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

[civilwarwest] Re: Battle of Franklin, Tennessee (Nov 1864) --- Artillery Engaged in Battle

Expand Messages
  • Wayne Mulig
    Thanks Andy. Could you stir me to your sources? I think you are very right about the 1st Kentucky ... from what I gather (without knowing the identity of the
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 5, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks Andy.

      Could you stir me to your sources? I think you are very right about the
      1st Kentucky ... from what I gather (without knowing the identity of the
      battery) ... the guns were captured by the Confederates quite early in the
      breech of the Union lines ... but were not used by the Southerners against
      the Blue lines ... Have read conflicting reports on Confederate artillery
      ... Hood at one point seems to hint that more artillery was available, but
      for fear of hitting civilians within Franklin, they weren't used .... sounds
      like a "cover-up" after the fact to me ...*S* ...

      Again, thanks Andy,

      Sincerely,

      Wayne Mulig
      >From: "Andy Berstel" <greenhaven@...>
      >Reply-To: civilwarwest@egroups.com
      >To: civilwarwest@...
      >Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Battle of Franklin, Tennessee (Nov 1864) ---
      >Artillery Engaged in Battle
      >Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 15:54:02 -0800
      >
      >"wayne mulig" <twmuli-@...> wrote:
      >original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?start=661
      > > I am interested in knowing the identity of the three (3) Union
      >artillery
      > > units that were posted at Carter Hill (around the Carter Gin, near
      >the
      > > Columbia Turnpike and near the Carter's smoke house). Unfortunately,
      >limited
      > > references available to me do not identify them specifically.
      > >
      > > Also, I believe that two (2) Confederate batteries may have actually
      >been
      > > engaged at the Battle of Franklin, one with Cheatham's Corps and one
      >with
      > > Stewart's Corps ... could anyone shed light on the identity of these
      >two
      > > units (or any Confederate artillery units that were actually engaged
      >with
      > > these two Corps).
      > >
      > > As a new member to the group I am not sure of protocol. So, if I am
      >out of
      > > line, I am sorry ... will learn as I go ....
      > >
      > > Thanks for any and all information or comments with regard to this
      >matter
      > > ...
      > >
      > > Sincerely,
      > >
      > > Wayne Mulig
      >
      >
      >
      >Hi Wayne.... Good protocal and questions. Welcome.
      >
      >In front of the Cotton Gin was a section of Baldwins 6th Ohio Battery
      >(2 12 pounders). Near the Pike was Thomasson's 1st Kentucky Battery
      >(rifled guns). I don't believe this unit fired much, if at all. They
      >abandoned their guns when Wagner's men came pouring through the
      >Turnpike gap with Cleburne on his heels. To the west of the smokehouse
      >was a section of the 1st Ohio light and the 20th Ohio (6 12 pounders),
      >all commanded by Charles Scovill during the fight. The only
      >Confederate artillery unit I know of that was engaged was a section of
      >Guibors Missouri Battery (Storr's battalian, Stewarts Corp). They fired
      >off a few rounds early but I'm not sure where they were posted. Talk to
      >you later.
      >
      >Regards,
      >
      >Andy
      > > ______________________________________________________
      >
      >
      >------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >-- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
      >-- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=civilwarwest&m=1
      >
      >

      ______________________________________________________
    • Andy Berstel
      wayne mulig wrote: original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?start=663 ... the ... the ... in the ... against ...
      Message 2 of 6 , Mar 8, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        "wayne mulig" <twmuli-@...> wrote:
        original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?start=663
        > Thanks Andy.
        >
        > Could you stir me to your sources? I think you are very right about
        the
        > 1st Kentucky ... from what I gather (without knowing the identity of
        the
        > battery) ... the guns were captured by the Confederates quite early
        in the
        > breech of the Union lines ... but were not used by the Southerners
        against
        > the Blue lines ... Have read conflicting reports on Confederate
        artillery
        > ... Hood at one point seems to hint that more artillery was
        available, but
        > for fear of hitting civilians within Franklin, they weren't used ....
        sounds
        > like a "cover-up" after the fact to me ...*S* ...
        >
        > Again, thanks Andy,
        >
        > Sincerely,
        >
        > Wayne Mulig


        Wayne,

        Sorry for the delay....been away for a few days. The two books I
        used for sources were "The Confederacys Last Hurrah" by Wiley Sword and
        "Shrouds of Glory" by Winston Groom (of Forrest Gump fame). Grooms book
        was more fun to read but supposedly has more innaccuracies. Yes... the
        Kentucky 1st guns were captured early. They were turned, but couldn't
        be fired. I've read two reasons for this; either they were spiked or
        the confederates couldn't find any primers. I think if they were spiked
        they wouldn't have bothered turning them in the first place but who
        knows. I'd be interested in YOUR source on Hood's views on the use of
        his artillery there. 3 months earlier, when the shoe was on the other
        foor at Atlanta, Hood was incensed at Sherman for shelling the town and
        killing civilians. You'd think Shermans reply, basically that Hood
        holing his army up in the town made it fair game, would have made Hood
        a little less sensitive as to the plight of civilians in Franklin. Then
        again Franklin was secesh.

        Regards,

        Andy
      • Wayne Mulig
        Andy, Have been reading about Atlanta Campaign and Franklin a lot lately and almost couldn t find the statement I had mentioned. I did find it in Five Tragic
        Message 3 of 6 , Mar 8, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          Andy,

          Have been reading about Atlanta Campaign and Franklin a lot lately and
          almost couldn't find the statement I had mentioned. I did find it in Five
          Tragic Hours: The Battle of Franklin by James L. McDonough and Thomas L.
          Connelly ... On page 65 of that work they discuss the careless behavior of
          Hood in attacking without S.D. Lee's Corps and most of the Army's artillery
          ... "Later, in his memoirs, Hood maintained that he deliberately avoided
          using artillery at Franklin because it would have posed a threat to women in
          children in the village. This is sheer fantasy. Hood did use what artillery
          was available in the assault. Two batteries were on the field and one was
          assigned to each corps." [p.65]

          Thus my original question concerning the identity of the two batteries ...
          *S* ...

          I don't have a copy of Hood's memoirs, but think that would be interesting
          to read .... in their book McDonough and Connelly use it to indicate that
          Hood in later years tended to cover his tracks as best as he could .. as did
          many leaders after the passage of time and the stirrings of controversy ...

          Hope this has proved interesting to you ... and again thanks for your help

          Sincerely,
          Wayne Mulig

          >From: "Andy Berstel" <greenhaven@...>
          >Reply-To: civilwarwest@egroups.com
          >To: civilwarwest@...
          >Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Battle of Franklin, Tennessee (Nov 1864) ---
          >Artillery Engaged in Battle
          >Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 05:05:24 -0800
          >
          >"wayne mulig" <twmuli-@...> wrote:
          >original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?start=663
          > > Thanks Andy.
          > >
          > > Could you stir me to your sources? I think you are very right about
          >the
          > > 1st Kentucky ... from what I gather (without knowing the identity of
          >the
          > > battery) ... the guns were captured by the Confederates quite early
          >in the
          > > breech of the Union lines ... but were not used by the Southerners
          >against
          > > the Blue lines ... Have read conflicting reports on Confederate
          >artillery
          > > ... Hood at one point seems to hint that more artillery was
          >available, but
          > > for fear of hitting civilians within Franklin, they weren't used ....
          >sounds
          > > like a "cover-up" after the fact to me ...*S* ...
          > >
          > > Again, thanks Andy,
          > >
          > > Sincerely,
          > >
          > > Wayne Mulig
          >
          >
          >Wayne,
          >
          > Sorry for the delay....been away for a few days. The two books I
          >used for sources were "The Confederacys Last Hurrah" by Wiley Sword and
          >"Shrouds of Glory" by Winston Groom (of Forrest Gump fame). Grooms book
          >was more fun to read but supposedly has more innaccuracies. Yes... the
          >Kentucky 1st guns were captured early. They were turned, but couldn't
          >be fired. I've read two reasons for this; either they were spiked or
          >the confederates couldn't find any primers. I think if they were spiked
          >they wouldn't have bothered turning them in the first place but who
          >knows. I'd be interested in YOUR source on Hood's views on the use of
          >his artillery there. 3 months earlier, when the shoe was on the other
          >foor at Atlanta, Hood was incensed at Sherman for shelling the town and
          >killing civilians. You'd think Shermans reply, basically that Hood
          >holing his army up in the town made it fair game, would have made Hood
          >a little less sensitive as to the plight of civilians in Franklin. Then
          >again Franklin was secesh.
          >
          >Regards,
          >
          >Andy
          >
          >
          >
          >------------------------------------------------------------------------
          >Go to Findlaw.com and get your FREE FLEECE from FindLaw.
          >FindLaw is the Internet's best destination for free legal
          >information! Take advantage of this offer and go to
          >Findlaw.com now!
          >http://click.egroups.com/1/1827/1/_/14182/_/952520750/
          >
          >-- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
          >-- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/civilwarwest/?m=1
          >
          >

          ______________________________________________________
        • Wayne Mulig
          Andy, Have been reading about Atlanta Campaign and Franklin a lot lately and almost couldn t find the statement I had mentioned. I did find it in Five Tragic
          Message 4 of 6 , Mar 8, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            Andy,

            Have been reading about Atlanta Campaign and Franklin a lot lately and
            almost couldn't find the statement I had mentioned. I did find it in Five
            Tragic Hours: The Battle of Franklin by James L. McDonough and Thomas L.
            Connelly ... On page 65 of that work they discuss the careless behavior of
            Hood in attacking without S.D. Lee's Corps and most of the Army's artillery
            ... "Later, in his memoirs, Hood maintained that he deliberately avoided
            using artillery at Franklin because it would have posed a threat to women in
            children in the village. This is sheer fantasy. Hood did use what artillery
            was available in the assault. Two batteries were on the field and one was
            assigned to each corps." [p.65]

            Thus my original question concerning the identity of the two batteries ...
            *S* ...

            I don't have a copy of Hood's memoirs, but think that would be interesting
            to read .... in their book McDonough and Connelly use it to indicate that
            Hood in later years tended to cover his tracks as best as he could .. as did
            many leaders after the passage of time and the stirrings of controversy ...

            Hope this has proved interesting to you ... and again thanks for your help

            Sincerely,
            Wayne Mulig

            >From: "Andy Berstel" <greenhaven@...>
            >Reply-To: civilwarwest@egroups.com
            >To: civilwarwest@...
            >Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Battle of Franklin, Tennessee (Nov 1864) ---
            >Artillery Engaged in Battle
            >Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 05:05:24 -0800
            >
            >"wayne mulig" <twmuli-@...> wrote:
            >original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/civilwarwest/?start=663
            > > Thanks Andy.
            > >
            > > Could you stir me to your sources? I think you are very right about
            >the
            > > 1st Kentucky ... from what I gather (without knowing the identity of
            >the
            > > battery) ... the guns were captured by the Confederates quite early
            >in the
            > > breech of the Union lines ... but were not used by the Southerners
            >against
            > > the Blue lines ... Have read conflicting reports on Confederate
            >artillery
            > > ... Hood at one point seems to hint that more artillery was
            >available, but
            > > for fear of hitting civilians within Franklin, they weren't used ....
            >sounds
            > > like a "cover-up" after the fact to me ...*S* ...
            > >
            > > Again, thanks Andy,
            > >
            > > Sincerely,
            > >
            > > Wayne Mulig
            >
            >
            >Wayne,
            >
            > Sorry for the delay....been away for a few days. The two books I
            >used for sources were "The Confederacys Last Hurrah" by Wiley Sword and
            >"Shrouds of Glory" by Winston Groom (of Forrest Gump fame). Grooms book
            >was more fun to read but supposedly has more innaccuracies. Yes... the
            >Kentucky 1st guns were captured early. They were turned, but couldn't
            >be fired. I've read two reasons for this; either they were spiked or
            >the confederates couldn't find any primers. I think if they were spiked
            >they wouldn't have bothered turning them in the first place but who
            >knows. I'd be interested in YOUR source on Hood's views on the use of
            >his artillery there. 3 months earlier, when the shoe was on the other
            >foor at Atlanta, Hood was incensed at Sherman for shelling the town and
            >killing civilians. You'd think Shermans reply, basically that Hood
            >holing his army up in the town made it fair game, would have made Hood
            >a little less sensitive as to the plight of civilians in Franklin. Then
            >again Franklin was secesh.
            >
            >Regards,
            >
            >Andy
            >
            >
            >
            >------------------------------------------------------------------------
            >Go to Findlaw.com and get your FREE FLEECE from FindLaw.
            >FindLaw is the Internet's best destination for free legal
            >information! Take advantage of this offer and go to
            >Findlaw.com now!
            >http://click.egroups.com/1/1827/1/_/14182/_/952520750/
            >
            >-- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
            >-- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/civilwarwest/?m=1
            >
            >

            ______________________________________________________
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.