one mile beyond the river.  This was a very neat village, being the county seat of Lincoln county, Tenn.,  After restin through the night in this camp, a great number of the Fortieth were mounted on mules or horses, and sent out through the surrounding country, to gather up all the stock they could, for the use of the Government.  This was rather a gay time for the boys, being a transfer from the infantry branch of the service to the "Mule Cavalry," as they were called.    Those of the regiment who were not mounted, being about one half, started out on the morning of the 10th, and marching very hard all day arrived at Salem, twenty-two miles distant, in the evening.

      Early the 11th we started again, and after several hours' constant marching we reached Winchester, Tenn.    (to be continued)

      It is funny that Sgt Hart did not describe this march from Lafayette to Winchester as Cozzens did on page 109 in The Shipwreck of Their Hopes. 
      "Once atop the plateau (Plateau of the Barrens), the men of the Army of the Tennessee confronted the same sort of obstacles that had wrecked countless wagon trains of the Army of the Cumberland along Walden's Ridge ........ There was no farage for beasts and in consequence a large number of mules died from starvation and overwork."  The men of the 40th pushed themselves to do twentytwo miles in a day, which they did -  however  Cozzens says (p.110) Five days were lost covering the sixty miles between Fayetteville and Winchester.  The 40th arrived in Fayetteville on the evening of the 8th, left Fayetteville on the 10th and arrived at Winchester in the late afternoon on the 11th.  Hardly five days lost and according to Sgt Hart, it could hardly be sixty miles.  Not critizing Cozzens, but just giving some points to ponder. 

      More to come

      Wayne
    • wh_keene
      Wayne, Thank you for these excellent excerpts from Sgt Hart. I too was struck by Cozzens criticism of the march of Sherman s force. Cozzens states that it was
      Message 2 of 6 , Jun 3, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Wayne,

        Thank you for these excellent excerpts from Sgt Hart.

        I too was struck by Cozzens criticism of the march of Sherman's
        force. Cozzens states that it was slow in getting to Chattanooga.
        But a close look at Cozzens's writing raises a point to ponder. By
        his own descriptions it takes about the same time for Sherman as it
        took for Hooker to cover the same ground (Bridgeport to Brown's
        Ferry), yet Hooker is not subject to the same criticisms.



        --- In civilwarwest@y..., FLYNSWEDE@A... wrote:
        > Much has been said about the slowness of Sherman, but here are the
        words of
        > Sgt E. Hart, Company E, 40th Illinois of what occured going back to
        the 1st
        > of November.
        >
        > November 1st. Marched in the morning, going in an eastern
        direction, passed
        > by some tolerably good farms, but they exhibited, as is usual among
        the
        > plantations of the South, a want of skillful improvement and
        cultivation. We
        > marched near ten miles the first day and camped on Shoal creek.
        Continued
        > the march without any interruption, the weather being admirable.
        The country
        > was high and rolling, with numerous bright streams of water rushing
        through
        > the rocks, presenting beautiful scenery. Came to the Elk river
        on the 3d,
        > and after spending the greater part of the day in trying to cross,
        found that
        > it could not be effected, and moved back to a small town, called
        Rogersville,
        > where we camped over night. On the morning of the 4th we moved
        out,
        > following the Pulaski road leading northward, to find a place where
        the Elk
        > river, which was much swollen could be crossed. We marched about
        fifteen
        > miles , the roads being pretty good. The country was level, with
        but a few
        > improvements. Camped at Prospect Station on the night of the 5th.
        This
        > station, a small town of little note, is on the Tennessee Central.
        The
        > conditions of the roads worsen and in consequence, our teams had
        great
        > difficulty in getting along which very much hindered the
        advancement of the
        > column., Reached a considerable stream, called Richland creek, on
        the 6th,
        > which we ferried in an old flat boat. After crossing we continued
        our
        > journey, and soon came on a macadamized road, on which we marched
        for four or
        > five miles and camped. This is the Nashville and Hunstville
        turnpike.
        >
        > November 7th. We resumed our journey; leaving the Huntsville road,
        and
        > bearing to the left, we marched over a very hilly country,.
        Marching about
        > fourteen miles, we camped for the night. Some rations were
        procured by a
        > foraging party that had been out all day for that purpose. The 8th
        we
        > reached Fayetteville, Tenn., where we crossed Elk river on a a
        large stone
        > bridge, and camped about one mile beyond the river. This was a
        very neat
        > village, being the county seat of Lincoln county, Tenn., After
        restin
        > through the night in this camp, a great number of the Fortieth were
        mounted
        > on mules or horses, and sent out through the surrounding country,
        to gather
        > up all the stock they could, for the use of the Government. This
        was rather
        > a gay time for the boys, being a transfer from the infantry branch
        of the
        > service to the "Mule Cavalry," as they were called. Those of the
        regiment
        > who were not mounted, being about one half, started out on the
        morning of the
        > 10th, and marching very hard all day arrived at Salem, twenty-two
        miles
        > distant, in the evening.
        >
        > Early the 11th we started again, and after several hours' constant
        marching
        > we reached Winchester, Tenn. (to be continued)
        >
        > It is funny that Sgt Hart did not describe this march from
        Lafayette to
        > Winchester as Cozzens did on page 109 in The Shipwreck of Their
        Hopes.
        > "Once atop the plateau (Plateau of the Barrens), the men of the
        Army of the
        > Tennessee confronted the same sort of obstacles that had wrecked
        countless
        > wagon trains of the Army of the Cumberland along Walden's
        Ridge ........
        > There was no farage for beasts and in consequence a large number of
        mules
        > died from starvation and overwork." The men of the 40th pushed
        themselves to
        > do twentytwo miles in a day, which they did - however Cozzens
        says (p.110)
        > Five days were lost covering the sixty miles between Fayetteville
        and
        > Winchester. The 40th arrived in Fayetteville on the evening of the
        8th, left
        > Fayetteville on the 10th and arrived at Winchester in the late
        afternoon on
        > the 11th. Hardly five days lost and according to Sgt Hart, it
        could hardly
        > be sixty miles. Not critizing Cozzens, but just giving some points
        to
        > ponder.
        >
        > More to come
        >
        > Wayne
      • josepharose
        ... Mr. Keene, I think that one difference was that Hooker advanced into enemy-held territory while Sherman was advancing trough friendly territory. The
        Message 3 of 6 , Jun 3, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In civilwarwest@y..., "wh_keene" <wh_keene@y...> wrote:
          > Wayne,
          >
          > Thank you for these excellent excerpts from Sgt Hart.
          >
          > I too was struck by Cozzens criticism of the march of Sherman's
          > force. Cozzens states that it was slow in getting to Chattanooga.
          > But a close look at Cozzens's writing raises a point to ponder. By
          > his own descriptions it takes about the same time for Sherman as it
          > took for Hooker to cover the same ground (Bridgeport to Brown's
          > Ferry), yet Hooker is not subject to the same criticisms.

          Mr. Keene,

          I think that one difference was that Hooker advanced into enemy-held
          territory while Sherman was advancing trough friendly territory.

          The inclusion of Sherman's trains in the line of march certainly
          seemed to slow up what was supposed to be a fast march. He had a
          timetable to keep, but didn't keep it. He missed it by several days,
          in fact.

          Hooker started late, IIRC, but I'm not sure if his march was "slow"
          once it started.

          Joseph
        • wh_keene
          I think that one difference was that Hooker advanced into enemy-held territory while Sherman was advancing trough friendly territory. The inclusion of
          Message 4 of 6 , Jun 3, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            "I think that one difference was that Hooker advanced into enemy-held
            territory while Sherman was advancing trough friendly territory. The
            inclusion of Sherman's trains in the line of march certainly seemed
            to slow up what was supposed to be a fast march."

            Sure, it makes some difference but until Hooker entered Lookout
            Valley on the 3rd day from Bridgeport the territory was not really
            enemy held and "he only resistance Hooker's column met in coming down
            the valley was a few weak volleys from the Sixth South Carolina"
            [page 72]. In addition the weather cooperated much more for Hooker
            than Sherman.

            "He had a timetable to keep, but didn't keep it."

            Neither did Hooker as you note below.


            "Hooker started late, IIRC, but I'm not sure if his march was "slow"
            once it started."

            Sherman (with uncooperative weather and his wagon train) was able to
            cover the distance in the same time it took Hooker (with potential
            enemy contact, but no trains and better weather).

            The movement of the lead elements of each, based on Cozzens:
            Force/Lead Command Dep. Bridgeport Arr. Brown's Ferry Time
            Hooker/Howard Oct 27 am Oct 29th pm 3 days
            Sherman/J. Smith Nov 18 am Nov 20 pm 3 days




            --- In civilwarwest@y..., "josepharose" <josepharose@y...> wrote:
            > --- In civilwarwest@y..., "wh_keene" <wh_keene@y...> wrote:
            > > Wayne,
            > >
            > > Thank you for these excellent excerpts from Sgt Hart.
            > >
            > > I too was struck by Cozzens criticism of the march of Sherman's
            > > force. Cozzens states that it was slow in getting to
            Chattanooga.
            > > But a close look at Cozzens's writing raises a point to ponder.
            By
            > > his own descriptions it takes about the same time for Sherman as
            it
            > > took for Hooker to cover the same ground (Bridgeport to Brown's
            > > Ferry), yet Hooker is not subject to the same criticisms.
            >
            > Mr. Keene,
            >
            > I think that one difference was that Hooker advanced into enemy-
            held
            > territory while Sherman was advancing trough friendly territory.
            >
            > The inclusion of Sherman's trains in the line of march certainly
            > seemed to slow up what was supposed to be a fast march. He had a
            > timetable to keep, but didn't keep it. He missed it by several
            days,
            > in fact.
            >
            > Hooker started late, IIRC, but I'm not sure if his march was "slow"
            > once it started.
            >
            > Joseph
          • josepharose
            ... held ... The ... down ... Even if one meets no resistance in enemy-held teritory, one usually moves more cautiously, all things being equal, because what
            Message 5 of 6 , Jun 3, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In civilwarwest@y..., "wh_keene" <wh_keene@y...> wrote:
              > "I think that one difference was that Hooker advanced into enemy-
              held
              > territory while Sherman was advancing trough friendly territory.
              The
              > inclusion of Sherman's trains in the line of march certainly seemed
              > to slow up what was supposed to be a fast march."
              >
              > Sure, it makes some difference but until Hooker entered Lookout
              > Valley on the 3rd day from Bridgeport the territory was not really
              > enemy held and "he only resistance Hooker's column met in coming
              down
              > the valley was a few weak volleys from the Sixth South Carolina"
              > [page 72]. In addition the weather cooperated much more for Hooker
              > than Sherman.

              Even if one meets no resistance in enemy-held teritory, one usually
              moves more cautiously, all things being equal, because what is in
              front is not known.

              > "He had a timetable to keep, but didn't keep it."
              >
              > Neither did Hooker as you note below.

              Okay, they were both slow.

              > "Hooker started late, IIRC, but I'm not sure if his march
              was "slow"
              > once it started."
              >
              > Sherman (with uncooperative weather and his wagon train) was able
              to
              > cover the distance in the same time it took Hooker (with potential
              > enemy contact, but no trains and better weather).
              >
              > The movement of the lead elements of each, based on Cozzens:
              > Force/Lead Command Dep. Bridgeport Arr. Brown's Ferry Time
              > Hooker/Howard Oct 27 am Oct 29th pm 3 days
              > Sherman/J. Smith Nov 18 am Nov 20 pm 3 days

              But Sherman's *lead* elements wouldn't have been held up by his
              trains, only the *rear* elements would. What is the time
              differential when measured in that manner?

              Joseph
            • wh_keene
              ... Very true and an excellent explanation of Sherman s movement on the 24th. ... Fine with me, just wish that Cozzens was even handed in his criticisms. ...
              Message 6 of 6 , Jun 3, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In civilwarwest@y..., "josepharose" <josepharose@y...> wrote:
                > Even if one meets no resistance in enemy-held teritory, one usually
                > moves more cautiously, all things being equal, because what is in
                > front is not known.

                Very true and an excellent explanation of Sherman's movement on the
                24th.


                > Okay, they were both slow.

                Fine with me, just wish that Cozzens was even handed in his
                criticisms.


                > But Sherman's *lead* elements wouldn't have been held up by his
                > trains, only the *rear* elements would. What is the time
                > differential when measured in that manner?

                Ok, the last of Sherman's divisions, Osterhaus, left Bridgeport on
                the 20th. He was at Brown's Ferry on the 23rd . So 4 days.
                Regardless, the real bottleneck problem was the crossing at Brown's
                Ferry. Even if Osterhaus had made it the night before, he would have
                had to wait his turn to cross and the end result would have been the
                same. The issue of the trains seems to have caused some grief for
                Grant, Dana, etc., but I think the point remains that comparatively,
                Sherman was not significantly slower than Hooker.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.