Voting in the National Elections in 1864

Posted on March 28, 2021 by Mike

It is well known among Civil War historians, that some states allowed soldiers to cast votes from the field in the election of 1864. These were California, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. When possible, soldiers from other states, might be sent home to vote. In fact, Lincoln sent a letter to Sherman dated September 19th, 1864, asking if he could safely send Indiana soldiers home to vote in the election which was scheduled for the 11th October. Indiana was a particularly important state to Lincoln because of the large number of southern sympathizers in the southern part of that state.

What I haven’t seen mention of, is how the many civilian contractors supporting the efforts of the army dealt with the same issue. I found this note in the National Archives which gives a little hint of what had to be a difficult issue.

Construction Workers Ask to go Home to Vote

October 31st, 1864
To Brig. Genl Rufus Ingalls
Chief Q.M. Armies Before Richmond
General,
I have to state for your information that one hundred and twenty four (124) of our carpenter force have this day asked for leave of absence for the period of eight (8) days for this date for the purpose of going to their several homes to vote at the coming “Presidential Election”.
I therefor respectfully refer the matter for your consideration and for my own part not wishing to detain the men from exercising their rights as voters yet I think the public service is greatly in want of every man we have upon work now in hand or in contemplation.
I have the honor Genl. to be very respectfully your Ob. Ser.
J__ Morgan
___ Eng. U.S.M.RR.

You should know that the fall of 1864, was a period when a large amount of construction was going on at City Point. Grant had realized that he wasn’t likely to break through to Petersburg until the next year’s campaigning season and the armies were preparing to settle in for a siege that would most likely last through the winter.

Like so many things in the archives, you only find one part of an exchange, which results in a little mystery. I don’t know exactly who Morgan was. A number of similar messages I’ve found related to the USMRR at City Point are from C. L. McAlpine, who was an engineer in charge of repairs. Perhaps more significantly, I’m also unsure about how General Ingalls responded to this message.

More on the Dictator

Posted on March 18, 2021 by Mike

I had established in a previous post that the dictator was first moved to position in front of Petersburg on July 8th, 1864, and was used against the Chesterfield battery. On August 25th, 1864, the construction corps was tasked with building a platform for it. So what happened between July 8th and August 25th.

On July 12th, the platform car that the Dictator was mounted on broke after only 5 shots. Note that a time bomb blew up an ammunition barge at City Point on the 9th which caused a tremendous amount of damage. The lack of ammo or transportation may account for some of the delay between moving the Dictator up to the front on the 8th and only five shots having been fired by July 12th.

The report of the fate of Lieut. Hall shows just how hazardous duty at the front was. I’m thinking that is an image of the Dictator on that flat car.

The platform car must have been repaired as the Battle of the Crater was fought on July 30th, 1864 and the Dictator was used to attempt to suppress the Chesterfield battery during that battle. This is part of the report of that battle by Col. Abbot of the 1st Connecticut Artillery.

I wonder how accurate that report from the deserter was. On July 31st, the day after the Battle of the Crater, the 13″ mortar was ordered back to City Point. Why it was ordered back is not known.

Finally, as was shown in the previous blog post, a dedicated platform was ordered to be built on August 25th. This must be an image of the Dictator relocated to the new platform.

Here is another view of the Dictator on the platform, along with some officers.

Most of the officers on the platform are identified in the caption of the same image that is included in the book, “The photographic History of the Civil War.”

With the binoculars, is Brigader General H.L. Hunt, chief of artillery for the Army of Potomac. To his right is Colonel H.L. Abbott, commander of the 1st Connecticut, which operated all the Union siege artillery during the siege of Petersburg, including the Dictator.

In the rear row, from left to right is, Captain F.A. Pratt, Captain E.C. Dow (just behind Colonel Abbott), an unidentified captain, Major T.S. Trumbull (just behind and to General Hunt’s left) and unidentified person who appears to be a civilian.

Major Trumbull commanded all of the siege artillery in front of Petersburg until September 1st, when poor health forced him to relinquish command. Soon after that, he passed away. I think he has a gaunt look about him in this image, so perhaps he was already failing when this image was taken. Captain Pratt commanded company M of the 1st Connecticut and Captain Dow commanded company F. These companies manned several positions along the siege lines at this time.

I am investigating the identity of the unidentified captain, who perhaps could be Captain W.F. Osborne, commander of company G and the Dictator. Captains Dow, Osborne and Pratt were discharged in October or November, 1864, all having served since May, 1861.

Sometime in late summer or early fall, the Dictator was moved back to City Point and I don’t believe that it was used again.

City Point Terminal Video

Posted on January 21, 2021 by Mike

I decided to see what happened if I put up a short youtube video.This one shows how much (or little) is working on my City Point Terminal Model Railroad. I could make more of these videos, who knows.

Two Battles, Similar Results, Different Assessment

Posted on December 23, 2020 by Mike

In this post, I’m going to briefly compare two Civil War battles. Both battles had very similar results. Both of these battles were surprise attacks on strongly entrenched defenders.

The Battle of the Crater

Union Attacker: 8,500 troops and suffered losses of 3798 men

Confederate Defender: 6,100 troops and lost 1491 men

Result: Attackers were thrown back around midday

The Battle of Fort Stedman

Confederate Attacker: 10,000 troops and lost 4000 men

Union Defender: 14898 troops and lost 1044 men

Result: Attackers were defeated by around 8:00AM

Detailed accounts of both battles reveal a pretty similar chain of events. At first a breakthrough, but confusion and strong counterattacks caused high casualties among the attackers. In both cases, it was particularly difficult for the attackers to find a way to return to friendly lines.

Both attacks involved surprise in order to initiate the breakthrough. The Union Army used a mine to blow a hole in the Confederate lines to start the Battle of the Crater, while the Confederates used men posing as deserters to surprise and overcome the initial defense of Fort Stedman. The Union had more men to engage in the defense of Fort Stedman, and were able to defeat the assault early in the morning. The Confederates had less men involved in the Battle of the Crater, and took longer to completely throw back the assault.

To me, one of the the most interesting things about these two battles is how the results were reported by the defeated army commanders.

The complete text of all of these messages can be found online in the Official Records, just follow the embedded links and you will find yourself on the right page. Scroll down to find the relevant messages.

The day after the Battle of the Crater, General Grant sent a telegram to his Chief of Staff, General Halleck, and classified the battle as a disaster. The next day, in another letter to Halleck, a court of inquiry was requested by General Grant. Generals Burnside and Ledlie lost their commands and a number of other Union Generals were censured by the inquiry. In contrast, Lee’s message to Secretary of War, Breckinridge, was in a more matter of fact style. He did under-report the losses as “not heavy”. Lee was very complimentary of his troops and their leaders.

I think that there are some questions that are worth asking about the reports of each commander.

Why was Grant so tough on his leaders? Did he believe that he needed a scapegoat, or did he feel that some of those leaders needed to be replaced?
Why was Lee so indifferent to a bad day? Remember that at the time of this battle, the Confederacy was on it’s last legs. Did he expect the attack to fail before it was launched or was he maintaining a somewhat positive outlook to keep moral up?

One last point. It is interesting to think about how each of the losing commanders initial reports has carried down through history to today. Even though the results of each battle was about the same, the modern historians perception of the management of the two battles largely mirrors the commanders initial reports.

More on the Dictator Mortar

Posted on December 16, 2020 by Mike

Last year, during my research in the National Archives, I took many pictures of entries from a journal kept by the US Military Rail Road Construction Corps. One of these entries discusses the construction of a platform for the 13″ mortar. The weapon now known as the “Dictator.”

USMRR Construction Corps - diary entry 13" mortar platform — USMRR Construction Corps – diary entry 13″ mortar platform

Thursday, August 25th, 1864
Mills gang “Carpenters” Erecting platform up the railroad for large 13 inch Mortar intended to shell Petersburg. Browns gang laying side track to the same, which is in rear of Battery No. 5, in front of Petersburg 1 1/2 miles distance.

Though this entry notes that the intention was to shell Petersburg, the reality was different. The 13″ mortar was positioned with an intention to suppress Confederate artillery that were posted in a rather advantageous position that flanked the right of the Union lines. The artillery in this position troubled the Union troops from the Second Battle of Petersburg through to the end of the siege, as the Union troops never were able to effectively suppress it. The nature of this flanking position can be clearly seen in this map of the positions of the Union 1st Division of the 9th Corps on April 1st, 1865. I added the red arrows showing the field of fire of the flanking Confederate batteries.

More can be found out about this problem and the 13″ mortar’s role in it, in the book, “History of the First Connecticut Artillery.” This unit operated the Union siege artillery during the siege of Petersburg, including the 13″ mortar. This regimental history is put together much like the Official Records, and is largely a compilation of surviving documents concerning the regiment. There are some additional notes added by the editors. This particular note spans pages 68 and 69 and describes how the 13″ mortar was used.

13 Mortar from 1st Conn History — 13″ Mortar from History of 1st Conn Artillery

Though I haven’t done an exhaustive search through this book, the earliest reference to the 13″ mortar is on July 8th, 1864. In this memo, it is clear that the 13″ mortar is already in position on a truck carriage.

Capt. Osborne Takes Charge of the Dictator

This additional message seems to indicate that the 13 inch mortar is just being brought up into line on the 8th, so Captain Osborne must have been the first commander of this mortar.

Right now, that’s all I have time for. I’ll elaborate on why there are orders to build a platform for the 13 inch mortar on the 25th of August, more than two weeks after it was first put into service, in a follow up post.

Book Review – A Campaign of Giants – The Battle For Petersburg: Volume 1: From the Crossing of the James to the Crater – A. Wilson Greene

Posted on November 14, 2020 by Mike

I’ve long held an interest in the siege of Petersburg, which was the decisive campaign that lead to the end of the American Civil War. Despite the importance of this siege, books that cover it in detail are few in number, especially when compared with detailed coverage of most of the great battles of 1862 and 1863. When I heard of this new book in 2018, which promised the coverage that I was looking for, I knew I had to read it and I bought a copy soon after it was released.

Though the book has good reviews, currently rating 4.6 on Amazon, it took me two years to finish it. Though very well written, I found parts of the book hard to read. I think that is because my point of view differs greatly from that of the author. The author is extremely critical of the generalship of the Northern leaders. While Greene mentions some of the mistakes of the Southern commanders, it’s almost as if Greene was still propagating some aspects of the myth of the “Lost Cause.” In my mind, Greene doesn’t really appear to understand the difficulty of what Grant and his armies were attempting to achieve.

Though this is a battle book, I found coverage of the various engagements, inconsistent. With the vast majority of these kinds of books, the author, after describing a battle, will summarize the results in terms of ground lost or gained and resulting casualties. This book is no different and some of the smaller engagements are described in this fashion, with little to no detail as to what happened. To me, this approach strikes me as completely ignoring the horrors of war, almost antiseptic in nature. The following example shows how a clash that cost 140 Confederate casualties and an unreported number of Federal casualties, is covered in only two sentences. I understand how a book covering so many events can only devote so much text to such a small engagement, but it still bothered me a bit.

However, at the other end of the spectrum, the description of the Battle of the Crater is extremely graphic and detailed. Every American should read Greene’s account of that battle. This account should dispel any misconceptions modern Americans have about the Civil War being a “clean” war. In actuality, it was an ugly, dirty, horrid affair. This account also explores the horrors of racism that persists in our society to this very day.

Just to end this review on a positive note, I found the description of Wilson’s raid very engaging and interesting, maybe because I knew very little about the raid before reading this book.

Finally, since I’m done with this book, and I don’t have room on my shelves for more books, I’ll send my copy to the first of my blog readers that reaches out to me expressing an interest in reading it.

Technology and the Civil War

Posted on May 31, 2020 by Mike

The classic image of the Civil War portrayed by authors like Bruce Catton had men and horses marching on foot for days over dusty or muddy roads. This would be interrupted by an occasional horrible and not quite decisive battle. While this image of war is certainly true, there is another side to what was going on during the Civil War.

Troops were often transferred vast distances by rail or boat. Telegraphs were setup to provide almost instant communication across the same vast distances. Steam powered gunboats patrolled the rivers. Hospitals were supplied with running water. By the end of the war, economic warfare was a key part of the North’s strategy, while the southern forces embraced raiding and guerrilla warfare. Most northern cavalry units were equipped with breechloading rifles, many of them repeaters. Hydrogen balloons were used for observation, though later in the war it was determined that, if given a few days time, building a tall tower could achieve a similar result, with a lot less hassle and risk.

When I stopped at the National Archives late last year, I discovered that the men staffing the US Military Rail Road’s depot in Alexandria Virginia enjoyed some surprising luxuries. I found invoices for gas pipe and gas lanterns. Further research indicates that a gas works was installed in Alexandria in the 1850s. The USMRR railroad must have tapped into it.

I also found invoices for water pipe, a water cooler and 800 pounds of ice. Finding the invoices for the ice and water cooler was quite a surprise.

Though those times were primitive by today’s standards, it’s clear that when possible, those soldiers would do what they could to make themselves as comfortable as possible.

How to Annoy Lieut. Gen Grant

Posted on February 2, 2020 by Mike

The enigma of U.S. Grant is an ongoing puzzle to me and many other people. It’s hard to reconcile the failed farmer with the man who became the most successful general of the Civil War and afterward, the president of the United States.

I found this letter in the National Archives concerning a water tank constructed near General Grant’s headquarters at City Point. I think it sheds a little light into how Grant expected his soldiers to perform and perhaps a hint at why he was so successful as a general.

March 24th 1865
Mr McAlpine,
Dear Sir.
The General commanding directs me to inform you that the tank ordered placed by the well in front of these HeadQuarters, by Lieut. Genl. Grant is utterly worthless and a discredit to the mechanics engaged upon it and the person who superintended its erection.

He wishes you would send someone to look to as soon as possible to prevent its coming to pieces

Very Respectfully
Your Obt. Servt.
S M Schummaker
Captain — —-

Note that I’m not sure about the spelling of this captains name or his position at HQ. I also find the letterhead kind of interesting. There were so many different letterheads found in those few archives that I perused that I have contemplated trying to make a list of the varieties.

Miltiary Construction Corps “Half Crazy” to Construct Road through Petersburg

Posted on January 8, 2020 by Mike

Here’s a telegram written by the Head Engineer of the Military Railroad at City Point to Rufus Ingalls, Chief Quartermaster of the Armies before Richmond.

Half Crazy to Construct Road through Petersburg

To General Rufus Ingalls,
At Genl. Grants Head Quarters
We have plenty of Bridge Material and 1250 men in Construction Corps half Crazy to get orders to construct road through Petersburg.
C S McAlpine,
——– Engineer

This message was sent on the same day that the Union Armies broke through the Confederate lines just south of Petersburg.

Guarding the Dictator Mortar

Posted on January 3, 2020 by Mike

The Dictator was a 13 inch siege mortar used to bombard Confederate positions around Petersburg in the summer of 1864. It was mounted on a specially constructed flatcar so it could be moved around easily. It was initially used to silence a Confederate artillery position across the Appomattox River from the Union right. Until this position was silenced, the Confederate artillery enfiladed the right end of the Union line and made life especially difficult for the Union troops stationed in the trenches there. The Dictator was pulled out of the front line service on September 28, 1864 and put in reserve at the base at City Point.

The Mortar Dictator in front of Petersburg

However that isn’t quite the end of the story. This letter found in the National Archives indicates that as late as December 4th, 1864, some men, which came from the 1st Connecticut Heavy Artillery regiment were still watching over her.

Here is the text of this letter to Rufus Ingalls, who was the Chief Quartermaster for all the Armies before Richmond..

Headqua. Siege Arty.
Broadway Landing
Dec 4th, 64
I have the honor to request that the Railroad track near the Bakery at City Point may be extended for a short distance, as this will enable me to move the 13-inch Mortar to a position where it will be under guard, and thus to relieve and return to their Company my guard which has remained in charge of the Mortar ever since it was withdrawn from it’s position in front of Petersburg
very respectfully
Your ob. servant
Henry Larcom
Col. Conn. Arty.
Commander Siege Arty.

Note that E.L. Henry’s painting of City Point shows the Dictator positioned in an altogether different location, at the end of the tracks serving the Quatermaster Department Wharves. It likely that this is where the Colonel’s men were spending their time watching her. Note that Henry even painted a guard next to the mortar.

Looking at the map of the City Point railway, which was drawn after the war, shows that the bakery tracks do extend a bit past the end of the bakery buildings. It’s clear that if the Dictator was positioned there, it could be guarded by the men manning the City Point defensive line. Whether this is the extension that was requested or not and whether the Dictator ever ended up at this extension of the bakery tracks is unknown to me.

Though this little investigation of mine has little importance to anything or anyone, it is fun to see what can be found out about such trivial issues.

Mike's Hobby Blog

computers, trains, wargames, fish, railroads and more

Category Archives: Civil War