Comments on: Col. W. T. Sherman to His Wife

By: Harry Smeltzer

Harry Smeltzer — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 01:01:32 +0000

Terry,

The post is already up – see the one for Feb. 3. Maybe I’m mistaken on the 69th – I think what I read was in Beatie Vol. I, and part of it was definitely about the 79th including the barn story. Looking forward to anything you have on BR.

By: Terry Johnston

Terry Johnston — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:42:30 +0000

Harry:

I’ll look forward to that post. I don’t recall offhand the 69th’s post-Bull Run discontent, but it’d be interesting to see evidence of it. Also, I’m pretty sure I have something else—from an actual Scottish newspaper (what I sent you was from a New York-based Scottish-American publication—about the 79th and Bull Run. Once I figure out what it is—and locate it in my files—I’ll send it along.

Terry

By: Harry Smeltzer

Harry Smeltzer — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:14:40 +0000

Terry,

Thanks for the info. Yes, it seems Sherman had a lot of trouble with his regiments after the battle. IIRC the 69th NYSM threatened to mutiny as well, and he had some problems with officers that even brought Lincoln into the fray.

By the way, I’ll be posting something from one of the Scottish newspapers you sent me, regarding Lincoln and Scott after the battle. It’s the only account of their encounter that I’ve seen that interprets its meaning the same way I do.

By: Terry Johnston

Terry Johnston — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 19:46:45 +0000

Sherman’s July 24 reference to the 79th New York Infantry, one of the units in his brigade (“a Regiment the N. York 79th Scots were forming to march over to Washington, and I have commanded them to remain”), is an early indication of the discontent in that regiment that eventually resulted in its mutiny on August 14. The men of the 79th generally seemed to hold Sherman in low regard—responsible, in part, for the high casualties they suffered at Bull Run, but also for an alleged incident (stories of which spread through the regiment quickly) in which Sherman, on July 22, was said to have ejected a group of 79th NYers from a barn in which they had sought shelter during the rain-soaked retreat. Soon thereafter, the regiment successfully petitioned Secretary of War Cameron (brother of their late colonel, KIA at Bull Run—talk about connections) for a transfer from Sherman’s command.

Interestingly, time seemed to heal all wounds. In his memoirs, Sherman recalled his Bull Run command as follows: “These were all good, strong, volunteer regiments, pretty well commanded; and I had reason to believe that I had one of the best brigades in the whole army.”

Terry

By: caswain01

caswain01 — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:22:37 +0000

Well as long as we are looking at political ties, notice the setting for the letters – Fort Corcoran, named for Michael Corcoran, Colonel of the 69th NYSM with ties to Tammany. Later commander of the “other” Irish Brigade.

At the time Sherman was writing, the fort (Use the click for map link here for a pinpoint – http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=5106) was part of the forward string of forts in Arlington. Only later in the fall would the Federal forts creep out toward Falls Church.

His assessment of Beauregard’s options to flank the Capital by way of Maryland and Leesburg, Va is of interest.

Craig.

By: Harry Smeltzer

Harry Smeltzer — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:09:18 +0000

Will, Pretty much everyone with a brigade command was connected. I long ago dropped the label "political generals." They were all political generals. At this point Sherman was a political colonel. At Bull Run, it also helped to be from Ohio. See my sketch of Sherman and this post.

By: Will Keene

Will Keene — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 12:50:41 +0000

“Yesterday the President & Mr. Seward visited me, and I slipped over for a few minutes last night to see your father. John S. and Tom have seen me and promise to write you …”

The man was politically well connected.