West Pointers at Army Headquarters

McClellan and members of his staff

There are a couple of reasons why I have not been posting lately.  One is that I accepted the position of Chief Guide at Antietam National Battlefield back in October.  That has taken up a great deal of my time and though rewarding, has taken me away from my Maryland Campaign studies.

The other reason is that I have become increasingly fascinated with something that I first posted about here back in December.

That is I have undertaken a study of all the West Point graduates who served at the Battle of Antietam.  Studying Cullem's Register and with some help from the library staff at West Point, I have amassed what I think is a pretty complete list of all the graduates.  They range from Joseph Mansfield in the Class of 1822 to the fifteen second lieutenants of the Class of 1862 who served with the Army of the Potomac.  One of these young officers was Mansfield's son Samuel who was on his way to western Maryland to serve with his father.

In between the Mansfields, father and son are about 194 officers.  I say 'about' because there are several who I suspect served in the Maryland Campaign but I don't have absolute confirmation of their presence.  Circumstantial evidence indicates yes but I am still working on them.  And then there is John Pelham and Tom Rosser.  Members of the June 1861 class, they stayed at the Academy long after their states (Alabama and Texas) seceded hoping to receive their diploma.  However with the firing of Fort Sumter, they had no choice to resign doing so just a few short weeks from their graduation.  Pelham later said that not receiving his diploma was the greatest regret of his life. 

Of these 194, only 30 served with Lee in the Army of Northern Virginia.  The remainder, 164 are with McClellan but this number also includes Dixon Miles and Jesse Reno who were killed before the battle, and John Reynolds, unhappily serving back in Pennsylvania.  The Union to Confederate ratio of 5.4:1  really surprised me.  I thought there were many more Confederates than that.  On closer examination however, the ratio is much closer if you just include general officers.  There are a total of 63 generals with 42 Federals and 21 Confederates.  This is exactly a 2:1 ratio which seems closer to what we feel seems right. 

The numbers are very startling when you just look at the Army headquarters which we will do here.  The Army of the Potomac headquarters with 36 West Pointers including McClellan had more West Point officers total than Lee had in his entire Army.  Lee had only four officers who graduated from the Military Academy who can be said to have worked on his staff.  The numbers are below starting with Lee:

Position	Name	Rank	Year of Graduation	Class Rank
Commander	Robert E. Lee	General, CSA	1829	2 of 46
Chief of Staff	Robert H. Chilton	Colonel, C.S.A.	1837	48 of 50
Military Secretary	Armistead Long	Colonel, C.S.A.	1850	17 of 44
Ordnance Officer	Edward P. Alexander	Lieutenant Colonel, C.S.A	1857	3 of 38
Chief of Artillery	William Pendleton	Brigadier General C.S.A.	1830	5 0f 42

And here is McClellan's staff

Position	Name	Rank	Year of Graduation	Class Rank
Commander	George B. McClellan	Major General U.S. Army	1846	2 of 59
Chief of Staff	Randolph Marcy	Brigadier General U.S.V.	1832	28 of 44
Aide-de-Camp	Bowman N. Sweitzer	Lieutenant Colonel-Staff	1853	24 of 52
Aide-de-Camp	Edward M. Hudson	Lieutenant Colonel-Staff	1849	22 of 43
Aide-de-Camp	George A. Custer	Captain-Staff	June 1861	34 of 34
Aide-de-Camp	James P. Martin	First Lieutenant 7th Infantry	1860	23 of 41
Escort	James B. McIntyre	Captain, 4th Cavalry	1853	49 of 52
Chief of Cavalry
Chief of Cavalry	John Buford	Brigadier General U.S.V.	1848	16 of 38
Chief of Artillery
Chief of Artillery	Henry J. Hunt	Brigadier General U.S.V.	1839	19 of 31
Ammunition Reserve Train	William D. Fuller	First Lieutenant 3rd Artillery	June 1861	25 of 34
Regular Engineer Battalion
Chief Engineer	James C. Duane	Captain, Engineers	1848	3 of 38
Engineer Battalion	Cyrus B. Comstock	First Lieutenant Engineers	1855	1 of 34
Engineer Officer	Miles D. McAlester	First Lieutenant Engineers	1856	3 of 49
Engineer Battalion	Charles Cross	First Lieutenant Engineers	May 1861	2 of 45
Engineer Company	George L. Gillespie	Second Lieutenant Engineers	1862	2 of 28
Topographical Engineers
Senior Topographical Engineer	Nicolas Bowen	First Lieutenant, Topographical Engineers	1860	4 of 41
Assistant Topographical Engineer	John M. Wilson	First Lieutenant, Topographical Engineers	1860	12 of 41
Assistant Topographical Engineer	Alonzo H. Cushing	First Lieutenant, 4th Artillery	June 1861	12 of 34
Adjutant General
Adjutant General	Seth Williams	Brigadier General U.S.V.	1842	23 of 56
Assistant Adjutant General	George Ruggles	Colonel-Staff	1855	19 of 34
Assistant Adjutant General	Albert V. Coburn	Lieutenant Colonel-Staff	1855	17 of 34
Assistant Adjutant General	James A. Hardie	Lieutenant Colonel-Staff	1843	11 of 39
Inspector General
Inspector General	Delos B. Sackett	Colonel-Staff	1845	32 of 41
Assistant Inspector General	Nelson Davis	Major-Staff	1846	49 of 59
Provost Guard
Assistant Provost Marshal	William D. Wood	Major, 17th Infantry	1845	37 of 41
Aide de Camp	James J. Van Horn	Captain, 8th Infantry	1858	14 of 27
Provost Guard	George A. Gordon	Captain, 2nd Cavalry	1854	30 of 46
Provost Guard	Royal T. Frank	Captain 8th Infantry	1858	18 of 27

Commissariat
Chief of Commissariat	Henry F. Clarke	Colonel-Staff	1843	12 of 39
Assistant Commissary of Subsistence	Porter A. Parker	Lieutenant Colonel-Staff	1856	9 of 49
Commissary of Subsistence	Thomas Wilson	Captain-Staff	1853	29 of 52
Quartermaster
Chief Quartermaster	Rufus Ingalls	Lieutenant Colonel-Staff	1843	32 of 39
Assistant Quartermaster	Charles G. Sawtelle	Captain-Staff	1854	38 of 46
Quartermaster Guard	Marcus Reno	Captain, 1st Cavalry	1857	20 of 38
Ordnance
Assistant Ordnance Officer	William H. Harris	First Lieutenant, Ordnance	June 1861	8 of 34
Assistant Ordnance Officer	Francis H. Parker	Second Lieutenant, Ordnance	June 1861	20 of 34

Here is the breakout of McClellan's staff by West Point year-group.

Class	Names
1832 (1)	Marcy, R.
1839 (1)	Hunt, H.
1842 (1)	Williams, S.
1843 (3)	Hardie, J. Clarke, H. Ingalls, R.
1845 (2)	Sacket, D. Wood, W.
1846 (2)	McClellan, G. Davis, N.
1848 (2)	Duane, J. Buford, J.
1849 (1)	Hudson, E.
1853 (3)	Sweitzer, N. Wilson, T. McIntyre, J.
1854 (2)	Gordon, G. Sawtelle, C.
1855 (3)	Comstock, C. Colburn, A. Ruggles, G.
1856 (2)	McAlester, M. Porter, A.P.
1857 (1)	Reno, M.
1858 (2)	Van Horn, J.  Frank, R.
1860 (3)	Bowen, N. Wilson, J. Martin, J.
May 1861 (1)	Cross, C.
June 1861 (5)	Harris, W. Cushing, A. Parker, F. Fuller, W. Custer, G.
1862 (1)	Gillespie, G.

What conclusions can we draw from this?

A Scholarship Award in Honor of Dr. Joseph L. Harsh

The following first appeared at a Facebook page for the Civil War History Journal. 

                  The Board of Directors of Save Historic Antietam Foundation Inc. voted at their November meeting to establish a stipend for scholars willing to research selected aspects of the Maryland Campaign of 1862, especially the battle of Antietam or Sharpsburg. The award is named in honor of Dr. Joseph L. Harsh, longtime professor at George Mason University, and author of the prize-winning trilogy on the Maryland Campaign.  Through the generosity of the family and friends of Dr. Joseph L. Harsh, SHAF is able to provide an annual stipend of up to $2,500 for those who apply to undertake project beneficial to understanding various aspects of the campaign and battle.  The stipend will be offered annually and will be awarded based on a decision by a committee composed of representatives of the SHAF Board of Directors, the Harsh family and Antietam National Battlefield.  It is our hope that this funding will allow research on unresolved issues concerning the campaign.  If a scholar does not have a topic in mind suggestions can be provided by SHAF.

Applicants need not be enrolled in any school, but must provide evidence of their ability to perform the research required for completion of the project. Because this award honors a great scholar it is imperative that the completed project reflect the highest standards of scholarship and research.  Topics must be approved by the stipend committee, and the successful applicant will present his/her finished project at a ceremony in conjunction with the annual anniversary commemoration at Antietam National Battlefield and also produce a written summation in a format suitable for publication.  Applications can be made to SHAF no later than February 15, and the award will be announced by March 1.  Research must be completed by September 1.  The guidelines and more details are available at the SHAF website, www.shaf.org

We are delighted to make this stipend available to all students of the Maryland Campaign, and eagerly await the results of this project.

Application Procedures & Timeline

1. Applicants must submit a brief statement of a project, a research methodology and relevance of the topic to furthering understanding of the Maryland Campaign of 1862.  They will also provide a brief resume’ emphasizing their historical and research credentials. 
2. In the event that the applicant does not have a topic in mind the SHAF Board of Directors will generate a list of possible topics and make it available for potential applicants. 
3. Applications should be submitted by mail to SHAF, P.O. Box 550 Sharpsburg, MD 21782 or emailed through our website, SHAF.org.  All applications must be received by February 15, of each year. 
4. The stipend committee, made up of three members of the SHAF Board, a representative from the Harsh family, and from the Antietam National Battlefield will choose an awardee annually to receive the stipend, and the committee will also oversee the project.  The criteria used to choose an awardee shall be determined by the stipend committee. 
5. Unsuccessful applicants may re-apply as often as they like. 
6. Members of the SHAF Board of Directors are prohibited from applying. 

The Dawn

I had occasion this week to refer back to Mr. Lincoln’s Army, volume one of Bruce Catton’s landmark work on the Army of the Potomac.  I recently talked to one of my colleagues about the writing style of modern Civil War authors.  Much of it is certainly historically accurate but has an element of dryness and structure that makes it difficult to enjoy.  My friend is actually going back to read Shakespeare to improve his own prose style.  Maybe I should do that as well.  It is no wonder that some of the best Civil War history is written by journalists like Bruce Catton and Douglas Southall Freeman.  It was Catton’s work that ignited my interest as a youngster some 45 years ago and I am still drawn to it.  Without ever having to been to Antietam as a twelve year old, I could visualize it thanks to passages like these I offer below.  This post today, is nothing more than an opportunity to go back and enjoy some of the beautiful writing that I dare say many of you read and which drew you into your own study of the Civil War.  All of these passages beautifully evoke the early morning dawn of September 17, 1862 on the fields north of Sharpsburg but the second one is my favorite.

"There was a tension in the atmosphere for the whole army that night.  Survivors wrote long afterward that there seemed to be something mysteriously ominous in the very air-stealthy, muffled tramp of marching men who could not be seen but were sensed dimly as moving shadows in the dark; outbursts of rifle fire up and down the invisible picket lines, with flames lighting the sky now and then when gunners in the advanced batteries opened fire; taut and nervous anxiety of those alert sentinels communicating itself through all the bivouacs, where men tried to sleep away the knowledge that the morrow would bring the biggest battle the army had ever had; a ceaseless, restless sense of movement as if the army stirred blindly in its sleep, with the clop-clop of belated couriers riding down the inky dark lanes heard at intervals, sounding very lonely and far off."

"And while they slept the lazy, rainy breeze drifted through the East Woods and the West Wood and the cornfield, and riffed over the copings of the stone bridge to the south, touching them for the last time before dead men made them famous.  The flags were furled and the bugles stilled, and the hot metal of the guns on the ridges had cooled, and the army was asleep-tenting tonight on the old camp ground, with never a song to cheer because the voices that might sing it were all stilled on this most crowded and most lonely of fields.  And whatever it may be that nerves men to die for a flag or a phrase or a man or an inexpressible dream was drowsing with them, ready to wake with the dawn."

"The morning came in like the beginning of the Last Day, gray and dark and tensely expectant.  Mist lay on the ground, heavy as fog in the hollow places, and the groves and valleys were drenched in immense shadows.  For a brief time there was an ominous hush on the rolling fields, where the rival pickets crouched behind bushes and fence corners, peering watchfully forward under damp hat brims."

Virtual Antietam 2.0

I just came across a great upgrade of Stephen Reckers Virtual Antietam website that now includes a blog.  Stephen is a fellow battlefield guide at Antietam who helped me get my start as a guide four years ago.  He has many great projects that are ongoing including his long awaited book Rare Images of Antietam, Vol. 1  that he says will be coming out in July of next year.  Check out Stephens important work here.

Statistical Graphing - West Pointers at Antietam

Several years ago, I attended a terrific one-day course by Edward Tufte, professor at Yale University and author of Envisioning Information, Visual Explanations, and The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Tufte used Charles Joseph Minard’s chart plotting Napoleon’s March to Moscow during the War of 1812 as an example of perhaps “the best statistical graphic ever drawn.”  I was so taken by this depiction that I have since purchased and framed this chart.  It now hangs in my office at home as a constant challenge to be innovative in portraying information.  If you ever have an opportunity to attend a Tufte seminar, run don’t walk. 

Minard's Chart of the War of 1812

I have lately become interested in exploring the relationships of the West Pointers that served at Antietam on both sides of the battle.  A terrific website by Bill Thayer at the University of Chicago introduced me to Cullem’s Register.  The Register is a compendium of the service records of thousands of West Point graduates over the years.  I further contacted the West Point library and obtained a link to the pdf files of the register. 

What I have been doing (to the neglect of other projects sadly) is sifting through this mass of data to extract a list of every West Point graduate who fought at Antietam or served in some capacity in the Maryland Campaign.  There some 193 men on the list ranging from Joseph K. F. Mansfield, number 2 in the class of 1822 to Charles N. Warner, number 28 (and Immortal) in the Class of 1862.  I created a table that summarizes their military careers, regimental assignments, stints at West Point as faculty members, war service (in Mexico, Florida, Utah, Spanish American War and yes even World War One), home states, and other things.  For the more obscure men, I have reviewed OR 19 and 51 to see if they are mentioned, and amazingly many of them are.  I have drawn out some interesting correlations about their careers that I look forward to sharing.  This effort has taught me a lot about the Regular Army in the antebellum period before the Civil War and much about post war assignments as well.  With Minard’s chart on the War of 1812 (the European War of 1812 that is) in mind, I attempted to depict some of this information on a chart of my own.  It is essentially a diagonal time line from the Class of 1822 (top left) which was Mansfield's class to the Class of 1862 (bottom right) that sent 14 newly minted second lieutenants to the battle including young Charles Warner.  Generally the colors above the line reflect United States or Confederate States affiliation during the war.  The green lines are periods when the specific officer taught at West Point.  The white spots which drift from the top of the chart halfway across the top are Mexican War officers who received brevets for gallantry.  The colors below the time line diagonal are the regimental affiliations of the officers.  Light red is artillery, light blue is infantry and gold is cavalry.  Engineers, topographical engineers and ordnance officers are also shown. 

The initial objective was to group cadets by year group showing not just who they graduated with, but who were other students in upper and lower classes when they were at the academy.  I call this relationship spans of connection.  For example, members of the class of 1846 (the big black box in the upper left quadrant) as fourth year cadets in the fall of 1842 would have known cadets who would graduate as the class of 1843.  Four years later  as first year cadets themselves, these men would have known the fourth year cadets who would go on to graduate in 1849.  After their own classmates, they were likely closest to classmates in the classes of 1845 and 1847 (the red boxes).  The colors are less dark as you move away from 1846 (orange, gold, yellow).   Cadets in the five year program of the late 1850s would have even larger spans of connection.  This effort alone was very illuminating.  There is much more that I will address down the road but here is a peak at the chart.  Stay tuned.

West Pointers at Antietam 1822 1862

The Impending Crisis

I am currently reading David Potter’s monumental work The Impending Crisis America Before the Civil War 1848-1861 (New York: Harper, 1976). 

In his chapter titled the Political Parties in Metamorphosis, I read this passage on political parties.  Potter is discussing the Whig and Democratic parties in the decades before the Civil War.  In view of repeated failures of our modern legislative branch to legislate, (the Super Committee being the latest example) I found Potter’s words on the characteristics of the American political parties very interesting.  I keep coming back to this paragraph on page 226. 

Relatively unencumbered by ideological mission, the two parties did not have enough intellectual focus to offer voters clear-cut alternatives.  Thus they failed in one of the classic functions theoretically ascribed to political parties. But if they defaulted in this way, they performed admirably another equally important if less orthodox function: the promoted consensus rather than divisiveness.  By encouraging men to seek a broad basis of popular support, they nourished cohesiveness within a community and avoided sharpening the cutting edge of disagreement to dangerous keenness.  Without ideological agreement as a basis for cohesiveness, the parties could still cultivate unity, based upon the practical need that diverse groups may have for one another’s support.

I rarely use this blog as a political forum.  However, I truly believe that we are at the other end of the pendulum these days.  There is to much intellectual focus.  The alternatives are clear-cut nowadays.  But what our leaders seem to posses in abundance in clarity of position, they forfeit in ability to promote consensus and fail to seek broad basis of popular support.  The American people clearly recognize the problems.  But our leaders seem incapable of working together to make decisions. Now this very divisiveness that is so well promoted in the 21^st century could very well mean our decline.  Nothing is getting done.  We cant stand further putting off of the key decisions that need to be made right now. Henry Clay, John Q. Adams, Daniel Webster, Stephen Douglas, and John Calhoun have been replaced by Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and Nancy Pelosi, prisoners of their own special interest keepers.  There are many times to hold firm to our ideological standards but surrendering any idea of compromise or bipartisanship all the time is unacceptable. 

Impending Crisis then or now?  But that’s just me.