Image: Benjamin Franklin Terry, Longstreet’s Brigade

Benjamin Franklin Terry, Longstreet’s Brigade (Wikipedia)

Benjamin Franklin Terry at Ancestry.com

Benjamin Franklin Terry at Fold3

Benjamin Franklin Terry at FindAGrave

Benjamin Franklin Terry at Wikipedia

More on Benjamin Franklin Terry

Image: Thomas Saltus Lubbock, Longstreet’s Brigade

Thomas Saltus Lubbock (2nd from right), Longstreet’s Brigade (Source)

Thomas Saltus Lubbock, Longstreet’s Brigade (Wikipedia)

Thomas Salton Lubbock at Ancestry.com

Thomas Salton Lubbock at Fold3

Thomas Saltus Lubbock at FindAGrave

Thomas Saltus Lubbock at Wikipedia

More on Thomas Saltus Lubbock

Thomas Saltus Lubbock and Benjamin Franklin Terry, Longstreet’s Brigade, On a Scout

Texans on a Scouting Expedition. – A correspondent writing from Fairfax Court House to the Charleston Mercury, says:

Yesterday Messrs. Thomas Lubbock and Col Terry, of Texas, who had come on to negotiate for the acceptance of a company of Texas Rangers, got up a party and started on a scout. They penetrated to within four or five miles of Alexandria; passed between the sentries and their pickets; turned upon the sentries; shot two, wounding them at least, and took two prisoners, whom they brought to camp, to the great relief of friends who saw them start, and were conscious of the perilous adventure upon which they started. Col. Terry’s horse took the bit between his teeth and carried his rider at full speed into the picket guard of the enemy, but they broke at his approach, and soon after bringing his horse to his senses with the butt of his pistol, he rejoined his friends in safety. Captain Lubbock is brother of the present candidate for Governor in Texas, and Col. Terry is brother of Judge Terry who killed Broderick in California[*]. It is hoped their offer of their company to the government will be accepted upon the terms upon which it is offered, and that they will soon be on the field.

The (Prattville, AL) Autauga Citizen, 7/25/1861

*Lubbock-Broderick Duel at Wikipedia

Clipping image

Thomas Salton Lubbock at Ancestry.com

Thomas Salton Lubbock at Fold3

Thomas Saltus Lubbock at FindAGrave

Thomas Saltus Lubbock at Wikipedia

More on Thomas Saltus Lubbock

Benjamin Franklin Terry at Ancestry.com

Benjamin Franklin Terry at Fold3

Benjamin Franklin Terry at FindAGrave

Benjamin Franklin Terry at Wikipedia

More on Benjamin Franklin Terry

Preview: Pfarr, “Longstreet at Gettysburg”

A recent publication from McFarland & Co. is Cory M. Pfarr’s Longstreet at Gettysburg: A Critical Reassessment. Mr. Pfarr works for the Department of Defense and lives in Pikeville, MD.

From the back cover:

This is the first book-length analysis of Lieutenant General James Longstreet’s actions at Gettysburg. The author argues that Longstreet has been discredited unfairly, beginning with character assassination by his contemporaries after the war and, persistently, by historians in the decades since.

By a close study of the three-day battle and an incisive historiographical inquiry into Longstreet’s treatment by scholars, the author presents an alternative view of Longstreet as an effective military leader, and refutes over a century of negative evaluations.

I guess the key phrase here is “book-length,” because undoubtedly there have been other works that reassess Longstreet in general, stretching back to the first assessments, as well as modern works by folks like Jeffery Wert, Henry Knudsen and William Garrett Piston, to name just a few. How this singular focus on Lee’s Warhorse’s work at Gettysburg specifically differs from others is the question.

You get:

• Foreword by Harold Knudsen
• 186 pages of narrative in 25 chapters.
• 12 pages of endnotes.
• 4 1/2 page bibliography, primarily published sources.
• Full index

 

 

 

#76 – Brig. Gen. James Longstreet

Report of Brig. Gen. James Longstreet, C. S. Army, of Action at Blackburn’s Ford

O.R.– SERIES I–VOLUME 2 [S# 2] — CHAPTER IX, pp. 461-463

SIR: I have the honor to report that in obedience to the orders of the general commanding I took my position at this ford on the 17th instant, my brigade being composed of the First, Eleventh, and Seventeenth Regiments of Virginia Volunteers. My line of defense being quite extended, I threw out a line of skirmishers to the water’s edge, covering my entire front, holding strong reserves in readiness to defend with the bayonet any point that might be violently attacked.

At 11.30 o’clock a.m. on the 18th my pickets reported the enemy advancing upon the ford in heavy columns of infantry and a strong artillery force. At 12 m. the pickets retired without firing. My artillery (two pieces) were placed in convenient position, with orders to retire the moment it was ascertained that our pieces were commanded by those of the enemy. The first shot from his battery discovered the advantage of his position, and our artillery was properly withdrawn. A fire from the artillery of the enemy was kept up about half an hour, when their infantry was advanced to the attack. He made an assault with a column of three or four thousand of his infantry, which, with a comparatively small force of fresh troops, was with some difficulty repelled. A second and more determined attack was made after a few minutes, which was driven back by the skirmishers, and the companies of the reserve thrown in at the most threatened and weakest points. I then sent a staff officer to Colonel Early for one of the reserve regiments of his brigade. Before the arrival of that regiment a third, though not so severe, attack was made and repulsed. Colonel Hays, Seventh Regiment Louisiana Volunteers, came in and promptly took position in time to assist in driving back the enemy the fourth time, when I ordered the advance, and called on Colonel Early for the balance of his brigade. The passage of the stream was so narrow and difficult, however, that I soon found it would be impossible to make a simultaneous movement, and ordered the troops that had succeeded in crossing to return to their positions. A few small parties, under command of Captain Marye, Seventeenth Regiment Virginia Volunteers, who behaved with great gallantry, met parties of the enemy on the other side of the stream with the bayonet, and drove them back. Colonel Early, with the balance of his brigade, Seventh Regiment Virginia Volunteers, commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel Williams, and the Twenty-fourth Regiment Virginia Volunteers, commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel Hairston, arrived in time to receive the fire of the last attack, but had not been placed in a position where they could fire with effect upon the enemy.

The presence of these regiments probably intimidated the enemy as much as the fire of the troops that met him.  Immediately after this attack the enemy’s infantry retired, and his artillery was opened upon us. The battery under Captain Eshleman was called for, and flew into position–four 6-pounders and three rifled guns. The action was thus continued for one hour, when the enemy fell back upon Centreville, some three miles. I am pleased to say that our young artillerists proved themselves equal, if not superior, to the boasted artillerists of the enemy.

Captain Eshleman was severely wounded early in the action. We lost under their artillery six–one killed, five wounded, and one horse wounded; whilst we have reason to believe that the loss of the enemy during the same fire was very much greater. Our loss from the various attacks of the infantry columns was sixty-three killed and wounded. We have no means of learning positively the probable loss of the enemy. Prisoners taken then and since report it from nine hundred to two thousand. These statements were made to myself and members of my staff by the prisoners–the first estimate by a private, the latter by a lieutenant.

I have had command of the brigade so short a time, and have been so busily occupied during that time, that I have been able to make the acquaintance of but few of the officers; I am, therefore, unable to mention them by name, as I would like to do, and must refer you to the detailed reports of the regimental commanders. The officers seemed to spring in a body to my assistance at the only critical moment. To discriminate in such a body may seem a little unjust, yet I feel that I should be doing injustice to my acquaintances were I to fail to mention their names–not that I know them to be more distinguished than some others, but that I know what I owe them. Colonel Moore, First Regiment Virginia Volunteers, severely wounded; Colonel Garland, Eleventh Regiment Virginia Volunteers, and Colonel Corse, Seventeenth Regiment Virginia Volunteers; Lieutenant-Colonels Fry, Funsten, and Munford; Majors Harrison (twice shot and mortally wounded), Brent, and Skinner, displayed more coolness and energy than is usual amongst veterans of the old service. I am particularly indebted to Lieutenant-Colonel Munford and Major Brent, who having a spare moment and seeing my great need of staff officers at a particular juncture, offered their assistance. Surgeons Cullen, Thornhill, and Davis, Assistant Surgeons Murray, Snowden, and Chalmers, were in the heat of the action much oftener than their duties required, and were exceedingly active and energetic. Lieut. F. S. Armistead, acting assistant adjutant-general, and Lieut. P. T. Manning, aide-de-camp, were very active and gallant in the discharge of their duties. Capt. Thomas Walton and Capt. Macon Thompson, volunteer aids, under their first fire and in their first service, are worthy of their newly-adopted profession. Under a terrific fire these staff officers seemed to take peculiar delight in having occasion to show to those around them their great confidence in our cause and our success.

I inclose the reports of the different commanders, and refer to them for the names of the killed and wounded of their commands.

I am, sir, very respectfully, your most obedient servant,

JAMES LONGSTREET,

Brigadier-General

Col. THOMAS JORDAN,

Assistant Adjutant-General

Longstreet’s Report – Terry & Lubbock

 If you’re one of the three folks who actually read the ORs I post here, you may have run across a few familiar names in the report of Brig. Gen. James Longstreet.  The 100 pound Peyton Manning, T. J. Goree and G. Moxley Sorrel would remain with Longstreet throughout most of the war.  Cavalry aficionados among you may also have recognized Benjamin Franklin Terry and Thomas Saltus Lubbock.  I’ll write full sketches of both men, but for now here are brief recaps.

Terry was born in 1821 in Kentucky and moved to Texas when he was 12 years old.  In 1851 he was a partner in Texas’ first railroad.  He became a delegate to the Texas secession convention in 1861, and set out for Richmond later that year to offer his services to the Confederacy.

Lubbock was born in Charleston, SC in 1817.  He moved to Louisiana and was involved in the cotton trade, and when the Texas Revolution started he  threw his fortunes in with the state and served throughout in various military organizations including the Texas Rangers.  He was captured by the Mexican army and spent some time as a prisoner.  Lubbock was a strong secessionist, and in 1861 joined Terry on the trip to Richmond.

It appears, though I have yet to verify it, that Terry and Lubbock set out from Galveston on board a ship in the company of Longstreet, who was heading east after resigning as a paymaster in the U. S. Army, and Goree.  Terry and Lubbock eventually served on Longstreet’s staff at Bull Run as volunteers, though they were referred to as “Colonels”.  After the battle, they received permission from Jefferson Davis to return to Texas and recruit a regiment of cavalry.  Terry became Colonel and Lubbock Lt. Colonel of the 8th Texas Cavalry, Terry’s Texas Rangers.

Lubbock came down with typhus in Tennessee and had to leave the regiment.  Not long after, on Dec.17, 1861, Terry was killed in the regiment’s first battle at Woodsonville, Ky.  Lubbock ascended to command of the regiment, but never rejoined it, dying in hospital at Bowling Green (or Nashville?) in January, 1862.

Both Terry and Lubbock counties in Texas are named in honor of the former Longstreet aides, as is the city of Lubbock.

In the 1861 group photo below, Lubbock is thought to be second from the right (photo found here) – is it just me, or do the two fellas flanking him appear to be supporting a sleeping, sick, or even dead man?: 

 

Here’s a photo of Terry (found here, as was the recruiting announcement at top):

 

 And here’s a photo of Lubbock’s most famous son (found here):

 

 

#100 – Brig. Gen. James Longstreet

 

Report of Brig. Gen. James Longstreet, C. S. Army, Commanding Fourth Brigade, First Corps

O.R.– SERIES I–VOLUME 2 [S# 2] — CHAPTER IX, pp 543-544

HEADQUARTERS FOURTH BRIGADE, July 28, 1861

In obedience to the general’s orders of the 20th to assume the offensive, my command was moved across Bull Run at an early hour on the 21st. I found my troops much exposed to the fire of the enemy’s artillery, my front being particularly exposed to a double cross-fire as well as a direct one. Garland’s regiment, Eleventh Virginia, was placed in position to carry by assault the battery immediately in my front. McRae’s regiment, Fifth North Carolina, under Lieutenant-Colonel Jones, the colonel being sick, was posted in front of the battery on my right, and with same purpose in regard to this battery. Strong bodies of skirmishers were thrown out in front of each column, with orders to lead in the assault, and at the same time to keep up a sharp fire, so as to confuse as much as possible the fire of the enemy, and thereby protect the columns, which were not to fire again before the batteries were ours. The columns were to be supported, the first by the First Virginia Regiment, under Major Skinner, the second by the Seventeenth Virginia Regiment, under Colonel Corse. The Twenty-fourth Virginia Regiment, trader Colonel Hairston, was the reserve in column of division in mass, convenient to the support of either column. Arrangements being complete, the troops were ordered to lie down and cover themselves from the artillery fire as much as possible.

About an hour after my position was taken it was discovered by a reconnaissance made by Colonels Terry and Lubbock that the enemy was moving in heavy columns towards our left, the position that the general had always supposed he would take. This information was at once sent to headquarters, and I soon received orders to fall back upon my original position, the right bank of the run. Colonels Terry and Lubbock then volunteered to make a reconnaissance of the position of the enemy’s batteries. They made a very gallant and complete one, and a hasty sketch of his entire left. This information was forwarded to the commanding general, with the suggestion that the batteries be taken.

The general’s orders were promptly issued to that effect, and I again moved across the run, but some of the troops ordered to co-operate failed to get their orders. After awaiting the movement some time, I received a peculiar order to hold my position only. In a few minutes, however, the enemy were reported routed, and I was again ordered forward. The troops were again moved across the run and advanced towards Centreville, the Fifth North Carolina Regiment being left to hold the ford. Advancing to the attack of the routed column I had the First, Eleventh, Seventeenth, and Twenty-fourth Virginia Regiments, Garnett’s section of the Washington Artillery, and Whitehead’s troop of cavalry. The artillery and cavalry were at once put in pursuit, followed as rapidly as possible by the infantry.

General Bonham, who was pursuing on our left, finding it difficult to advance through the fields, &c., moved his command to the road, put it in advance of mine, and the march towards Centreville was continued about a mile farther. Night coming on, the general deemed it advisable to halt. After lying in this position about an hour the general directed that the troops should be marched back to Bull Run for water.

Early next day I sent Colonel Terry forward, under the protection of Captain Whitehead’s troop, to pick up stragglers, ordnance, ordnance stores, and other property that had been abandoned by the enemy. I have been too much occupied to get the names or the number of prisoners. As I had no means of taking care of them I at once sent them to headquarters.  Colonel Terry captured the Federal flag said to have been made, in anticipation of victory, to be hoisted over our position at Manassas. He also shot from the cupola of the court-house at Fairfax the Federal flag left there. These were also duly forwarded to the commanding general.

About noon of the 22d Colonel Garland was ordered with his regiment to the late battle-ground to collect and preserve the property, &c., that had been abandoned in that direction. Colonel Garland’s report and inventory of other property and stores brought in to headquarters and listed by Captain Sorrel, of my staff, and the regimental reports of killed and wounded are herewith inclosed.(*)

My command, although not actively engaged against the enemy, was under the fire of his artillery for nine hours during the day. The officers and men exhibited great coolness and patience during the time.

To our kind and efficient medical officers, Surgeons Cullen, Thornhill, and Lewis, Assistant Surgeons Maury, Chalmers, and Snowden, we owe many thanks. Lieut. F. S. Armistead, acting assistant adjutant-general, and Lieut. P. T. Manning were very active and zealous.

Volunteer Staff.–Colonel Riddick, assistant adjutant-general, North Carolina, was of great assistance in conveying orders, assisting in the distribution of troops, and infusing proper spirit among them. Cols. B. F. Terry and T. Lubbock were very active and energetic. When unoccupied, they repeatedly volunteered their services to make reconnaissances. They were very gallantly seconded by Capts. T. Goree and Chichester, who were also very useful in conveying orders. Capts. T. Walton and C. M. Thompson were very active and prompt in the discharge of their duties. Captain Sorrel joined me as a volunteer aide in the midst of the fight. He came into the battle as gaily as a beau, and seemed to receive orders which threw him into more exposed positions with peculiar delight.

I remain, sir, very respectfully, your most obedient servant,

JAMES LONGSTREET,

Brigadier-General

(*) Not Found, but see pp. 570, 571

Interview: Vignola, “Contrasts in Command”

Author Victor Vignola at the Adams House on the Fair Oaks battlefield.

Victor Vignola’s Contrasts in Command: The Battle of Fair Oaks, May 31-June 1, 1862 is a 2023 release from Savas Beatie. Vic has kindly taken some time to answer a few questions about this new book (254 pp).

—————

BR: Can you tell us a little bit about yourself?

VV: I am a lifelong student of American History. Over time, the study of the Civil War has grown into my passion, which my wife and sons appreciate since it means my time is occupied. I worked for the New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH) for forty-six years. Much of the time spent in labor relations as a representative of OMH senior management often representing OMH in hearings and at inter-agency levels. In addition, I was recognized for a project conducted with the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for my expertise in the development of OMH policy and training initiatives geared toward reducing the occurrence of client on staff workplace violence.

As you can see, my professional career had little to do with my recent endeavors. My introduction to conducting research and writing first occurred in the early 2000’s when I wrote of a Union soldier from Orange County, New York. The story of Hiram Willis appeared in the Orange County Historical Society Magazine in 2010. Contrasts in Command is my first book. In October 2022, North & South magazine published a short article summarizing the Battle of Fair Oaks based upon my work. This January, the America’s Civil War magazine will publish an article titled Very Convenient Truth which describes how James Longstreet and Joseph Johnston conspired to scapegoat Benjamin Huger for their failures during the Battle of Seven Pines.

Since the journey of writing Contrasts in Command began, the most significant achievement has been the American Battlefield Trust’s acquisition of the nearly twelve acres of property at the Adams House location on the Fair Oaks battlefield. The acquisition of this property is significant as it is the only parcel of preserved ground on the entire Seven Pines (Fair Oaks) battlefield. The stars aligned to bring the property owner, my research, and the resources of the Trust together to make the preservation possible.

BR: What got you interested in the Civil War?

VV: There’s no singular event or book that piqued my interest. I developed an early interest in reading stories about the Revolutionary and Civil Wars while growing up on and near farms in New York. Even then, my focus centered around my attempt at trying to understand how the fighting unfolded. This included my study of available maps while envisioning how the battle scenes might have developed. Eventually, I discovered the Time/Life Pictorial books and Bruce Catton’s books, which fed my zeal to understand even more. Of course, after I made my first trip to Gettysburg I was hooked for life. Now I am happiest when I am on a field, any field, with books and maps on hand.

BR: Why did you decide to focus on The Battle of Fair Oaks?

VV: The short answer: the Battle of Fair Oaks made the decision for me.

The writing of this book was quite accidental as I had no intention of writing anything until I began digging into the story of the struggle for the Adams House. Over the years, Charlie Fennel – a good friend and an emeritus Gettysburg LBG – and I have conducted tours at various Civil War locations. Our 2019 tour focused on delivering an in-depth field study of the Seven Days battles. As prep for describing events which led to the Seven Days, what battle would be a better place to start than … Seven Pines?

During one of our scouting trips, I asked Bobby Krick about the Adams House and if the house still existed. Bobby informed me of the location and from his information I wrote a letter to the property owner asking permission to research her property and to bring our small tour group there. After gathering more information regarding the struggle at Fair Oaks and the Adams House, I was hooked.

The story is an amazing one that had previously never been told with any depth. Freeman, Dowdey, Sears, and Newton each wrote accounts which focused more on the Seven Pines sector of the fight and of James Longstreet’s alleged misunderstanding of his orders. All that had been written about Fair Oaks was Sumner’s brave soldiers crossing the flooded Chickahominy River and Johnston’s wounding which then led to Robert E. Lee’s appointment to command of the Army of Northern Virginia.

Johnston’s wounding at Fair Oaks pretty much summed up all I knew of Seven Pines (Fair Oaks) prior to beginning my research. To help connect the research threads I was blessed to have access to the files Bobby Krick maintains at Richmond National Battlefield Park. In addition, Jeff Stocker supplied me with several letters that he transcribed from newspapers. As the threads began connecting it became exciting as I realized the puzzle was coming together, which then fostered more enthusiasm to continue the digging.

The story behind the Battle of Fair Oaks and the struggle for the Adams House made the decision to write the story in book form an easy one.

BR: I think the easiest way to begin discussing your new book is to start with the title: “Contrasts in Command.“ Can you briefly discuss what the contrasts and commanders are at the Battle of Fair Oaks?

VV: Wow! Where to start! There are a few, but the biggest contrast is the aforementioned indecisive conduct of Joseph E. Johnston on May 31, 1862 when compared to the assertive decision making exhibited by Edwin Vose ‘Bull’ Sumner. True, Johnston’s plan was disrupted by the actions of James Longstreet; but Johnston failed to adapt to the situation. At no time on May 31 did Johnston assertively lead by personally taking charge. Simply put, Johnston failed to rise to the situation confronting him. Vigorous and assertive leadership by Johnston could have overcome the issues Longstreet created. Victory was in his grasp if he chose to seek it.

Instead, as EP Alexander, who served on Johnston’s staff during the battle, stated “his [Johnston’s] leadership was an utter failure.” Johnston’s comment to Maj. Samuel French, “I wish the troops had remained in their camps” was telling as it illustrated his docile acceptance of events. Instead of going to see where the problem existed and salvage his attack plan, Johnston remained complacent and had no intention of engaging on May 31 until stirred by a note from Longstreet urging him forward.

In contrast, Sumner was immediately motivated into action upon hearing the opening sounds of battle. Sumner saved an hour of precious time by decisively ordering his divisions to immediately assemble at their bridges. Upon receiving orders to cross the Chickahominy, Sumner crossed with his troops urging them to move quickly. He also ensured that a battery of artillery crossed the flooded river, even as it required the dragging of the guns through the mud so they would be present in battle. In contrast, Johnston brought no guns with him asserting the conditions of the roads were too poor to advance with artillery. The presence of Federal guns and the lack of Confederate guns proved decisive.

Upon his arrival at the Adams House, Sumner immediately took charge by barking out orders and positioning his defenses. He brilliantly recognized the terrain offered the opportunity for him to create an inverted salient which turned his front into a killing field. Sumner actively and visibly led from the front, which is in direct contrast to Johnston’s leadership. May 31, 1862 may have been Sumner’s best day as a commanding officer during the Civil War.

There are other contrasts as well. Longstreet’s lack luster leadership paled in comparison to the dynamic presence of D. H. Hill. A star was born through the leadership provided by Micah Jenkins. I also pitied the position encountered by William ‘Chase’ Whiting as the temporary commander of Gustavus Smith’s division. Can you imagine the difficulty he encountered while advancing into battle with Johnston riding alongside him and with Smith trailing closely behind? How much authority could he have possibly had in making command decisions?

On the Federal side Couch and John Abercrombie recognized an opportunity to escape the crisis facing them and assertively responded. Their decision to occupy the ‘slight eminence’ at the Adams House blocked the Confederate advance along the Nine Mile Road. Soon they were joined by the arrival of Sumner accompanying Willis Gorman’s Brigade. Couch, Abercrombie, and Gorman actively participated in ensuring the successful defense of the Adams House position.

I hope people now understand the significance of Fair Oaks. Johnston’s indecisive dithering when combined with Longstreet’s ineffective leadership tossed away a golden opportunity for a massive Confederate victory. It was the gritty and determined leadership exhibited by Sumner, Couch, Abercrombie, and Gorman that ended Johnston’s hopes for victory.

BR: Can you give us some context on the battle, how it fits in to the Peninsula Campaign, and why it’s important in the overall course of the war?

VV: Although indecisive, the biggest outcome of the battle of Seven Pines (Fair Oaks) lay with the division of McClellan’s army by the Chickahominy River. McClellan spent the balance of June forever promising Lincoln that victory was imminent; while also forever promising that his “arrangements for tomorrow … will leave me to strike the enemy.” Neither promise, just like his promise of “On to Richmond” ever came true.

The battle was the first major battle in the East since the July 1861 battle at Manassas (Bull Run). The growing pains evident through leadership, tactics, and poor staff work was in full view at Seven Pines. Immediately after the battle, Lee recognized the need for a reorganization of his artillery and command structures. The opposing armies each began the construction of formidable earthworks and entrenchments, the construction of which would improve steadily throughout the war.

When McClellan ceased his patient advance toward Richmond after Seven Pines, he effectively transferred the initiative to Lee, who promptly capitalized on the opportunity. Lee’s June 26 attack on Porter’s IV Corps at Beaverdam Creek opened a sequence of fighting known as the Seven Days Battles. Lee’s aggressive campaign exposed McClellan’s flaws as Lee exposed the flaws of others throughout the course of the war.

BR: What were the most surprising things you turned up during the process? Did anything conflict with or confirm your preconceived notions? What were the major stumbling blocks you had to overcome?

VV: Starting with the last part of your question first, the major stumbling blocks were the lack of earlier scholarship, Confederate accounts and accurate maps. Of the possible twenty two Confederate reports of the Fair Oaks fight, only two were submitted (Smith and Dorsey Pender). Whiting refused to write a report, informing Smith that such a report would not reflect well on Johnston, Whiting’s mentor.

With the exception of Smith’s maps, which provided a general macro view of the entire battle, the maps were all over the place. For whatever reason, the only events surrounding Fair Oaks that captured prior attention by writers was Sumner’s timely arrival and Johnston’s wounding.

The most surprising thing I turned up during my research revolved around how Johnston and Longstreet totally conspired to scapegoat Huger. Longstreet, with Johnston’s complicity, was able to establish the alleged ‘misunderstanding’ of his orders narrative while affixing blame for the failure at Seven Pines on Huger. The opportunity for Confederate victory on May 31 was massive. Only through Longstreet’s misconduct and Johnston’s leadership failure was it possible for the plan to fail. Neither man ever paid a price for their Seven Pines failure. For all the grief Longstreet bears for Gettysburg, he deserves much more for his conduct on May 31 & June 1, 1862. I defy anyone to defend it.

I kind of chuckle at the preconceived notions part of the question. I really didn’t have any because I didn’t know enough about the battle to develop notions of any kind. Remember, all I wanted to know was “where’s the Adams House?” The discovery of informational threads only improved my understanding of the fighting.

BR: Can you describe your research and writing process? What online and brick and mortar sources did you rely on most? Over the course of the years, how did technology, the easier availability of source materials like newspapers and digitized archives, change how you went about it?

VV: Not having the availability of reports and accounts meant I had to dig for the story. Again, I credit Bobby Krick for his assistance. Bobby not only helped me navigate my search but he also served as a sounding board. As I have alluded earlier, so much of what I gathered was threads from letters, newspapers and lost accounts. It took a bit of time and analysis to piece the threads together and when I did, Bobby patiently listened to my analysis, challenged it and made my analysis develop to a higher level.

There were two key discoveries that shaped my research. The first was discovering a number of Confederate accounts that mentioned crossing the muddy fields while approaching the Federal lines. But then I noticed accounts from Pettigrew’s Brigade mentioning swamp-like conditions that affected their ability to maintain their battle line. The crowning gem came from Capt. John Beall (Bell) of the 19th Georgia when he mentioned crossing “a lagoon” and how the “lagoon” forced his regiment to the right. It was then that I realized a nameless stream that appeared on all the period maps had flooded which forced a shifting of the Confederate attack to the right. That fact combined with how the 1st Minnesota formed its position by placing three companies to the front while swinging seven companies to its right in order “to provide enfilade fire down the line” that I realized the Federals couldn’t be flanked and the Confederates were in a narrow attack funnel of about 400 yards in width.

Factor in Sumner’s placement of a section of artillery on his right flank with the manner in which the rest of the artillery was deployed; and the protection of four regiments for the artillery, that I then realized Sumner had created an inverted salient. After the threads revealed the nameless stream and the inverted salient all the remaining accounts jelled. It was then just a matter of telling the story. The piecing together of the threads resulted in understanding how the attack developed and how the Confederates lost their opportunity for victory when they could/should have advanced down the Nine Mile Road at least 1-2 hours earlier than they did.

There is no doubt the accessibility of primary source materials on the internet greatly assisted my research. I found a good number of materials through the hathitrust.org and archives.org sites. I found Steven Newton’s PhD dissertation (William & Mary) on Johnston’s Defense of Richmond to be an enormous help in piecing together the challenges Johnston faced. In addition, I was blessed with discovering a good number of accounts written within the month of the fighting. The lack of previous scholarship actually assisted me since it made me focus on the quality of the threads I found.

BR: How has the book been received?

VV: I believe the book is selling well. I hope it is! I was again blessed to have received an outstanding review from Drew Wagonhoffer at the Civil War Books and Authors site. Drew also listed my book as a Top 10 book for 2023 – which pleases me and humbles me all at the same time. Call it beginner’s luck for not knowing what I don’t know but I am happy it all came together so well. Again, as happy as I am with the book, it’s a bigger achievement to have played a part in seeing the Adams property preserved by the Trust. Never again can it be said that there’s nothing to see at Seven Pines (Fair Oaks). I hope someday the Trust places a trail and wayside markers there. For sure, one can tell the story of the fight of Fair Oaks from the Adams House location.

BR: What’s next for you?

VV: I am currently researching the battle of Seven Pines, May 31, 1862. It was never my intention to follow-up with a Seven Pines book but I see there’s a need for a fresh look at the battle. I am hesitant to say this will be titled Contrasts in Command – the Battle of Seven Pines as I am still piecing the threads together. There’s a fair amount of Confederate reports and documents readily available to assist with the telling of that part of telling the story. There’s also the drama of a Federal scapegoat narrative that’s long endured as well – that being soldiers of Silas Casey’s division “fleeing by the 1,000’s!” Well, that’s what the newspapers of the day said anyway but it looks like the narrative is less than truthful. I am just starting to piece the threads I have found and I know I will find more as time goes on.

Interview: Styple, “General Philip Kearny: A Very God of War”

William B. Styple has worn many hats: researcher, author, speaker, publisher, and reenactor. Many of you may have encountered him in the Gettysburg NMP’s Visitor Center bookstore over the years, peddling his wares and tales. In 2022 he published his so-far life’s work, General Philip Kearny: A Very God of War. Bill recently took some time to discuss the new book.

——————–

BR: Can you tell us a little bit about yourself?

WBS: I have been a student of the Civil War since the 1960s, and actively writing since the 1980s. I co-wrote the video documentary series, Echoes of the Blue & Gray with the late Brian Pohanka; the documentary depicts Civil War veterans recorded on motion-picture film during the 1890s-1950s. I can honestly say that Brian Pohanka was my earliest influence, and he is greatly missed. Before Brian passed away in 2005, he was consulting on my book: Generals in Bronze, Interviewing the Commanders of the Civil War. That volume contained over 50 previously unknown interviews made by artist James E. Kelly (1855-1933) with Generals Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Hancock, Hooker, Webb, Warren, Sickles, to name a few. In their book review, Civil War Times Illustrated called Generals in Bronze “a blockbuster History of the Civil War.” And it certainly was: the Kelly interviews have forever changed the history the Civil War.

I also published three volumes of letters written by the common soldier, both Union and Confederate; all totaling about a thousand letters documenting the history of the war as told from the front lines—the collection is called Writing & Fighting the Civil War.

Another important discovery I made in 2012 was the unpublished writings of Colonel Thomas M. Key, who served as General George B. McClellan’s “Confidential Aide” and “Political Adviser.” General McClellan’s posthumously published memoir was called, McClellan’s Own Story; and so in turn I called my book McClellan’s Other Story, The Political Intrigue of Colonel Thomas M. Key. Here is a documented story from the Civil War that McClellan and his supporters do not want you to read. A never-before-told history that contains many astounding revelations—which sometimes tends to upset some of those so-called Civil War experts. Apparently, discovering the unpublished letters of Colonel Key did hurt some egos; but I do not apologize. (See his Amazon Author Page here.)

BR: What got you interested in the Civil War?

WBS: I was raised in the small town of Kearny, New Jersey, founded in 1867, and named after its most famous resident killed in the Civil War. My family home was not far from where Philip Kearny built his gothic-style mansion—known to us townsfolk as Kearny Castle. Also standing nearby was the New Jersey Home for Disabled Soldiers & Sailors, a care facility for those Union veterans who had borne the battle. From 1887-1932, some 20,000 Civil War veterans resided in my neighborhood, living out their final years at the Old Soldiers’ Home; those toddling, blue-clad, octogenarians were beloved members of our community, and it was a common sight for passersby to see the old veterans sitting under shade trees, telling a group of wide-eyed youngsters remembrances of Bull Run, Antietam, and Gettysburg, along with memories of President Lincoln and, of course, legendary stories of the fiery One-Armed Devil—Phil Kearny.

Those recollections told to the eager young listeners in my hometown were later passed down to me; so naturally, the Civil War and Phil Kearny became a life-long passion, and for over 50 years, I’ve collected anything relating to General Kearny: his personal military equipage, his correspondence, books from his library, artwork from his private collection, furniture from his domicile, and other trivial effects. I literally started writing the Kearny biography decades ago; it has been my full time occupation since the 1980s. The book contains one million words, and a thousand footnotes, 880 total pages.

BR: We’ve never seen a biography of Kearny of this depth (or length). In a nutshell, what does your book contribute to the literature that has not already been contributed?

WBS: The two prior biographies of Philip Kearny were written by family: Cousin John Watts De Peyster wrote the first in 1869; and Grandson Thomas Kearny, wrote another in 1937. Both of those biographies are unreadable—full of nonsense—and they do not tell the whole story of Phil Kearny. Another book was published in the 1960s, mainly for children, which contains lots of silly, invented, dialogue. Unfortunately, modern-day writers/historians source these three books, which only propagated the erroneous myth of Philip Kearny. In fact, most writers of books/articles continue to spell Kearny’s name incorrectly—so if you are reading a battle history and the author spells General Kearny’s name: KEARNEY, they really don’t know anything about Phil Kearny. And I can say with certainty: I have never read a Kearny-related article published in the various Civil War magazines since the 1960s, which are not full of errors.

My biography of Philip Kearny tells the whole story of his life, both personal and military, both positive and negative. John Watts De Peyster chose not tell of Kearny’s life scandals, and Thomas Kearny may have touched upon those scandals somewhat, but did not tell the whole story. My book contains the entire story—the whole truth—describing one of the greatest scandals of the 1850s (until Dan Sickles shot Philip Barton Key); Philip Kearny was divorced from his first wife in 1858 and the procedure records were ordered sealed for 100 years. I was the first to untie the red tape and learn the whole truth—spicy details which historians and even Kearny’s own descendants were entirely unaware of.

BR: Give us the skinny on Kearny. Can you sum him up in a paragraph or two that will make folks want to read more?

WBS: I’m afraid it’s impossible to sum up Phil Kearny in a single paragraph—just as it’s equally impossible to present a one-hour lecture on his life (he died at age 47). Phil Kearny was a born soldier, who fought in five wars—fighting in Africa, Mexico, the West, Italy, and the Civil War. In every battle, in each war, he rode straight into the enemy lines and fought his way out. It cost him an arm in Mexico, his life at Chantilly. He was the first American soldier to receive the Legion of Honor from France.

At the onset of the Civil War, Phil Kearny was the most combat-experienced soldier—he had seen more war on a grand scale than any general, north or south, with the possible exception of Winfield Scott—who called Kearny: “The bravest man I ever knew, and a perfect soldier.” And that’s coming from the top, folks. In fact, Lee, Grant, Longstreet, all the antebellum army officers, considered Kearny to be the most gallant and “perfect soldier.” During the Civil War, Kearny was a non-West Pointer, who came to the rescue of several West Pointers (Federals) on numerous battlefields. He literally saved the Army of the Potomac from disaster at Williamsburg, Seven Pines, and Glendale. Kearny’s role in the Second Battle of Bull Run has been misrepresented by a legion of jealous commanders, and in my book, I explain how and why.

The bullet that killed Kearny at Chantilly/Ox Hill, and the note his wife Agnes wrote upon the envelope in which it was sent to her (Courtesy W. B. Styple)

BR: Your book has been in the works a long time. Can you describe how long it took, what the stumbling blocks were, what you discovered along the way that surprised you or went against the grain, what firmed up what you already knew? When did you know you were “done?”

WBS: I started learning about Phil Kearny in 1967; his portrait hung in my elementary school classroom, alongside portraits of Washington and Lincoln; the more I learned about Kearny, the more I wanted to learn. But, it wasn’t till the late 1980s when I commenced serious research on Kearny’s life. I decided early on to make this biography totally unique. Of the thousands of Civil War biographies written since 1865, no one has done one like this. I had to know where Kearny was every week of his life, and every detail of the five wars he fought in. Some of his earlier life was difficult to piece together, but I believe I have accomplished what I set out to do. There were several important discoveries made along the way, as I have mentioned before, the Kelly interviews, Colonel Key’s letters, etc.

After writing the chapter covering the details of Kearny’s death at Chantilly, I still wasn’t finished; there are four more chapters covering the days, weeks, months, decades after Kearny’s demise.

BR: Can you describe your research and writing process? What online and brick and mortar sources did you rely on most? Over the course of these many years, how did technology, the easier availability of source materials like newspapers and digitized archives, change how you went about it?

WBS: I made countless trips to the National Archives to research Kearny and everyone connected to him militarily; also the New Jersey Historical Society, the Library of Congress, and libraries scattered throughout the United States, and France. Digitized newspapers were a great help over the past ten or so years, much easier than the old microfilm rolls which I used in the 1980s and 90s. General Kearny commanded about 20 regiments; and each regiment was raised in a hometown—scattered in Michigan, Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey; and I would comb through those hometown newspapers for soldier-letters describing Kearny in camp and battle; the result was I found hundreds of important battle descriptions written by Kearny’s soldiers, within hours/days of the fight; the best source material.

BR: How has the book been received?

WBS: Most folks are very pleased with my work and research, especially the newly-discovered letters/battle accounts. I’ve learned that if you can present something new to the students of the Civil War—something they haven’t read before, they are very gratified. My favorite comment was: “Thank you for not writing about Grant or Lee.”

BR: What’s next for you?

WBS: I am currently working on an updated/revised edition of Generals in Bronze for 2024, which will contain about 40 additional pages of previously unpublished accounts of the Battle of Gettysburg and other Civil War events; also, never-before-told stories of Grant, Lee, Lincoln, and others. To be sure, this will be another blockbuster-history of the Civil War. I guarantee it.

#82h – Colonel Kenton Harper

Report of Colonel Kenton Harper, Fifth Virginia

A WAR DOCUMENT ORIGINAL REPORT

———-

Exactly What the Fifth Virginia Regiment Did at First Manassas

———-

HARPER’S OFFICIAL STORY

———-

His Report Sent in to General Jackson the Day After the Battle

———-

I present below a very valuable and never before published paper. It is the report of Colonel Kenton Harper, of the Fifth Virginia Infantry, Jackson’s brigade, of the first battle of Manassas, In General Jackson’s report, which appears on the war records, he speaks of the reports of regimental commanders as enclosed. His regimental commanders were Second Virginia, Colonel Allen; Fourth, Colonel J. F. Preston; Fifth, Colonel Kenton Harper; Twenty-seventh, Lieutenant-Colonel John Echols; and Thirty-third, Colonel Arthur Cummings. However, the reports do not appear, and not one of them has ever been discovered. This report was sent me by Captain James Baumgardner, of Staunton, Va., who at the first battle of Manassas was adjutant of Colonel Harper’s regiment, and he obtained it from Mr. L. D. Hooper, a grandson of Colonel Harper, who very graciously allowed him to have it.

The report, it seems, was found amongst the papers of Colonel harper, who has been many years deceased. He was a captain in the Mexican war and a general in our State forces, and he, then an old man, led his regiment at Manassas in a manner that was distinction for himself and made its impression on the fortunes of the field.

The article of Captain Baumgardner in The Times-Dispatch on the Fifth Virginia Infantry at Manassas, attracted the attention of Mr. Hooper and brought about the production of this report. To Captain Baumgardner, as well as to Mr. Hooper, I am much indebted; and it is to be hoped that the efforts of the Times-Dispatch to rescue Virginia History from neglect, will be farther successful in similar ways.

John. W. Daniel

———-

Copy of Original Document

Headquarters Fifth Infantry
Camp Jackson, July 22, 1861

General[1],–In compliance with your order, I respectfully submit the following report of the part taken by my command, the Fifth Regiment of Virginia Infantry, which forms part of your brigade, in the action of yesterday, 21st instant.

About 4 A.M. I repaired as directed by you to the position occupied by General Longstreet, where I held my command for some considerable time, in anticipation of an advance of the enemy on that point, until it became manifest to you that the demonstration made was but a feint. Under your orders I then reunited with the rest of your brigade and moved to a position on the right of General Cocke’s and in rear of Colonel Bartoe’s command, where I remained about one hour. My regiment was again reunited to the brigade and advanced to a position in rare of General Bee’s brigade. Here I was ordered to advance to support of a battery then being brought into a position on my left. My instructions were to hold on to the position until the enemy approached over the crest of the hill, which would bring them within about fifty yards, when I was to fire upon them and charge. This order I executed in part, though subjected to an annoying fire of artillery and musketry, sheltering my men as best I could in my position of inactivity. Very soon, however, our forces in front began to give way and retreated in numbers by my flanks and through my files. Finding it impossible under such circumstances to execute your order, I concluded to advance my regiment to the brow of the hill, to ascertain what I could there effect for the support of our friends. Seeing the enemy were not within five or six hundred yards of the line, and that many of our troops were still in the front, I determined to fall back upon my original position, to avoid the danger of firing upon our friends, which I did,

There I halted the command in good order, but soon the increasing number of our retiring friends, who paid little regard to my lines, induced me to make a second advance. On reaching the top of the hill, however, I found the enemy advancing from different points, and after a brief contest, I again retired to my first position, and subsequently fell back through the skirt of woods in my rear.

Here I found General Bee actively engaged in an effort to rally his scattered forces, in which he partially succeeded. I at once approached him and offered my co-operation. Very soon, however, General Beauregard appeared on the field, under whose orders I subsequently acted. We advanced at once upon the enemy, keeping up a brisk and effective fire, which caused them to give way.

After regaining the summit of the hill I ordered a charge to be made upon a battery of six pieces, commanded by Captain Ricketts, but such was the eagerness of the men in keeping up their fire upon the retiring foe, I could rally only a portion of the command to the work. At this juncture a considerable number of our troops of different commands had rallied on my left and formed perpendicularly to my line – who were seemingly inactive. I dispatched my adjutant to inform them of my purpose and invite their co-operation which was promptly given. My own men on the right being nearer to the battery reached it first, driving the enemy by their fire in advancing upon the pieces. T wo of my men were wounded at the guns.

I immediately called upon my command to know whether any of them could manage them and receiving no response, I advanced my regiment to a hill on the right where Colonel Robert Preston’s regiment was stationed.

There being no enemy, however, in that direction against whom we could operate, orders were received from General Beauregard to move towards Centreville by way of the stone bridge. While passing by the battery, I found it operating against the retiring enemy in the distance. This, I am informed, was done by order of Colonel James F. Preston, of our brigade., who it appears had been cooperating with me with a portion of his command.

After passing beyond the stone bridge the troops were halted and held together until near sunset when my command was marched back to Manassas Junction.

I have only to add the expression of my warm acknowledgments to Lieutenant-Colonels Harman and Baylor for their earnest and hearty co-operation throughout the protracted conflict, as well as to the adjutant and officers and men generally of the command. The loss of the regiment was six killed, forty-seven wounded and thirteen missing.

With high respect,
Your obedient servant,
KENTON HARPER,
Colonel Fifth Infantry

GEN’L T. J. Jackson
Comg. First Va. Brigade

Official

General: Colonel Harper, of the Fifth Virginia Regiment. respectfully requests that the wounded of his regiment, residing in Staunton, be sent thither, at once, for treatment and attention of their relatives.

Respectfully Your obedient servant,
KENTON HARPER,
Colonel Fifth Va. Infantry

July 22, 1861.

For General Beauregard.

Approved;

G. T. BEAUREGARD.
General.

Richmond Times Dispatch, May 7, 1905

Clipping Image

Contributed and transcribed by John Hennessy

Letter image

[1] Brig. Gen. Thomas J. Jackson

Kenton Harper at Ancestry

Kenton Harper at Fold3

Kenton Harper at FindAGrave

Kenton Harper at Wikipedia