Shiloh

The Battle That Changed the Civil War

Larry J. Daniel

• Editorial: Simon & Schuster
• Año: 2008
• ISBN:
  9781439128619
• Categoría: History
• Categoría: American Civil War History

The battle of Shiloh, fought in April 1862 in the wilderness of south central Tennessee, marked a savage turning point in the Civil War. In this masterful book, Larry Daniel re-creates the drama and the horror of the battle and discusses in authoritative detail the political and military policies that led to Shiloh, the personalities of those who formulated and executed the battle plans, the fateful misjudgments made on both sides, and the heroism of the small-unit leaders and ordinary soldiers who manned the battlefield.

Notes

Abbreviations

ADAH Alabama Department of Archives and History

CHS Chicago Historical Society

DU Duke University

EU Emory University

FC Filson Club

GPL Greenville Public Library

HL Huntington Library

ILSL Illinois State Library

INHS Indiana Historical Society

IOSHD Iowa State Historical Department

LC Library of Congress

LHA Louisiana Historical Association

LSU Louisiana State University

LU Lambuth University (Memphis Conference Archives)

MDAH Mississippi Department of Archives and History

MHC Michigan Historical Collection

MHS Missouri Historical Society

NA National Archives

NEMMA Northeast Mississippi Museum Association

NPS National Park Service

OHS Ohio Historical Society

ONR Official Naval Records

OR Official Army Records

PL Pogue Library Special Collections

SHC Southern Historical Collection

SHSIO State Historical Society of Iowa

SNMP Shiloh National Military Park

TSLA Tennessee State Library and Archives

TU Tulane University

UAF University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

UM University of Mississippi

UMEM University of Memphis

US University of the South

USMHI United States Military History Institute

WRHS Western Reserve Historical Society

YU Yale University

One: The Capitals

¹See “Hermes” column of January 1, 1862, in Charleston Mercury, January 4, 1862; James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, pp. 385-86; Howard Jones, Union in Peril, pp. 45, 90.

²Charleston Mercury, January 6, 1862; Hudson Strode, Jefferson Davis, vol. 2, p. 189; William C. Davis, Jefferson Davis, pp. 263-64, 360, 391-92; Archer Jones, Civil War Command and Strategy, pp. 13-15.

³Belle Becker Sideman and Lillian Friedman, eds., Europe Looks at the Civil War, pp. 100-106; Thomas Bragg Diary, January 1, 1862, SHC; Earl Schenck Miers, ed., A Rebel War Clerk’s Diary, p. 63.

⁴William C. Davis, The Deep Waters of the Proud, p. 150; McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 386.

⁵OR, vol. VI, p. 829; Archer Jones, Confederate Strategy from Shiloh to Vicksburg, pp. 16-17, 19-21, 25; Dunbar Rowland, ed., Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist, vol. 5, p. 216; Jones, Civil War Command and Strategy, p. 143.

⁶Nathaniel C. Hughes, Jr., ed., Liddell’s Record, p. 41.

⁷Charles Roland, Albert Sidney Johnston, pp. 12, 170, 259-60; Steven E. Woodworth, Jefferson Davis and His Generals, pp. 46-51.

⁸These flaws included his “overly gentle nature,” his inability to “grasp more than one area of thought at a time,” and the fact that he was “easily swayed by subordinates” (Richard McMurry, Two Great Rebel Armies, pp. 120-21). Thomas Connelly, James Lee McDonough, and Benjamin Cooling concluded that Johnston’s past did not merit his public acclaim. Charles Roland and Steven Woodworth assert that Johnston had peer respect, a good military record, and many honors. (Connelly, Army of the Heartland, pp. 60-62; McDonough, Shiloh, p. 29; Cooling, Forts Henry and Donelson, p. 29; McMurry, Two Great Rebel Armies, p. 178; Woodworth, Davis, pp. 46, 48-49.)

⁹Joseph E. Johnston, for example, had commanded only four companies in combat prior to the war (Craig L. Symonds, Joseph E. Johnston, p. 101).

¹⁰Woodworth, Davis, pp. 49-50.

¹¹Linda L. Crist, ed., The Papers of Jefferson Davis, vol. 7, p. 351; OR, vol. VII, pp. 351, 452-53, 784, 796; W. C. Davis, Jefferson Davis, p. 396.

¹²McMurry, Two Great Rebel Armies, pp. 147-48; OR, vol. VII, pp. 792, 796.

¹³Roland, Johnston, pp. 283-84; OR, vol. VII, pp. 792-94, 809. Johnston’s estimate of Buell’s strength was accurate. On January 23, 1862, Buell reported 72,502 troops and 148 artillery pieces (OR, vol. VII, p. 563; Richmond Examiner, January 31,1862).

¹⁴Miers, ed., Rebel War Clerk’s Diary, p. 65; James D. Richardson, ed., The Messages and Papers of Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy, vol. 2, p. 210; Bragg Diary, January 6, 1862, SHC. Connelly and John Deberry deduced that Johnston “badly informed the Richmond authorities” as regards his strength (Connelly, Army of the Heartland, p. 93; Deberry, “Confederate Tennessee,” Ph.D. dissertation, p. 150).

¹⁵Hughes, ed., Liddell’s Record, pp. 41-43.

¹⁶Woodworth, Davis, p. 70; OR, vol. IV, pp. 371, 819; vol. VI, p. 819. Roland concluded: “But Johnston’s efforts [at concentration] had been futile because Confederate authorities were unwilling at the time to strip other departments to strengthen Johnston’s line. Had his earlier calls been heeded, the present crisis [Fort Donelson] might not have been upon the South.” (Roland, Johnston, p. 302.)

¹⁷Hughes, ed., Liddell’s Record, pp. 45-46.

¹⁸Bragg Diary, January 23, 1862, SHC; OR, vol. VII, pp. 844-45. The name “Somerset” is used because that is how Confederate officials and the Southern press referred to the battle, but the most commonly used name today is “Mill Springs.” The town of Somerset was actually eight miles from the battlefield.

¹⁹Bragg Diary, January 23, 1862, SHC; OR, vol. VII, p. 102. Crittenden’s division withdrew to Monticello, Kentucky, and thence to Gainesville, Tennessee.

²⁰Richmond Examiner, January 24, 1862; Roland, Johnston, p. 282; R. Gerald Mc-Murty, “Zollicoffer and the Battle of Mill Springs,” p. 313. Confederate troops remaining in eastern Tennessee included about 1,500 men at Cumberland Gap and perhaps nine and a half regiments scattered throughout the region (OR, vol. VII, pp. 749-50, 786, 800; vol. LII, pt. 2, p. 262).

²¹OR, vol. VII, pp. 844-45. Two Tennessee regiments experienced a high number of desertions on the retreat, and one cavalry battalion virtually melted away (Connelly, Army of the Heartland, p. 99).

²²Charleston Mercury, January 28, 1862 (article written January 25); Bragg Diary, January 31, 1862, SHC.

²³Bragg Diary, January 24, 1862, SHC; Charleston Mercury, January 30, 1862 (article written January 27); February 1, 1862 (article written January 29); Nashville Gazette, January 26, 1862; Southern Confederacy, January 29, 1862; Mobile Advertiser & Register, February 2, 1862; OR, vol. VII, p. 850.

²⁴OR, vol. VII, p. 108. The thesis of numbers versus leadership in the west was proposed by Albert Castel, “The Historian and the General,” pp. 54-55. See also Connelly, Army of the Heartland, pp. 117, 120-21; William E. Jamborsky, “Confederate Leadership and Defeat in the West,” p. 53; Woodworth, Davis, pp. 61, 63, 69-70; McMurty, “Zollicoffer,” pp. 303, 307; Parks, “Zollicoffer,” pp. 346-55. Crittenden claimed that he could not recross his troops to the south bank of the Cumberland River prior to the battle because of swollen rivers and inadequate transportation. Following his defeat, however, the division broke all speed records in recrossing in a single night.

²⁵Charleston Mercury quoted in Southern Confederacy, January 29, 1862; OR, vol. VII, p. 849. See also Augusta Constitutionalist, January 26, 1862.

²⁶McMurry, Two Great Rebel Armies, pp. 121-22-, Mobile Advertiser & Register, February 8, 1862; Woodworth, Davis, pp. 74-76; J. Cutler Andrews, The South Reports the Civil War, p. 102.

²⁷Woodworth, Davis, p. 77; Bragg Diary, January 31, 1862, SHC; Larry J. Daniel, “‘The Assaults of the Demagogues in Congress,’” p. 333n; Miers, e...