Paydirt!

31 10 2008

Reader Linda Mott left the following comment on this post:

I ran across an article written about the 14th Brooklyn’s missing report and their actions at Bull Run. The report had been misplaced, and found forty years later. According to the article, the report and other papers found with it were forwarded to the War Veterans Association. The report was finally published 40 years later in the Brooklyn Daily Leader on Mar. 17, 1901. The Brooklyn Public Library has some of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle newspapers online. Their website is: http://www.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/

There are other articles about the 14th Brooklyn regiment if one has the patience to search for them. It’s best to search by subject rather than dates. However, the article about the report can be located by date. If not successful try “Old Bull Run Report”. The report is written by Lt. Col. E. B. Fowler. Just thought I’d pass this along, and thank you for the OR’s their organization and presentation are wonderful. I had been looking them up at e-history.com from OSU very tedious. Have you looked there for the Supplemental Volume with the later reports? The site has the atlases and several Supplemental Volumes.

Lo and behold, following Linda’s tip I found the report on page 6 of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle for Mar. 17, 1901.  I’ll post the report and the text of the Daily Eagle article later.

As an aside, there are two different supplements we are talking about.  Linda is I think referring to Series III, Vol. 2 of the ORs, which contains supplemental reports and correspondence not filed where they should have been filed in the rest of the ORs.  It’s part of the set referred to as The Official Records.  I’ve already posted all the reports from that volume, that pertain to First Bull Run.  When I refer to The Supplement, I’m talking about the Broadfoot set compiled much more recently.

Thanks Linda!





Good Talk Elsewhere

31 10 2008

Some interesting discussion going on over at Cenantua’s Blog in the comments to this post.  Rather than rehash the whole thing here, I’ll just send you there to read for yourself.  Any suggestions on how to make this site better are appreciated, but please leave comments about Robert’s post there, and comments about my site here – I think that’s the polite way to go about it.





Second Chance

31 10 2008

Here’s one that got under the radar.  I posted it awhile back.  If you’re killing time today, give it a read and let me know what you think.  Follow the links and it will make more sense.

Handcuffs at Bull Run





McPherson’s “New” Book on Lincoln

31 10 2008

Check out this review of the new James McPherson book, Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief, by James Durney on TOCWOC.  Astute and valid criticism, I think.  McPherson is a fine writer, a synthesizer by reputation, but his choices of what to synthesize seem somewhat pedestrian.  While on that subject, here are some thoughts on synthesis from an earlier Robert Bateman article I linked to in this post:

At the outset, a historian examines the available evidence about a historical event or period. He or she looks at the primary sources, be they eyewitness accounts or relevant contemporary documents, and from these develops an understanding of the basic outlines. But what follows next is at the core of the difference between journalism and history. The historian is then expected to interpret these sources to create a framework for a new understanding of the events, which goes beyond a recitation of who, what, when, where and why. This first interpretation, therefore, is the first thesis.

Let us assume for a moment that the historian was the first to address a given topic, and therefore his thesis is widely accepted as it is also the only one available. Time passes. We circle the sun. Children are born, raised, go to high school and learn the thesis (albeit usually in a synopsized version) as a part of their general education. Eventually one of them is masochistic enough to go to graduate school with the intent of pursuing a degree in history.

For the youngster, there are only two real routes available when selecting a dissertation topic. The budding historian might attempt to find a brand new area of study that has never been written about (fat chance there, but sometimes it happens), or he or she can read deeply of the already extant body of historical literature on a topic or period, re-examine the foundational materials underpinning the dominant thesis, perhaps uncover some additional material not noticed before. Then the new graduate student will proceed to offer a new interpretation, different and disagreeing with the original thesis in large ways and small, thus creating the anti-thesis. Obviously, if the author of the original thesis is still around, this might not go over swimmingly. Presuming the young historian has done a good job, his becomes the new “accepted version,” and the pendulum swings.

Skip forward a few more years, and the third phase comes into effect. This time, however, it is usually an older, more experienced and already established historian who completes the cycle. Age and experience have given the older historian some ability to read across multiple interpretations as well as the wisdom to craft his ideas carefully. The senior scholar, recognizing that there are some positive elements in both competing ideas, also brings to bear a much broader understanding of the field overall, and he has time on his side. (He is not living the life of penury, eating macaroni and cheese meals, that young grad student had been.) To this person is left the task of melding thesis and antithesis into a new and greater whole, the synthesis. This, then, becomes the new narrative, necessarily upsetting both the adherents of the thesis and the anti-thesis, but accepted by the larger field as superior to both.

Thus does one cycle of history end. It may have taken five years, or perhaps as many as 50, but at every step there was dispute and criticism flowing from one historian against another. (It’s a dynamic not usually seen within journalism except in the case of egregious acts of ethical violation such as Jayson Blair’s.) The arguing among historians, you see, is very much a part of what makes history.

What is it called when the senior scholar only considers the thesis in his synthesis?

Please take time to read Lt. Col. Bateman’s article.  I’ve pointed people to it before, but they can’t seem to get past the historian vs. journalist part of the piece.  Particularly at this time of year, what he has to say about historians’ personal biases affecting their analysis of current events is well worth considering.





Bull Run After Action (Official) Reports

30 10 2008

As I said, I have posted all the First Bull Run after action reports (Official Reports) included in the War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies (ORs for short).  That does not mean, however, that after action reports for all regiments, brigades, divisions and staff can now be found on this site.  There are a number of reports missing from the ORs, either because none were ever written or because they were lost or otherwise not available at the time the ORs were compiled.  Some were subsequently included in Broadfoot Publishing’s Supplement to the Official Records.  I don’t happen to own that particular expensive set of books, and it is not available in digital format.  I’d be happy to buy the volume which includes Bull Run reports (Vol. 2 of Vol. 1), if anybody is looking to sell.  I previously posted this report from the Supplement.

I suppose there are lots of reasons that so many reports are missing.  Many of the federal regiments were no longer in existence within weeks of the battle.  And it appears that some brigades either did not require regimental reports, or simply did not forward them along with the brigade report.  None of Ewell’s, Early’s, or Holmes’s regiments in Beuaregard’s army are in the ORs, and the only reports of any type for Johnston’s army are his own and those of Jackson, Stuart, and staffers Pendleton and Rhett.  On the Union side, there are no regimental reports for the brigades of Richardson or Blenker, and only one or two for most other brigades.

Maybe some of these will turn up in the Supplement.  Other places for me to look are the state Adjutant General reports for 1861, though I believe those were culled when the Supplement was compiled.  I think the most important source is going to be newspapers.  If you should run across anything that looks like an official regimental report published in a newspaper, please let me know about it.  As I post these I will cross reference them to the OOBs, just as I have done with the ORs.





Done, But Not Done-Done

29 10 2008

OK, I’ve posted my last Bull Run after action report (OR).  #62 was the last Union report – #63 is actually the findings of the Dixon Miles court of inquiry

You may have inferred from the reports of Richardson and Davies that there was something hinky with Miles’s behavior on the 21st.  He was prescribed some brandy by his doctor that day, and he was unfortunately wearing two hats at the same time.  No, I mean that literally.  It was not uncommon practice to wear two hats on a hot day – something about ventilation.  But Miles had a reputation for hitting the bottle, so combine his medicinal use that day with possible augmentation on his part, two hats, and some less than rational directions to subordinates in the field, and the evidence mounts up.  Kinda sorta cleared by the court of inquiry, Miles went on leave of absence, awaiting orders from July 26, 1861 until March 8, 1862.  I’ll try to track down more information on the court of inquiry and post it here.

The ORs aren’t done-done, as Miracle Max might say.  I’ll get around to putting up the Blackburn’s Ford reports.  And of course there is all that correspondence to get through.  But it’s nice to have one thing wrapped up, finally.





Findings of the Miles Court of Inquiry

29 10 2008

Findings of Court of Inquiry on conduct of Col. Dixon S. Miles, Second U. S. Infantry, Commanding Fifth Division, at Battle of Bull Run

O.R.– SERIES I–VOLUME 2 [S# 2] — CHAPTER IX, pp. 438-439

GENERAL ORDERS, No. 42.

HDQRS, ARMY OF THE POTOMAC,

Washington, November 6, 1861

A court of inquiry, instituted by Special Orders, No. 67, of August 10, 1861 [following] from headquarters Department Northeastern Virginia,. upon the application of Col. D. S. Miles, Second Infantry, to examine into certain allegations made against him as stated in his letter to the assistant adjutant-general at the headquarters of said department, dated July 26, 1861, did, after mature deliberation upon the testimony adduced, agree upon the following

STATEMENT OF FACTS.

1. That Col. I. B. Richardson was justified in applying the term drunkenness to Col. D. S. Miles’ condition about 7 o’clock p.m. on the 21st July last.

2. That the evidence is clear that Colonel Miles had been ill for several days before July 21 last – was ill on that day; that the surgeon had prescribed medicines for him, and on the day of the battle had prescribed for him small quantities of brandy.

The court, however, considers his illness as a very slight extenuation of the guilt attached to his condition about 7 p.m. on July 21 last.

OPINION.

The court is of opinion that evidence cannot now be found sufficient to convict Colonel Miles of drunkenness before a court-martial; that a proper court could only be organized in this Army with the greatest inconvenience at present, and that it will not be for the interests of the service to convene a court in this case.

The court is therefore of opinion that no further proceedings in the case are necessary.

II. The proceedings of the court of inquiry in the case of Col. D. S. Miles, Second Infantry, have been laid before the major-general commanding, and are confirmed.

By command of Major-General McClellan:

S. WILLIAMS,

Assistant Adjutant-General

—–

SPECIAL ORDERS, No. 67.

HDQRS. DEPARTMENT N. E. VIRGINIA,

Arlington, August 10, 1861

Upon the application of Col. D. S. Miles, Second Infantry, a court of inquiry is hereby instituted to examine into certain allegations made against him, as stated in his letter to the assistant adjutant-general, headquarters Department N. E. Virginia, dated July 26, 1861.

The court will meet at 12 m., on Monday, the 12th instant, or as soon thereafter as practicable, in Alexandria, Va., and will report the facts and give its opinion in the case.

Detail for the court.

Brig. Gen. W. B. Franklin, U.S. Volunteers.

Col. John Sedgwick, First Cavalry.

Capt. Truman Seymour, First Artillery.

The junior member will record the proceedings.

By command of Brigadier-General McDowell:

JAMES B. FRY,

Assistant  Adjutant-General








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 866 other followers