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

Re: SIze of the pre-war army; was: Peachtree Creek and the Battle of Atlanta

Expand Messages
  • William H Keene
    Bob, I must disagre. First, John Wool also commanded field forces of that size in the Mexican war. Second, commanding general of the Massachusetts Militia is
    Message 1 of 32 , Jan 6, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Bob,

      I must disagre.

      First, John Wool also commanded field forces of that size in the
      Mexican war.

      Second, commanding general of the Massachusetts Militia is the
      Governor of Massachusetts. For the years prior to the war it was
      Banks who was Governor and who presided over the summer encampments.

      As for Butler, he had been a Brigadier General in the Massachusetts
      Militia for several years, but I dont think he ever commanded as many
      as 10,000 soldiers prior to the war.


      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Huddleston"
      <huddleston.r@...> wrote:
      >
      > I can not find t he reference, but in 1861, the only two men who had
      > actually commanded 10,000 soldiers in the field were Scott in
      Mexico and Ben
      > Butler.
      >
      > Yes, THAT Ben Butler: as commanding general of the Massachusetts
      Militia he
      > had conducted summer encampments for three or four years before the
      war.
      >
      > Take care,
      >
      > Bob
      >
      > Judy and Bob Huddleston
      > 10643 Sperry Street
      > Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
      > 303.451.6376 Huddleston.r@...
      >
      > I am A thousand times meaner A hundred times Harder and A damed
      sight wors
      > Looking than I Ever was so you can form some sort of an idea what
      sort of A
      > Looking man you have now for A Husband if this kind of Buisness
      wont make
      > men hard I should like to know what will it is Everyone for himself
      and dam
      > the one that pulls the hind tit
      >
      > Henry Clemons of Company K, 23rd Wisconsin Infantry Regiment, to
      his wife
      > Anna in Sauk City, Wis, January 15, 1863
      >
      >
      >
      > _____
      >
      > From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On
      > Behalf Of Harry Smeltzer
      > Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 1:14 PM
      > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] SIze of the pre-war army; was:
      Peachtree Creek
      > and the Battle of Atlanta
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > To clarify, that is the army led by Scott to take Mexico City.
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On
      > Behalf Of Harry Smeltzer
      > Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 2:18 PM
      > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] SIze of the pre-war army; was:
      Peachtree Creek
      > and the Battle of Atlanta
      >
      >
      >
      > Per the AG returns for 1860, the numbers Bob gives here are good.
      The
      > authorized number was 18,122. The 16.637 number consists of 1,108
      officers
      > and 15,259 enlisted men.
      >
      > I just knew for sure that 25,000 was way too high.
      >
      > Interestingly, Daniel Tyler's division at First Bull Run alone was
      larger
      > than the army led by Scott, and I have read that McDowell's army of
      around
      > 35,000 was the largest ever assembled by white men on the North
      American
      > continent. I'm not real familiar with Revolutionary War numbers,
      so if
      > that's not true I apologize.
      >
      > Harry
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On
      > Behalf Of Bob Huddleston
      > Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 12:41 PM
      > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] SIze of the pre-war army; was:
      Peachtree Creek
      > and the Battle of Atlanta
      >
      >
      >
      > On January 1, 1861, the United States Army had a total strength of
      16,367;
      > 14,663 present and 1,704 absent. See E.B. Long, The _Civil War Day
      by Day:
      > An Almanac, 1861-1865_, p. 706.
      >
      > Take care,
      >
      > Bob
      >
      > Judy and Bob Huddleston
      > 10643 Sperry Street
      > Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
      > 303.451.6376 Huddleston.r@...
      >
      > I am A thousand times meaner A hundred times Harder and A damed
      sight wors
      > Looking than I Ever was so you can form some sort of an idea what
      sort of A
      > Looking man you have now for A Husband if this kind of Buisness
      wont make
      > men hard I should like to know what will it is Everyone for himself
      and dam
      > the one that pulls the hind tit
      >
      > Henry Clemons of Company K, 23rd Wisconsin Infantry Regiment, to
      his wife
      > Anna in Sauk City, Wis, January 15, 1863
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > _____
      >
      > From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On
      > Behalf Of keeno2@...
      > Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 9:53 AM
      > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Peachtree Creek and the Battle of
      Atlanta
      >
      > In a message dated 1/6/2007 10:36:12 AM Central Standard Time,
      > hjs21@... writes:
      >
      > Actually the antebellum army prior to AL's first increase was just
      under
      > 20,000.
      >
      > Does anyone have the real number? I've read as few as 13,000,
      15,000, and as
      > much as 17,000. This is the first time I've seen it pegged at
      20,000 or just
      > under 20,000.
      >
      > Ken
      >
    • Tom Mix
      Thank you, Thomas, that is this old 3rd generation American-Prussian/German always said it. Glad I got one right. Thanks. Tom ... From:
      Message 32 of 32 , Jan 9, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Thank you, Thomas, that is this old 3rd generation American-Prussian/German
        always said it. Glad I got one right.
        Thanks.
        Tom

        -----Original Message-----
        From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On
        Behalf Of Thomas Tilly
        Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:00 AM
        To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: An Under-noticed Sigel fiasco

        Tom Mix schrieb:
        >
        > Thomas,
        >
        > One quick question: what is the proper pronunciation of "Sigel"? Sea
        > Gull? Or Cy Jull? Or something else?
        >
        I think for an American tongue "sea gull" would be the right pronunciation.

        Thomas



        Yahoo! Groups Links
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.