Tennessee history, preservation and educational artifacts

THE CIVIL WAR IN TENNESSEE:

NEW INSIGHTS FROM NEW CONSIDERATION OF FAMILIAR MATERIALS. James B. Jones, Jr. Public Historian Tennessee Historical Commission About five years ago I asked a colleague how many military engagements took place in Tennessee during the Civil War. He immediately piped up with the established answer provided by E. B. Long, that there were 1,462 fights in the Volunteer State during the Civil War; second, he said in reverential tones, "only to Virginia." I thought my search had ended before it began, I took a look at Long's work only to find he does not indicate how he got his sum. Using Long's figure of 1,462 cases of belligerency in the state from 1861 to 1865, an interesting estimate can be made that raises questions about the actual amount of time spent in combat. . After taking into account the length of battles such as Fort Donelson, Shiloh, Stones River, Chattanooga, Knoxville and Nashville, (two weeks each) I assigned the arbitrary but rational value of three hours to all military conflicts in the state; the total number of hours spent in combat was 4,386 hours (or 183 days). The total number of hours that Tennessee was involved in the war amounts to 35,784 (or 1,491 days). Thus, the time spent in actual fighting was 12% of the total. Didn't anything else transpire during the other 88% (1,308 days) of the time? Even after trebling the value of all combat to an average of 9 hours, only 36% of the time was spent in actual fighting. I really had no figure to compare; yet the actual time spent in combat in Tennessee during the Civil War appears to be less than half. Thus, even Nathan Bedford Forrest had to stop and reload sometimes. These calculations spurred my interest and so I consulted Dyer's Compendium for numbers and documentation. At first I was delighted at this book of lists, but found that Dyer offered no sources, only the briefest of descriptions that accounted only for Federal units. A more detailed study led to the Guide Index of the NPS study entitled Military Operations of the Civil War. This promising publication indicated the kind of military action that occurred at the given time and place. This was encouraging, but it provided a minimum of narrative value, did not go much beyond the listing of military events, and did not place them in chronological order I hadn't found what I was looking for, a chronological, documented list of martial conflict in Tennessee that provided narration based on the OR. Either I was to drop the project or do the right thing -- take it upon myself to do the work of the historian, to seek out new information, to boldly go where many had gone before, to the OR. At first I intended to come up with a more nearly accurate list of combat actions during the Civil War in Tennessee. I found no comprehensive lists. There were lists giving types of combat and dates proceeding operational reports found in the OR, but these were not keyed to report citations. Pasting them together I saw a limited chronology begin to emerge. So, there was nothing else to do but count them. I reasoned the only place to find the information was in the OR 2-volume index. It was a matter of counting beans. I went page by page, entry by entry, seven times and finally concluded there was something over 1,700 separate instances of combat, most of them accompanied by at least one circumstantial report. This list was matched to Dyer's list, which proved to be manifestly lacking by comparison. My list was bigger, and so I concluded I had found the documentation with which I could construct the narrated list for which I was looking. This meant keying in what seemed an endless number of reports on skirmishes, actions, advances, affairs, bombardments, campaigns, engagements, reconaissances, scouts, descents, guerilla attacks and raids found in the operations sections of each of the pertinent volumes. This took a lot of time. The large battles were counted as one event, and I did not copy documents relating directly to them, but provided a brief narrative with citations for the curious. There are plenty of secondary sources dealing with big battles and famous generals. It became evident I couldn't type that many reports without risking a case of carpal tunnel syndrome. In two years I had done a lot of typing. Then at about the halfway mark the THC purchased a CD Rohm collection of the OR, the Guild Press's NOR. But it was a two edged blade because these tools allowed me to find other referrals to skirmishes, reconaissances, bushwhacking, conscript sweeps, naval combat and other smaller events that were separate and distinct events not mentioned in circumstantial combat reports and the index. These citations would have been next to impossible to enumerate without the aid of the CD Rohm technology . I found the Army and Navy records provided excellent and believable accounts, but I still wanted independent corroboration. What better sources than newspapers, diaries and correspondence? These familiar sources did not provide many beans for the counter's mill. They did address the gloomy psychological aspects of the war on the home front, displacement and the plight of refugees, confiscation of property, guerrilla warfare, smuggling, inflation, currency and commodities speculation, food shortages, urban life, a myriad of Special and General Orders not recorded in the OR, attempts to improve public health, public education, the complexity of occupation, the roles played by women, religious and family life, murders, politics, the theater, juvenile delinquency, prostitution, murder, the liberation and shaping of the African-American community, and the effect of the war upon children, to name but a few. There is more to the war in Tennessee than, as my nephew put it, "neat fightin' stuff." Presently the work is over 3,500 pages, weighing in at 56 pounds. Tabulations so far indicate 2,777 instances of combat in Civil War Tennessee. Until now Virginia was held to be where most Civil War combat took place. The Old Dominion's total, according to Long, was 2,154, 623 less than the newly tabulated total for Tennessee. So, if nothing else, one can conclude there was more fighting in the Volunteer State than in any other state. That being the case it is possible suggest that the war was won (or lost) in Tennessee, not Virginia. For those who may censure this finding with discriminating remarks about quality vs. quantity I say "quantity has a quality all its own." Virginia might regain its earlier ascendant place as the "Mother of all Civil War battles," when someone does as Casey Stengal admonished: "You can look it up." The nature of the fighting in Tennessee was not characterized by large battles. Instead combat was on the smaller level of the skirmish, at 1,122, or roughly 40% of the total. The other 60% of combat missions are divided between "affairs," battles, reconnaissances, raids, guerrilla action and what we might today call "search and destroy" missions, and expeditions of various types. The terminology for the various kinds of combat activity defied any settled definition. They knew what they meant when they meant it . Could a skirmish be identified by numbers of combatants? No, because a skirmish could involve as few as 7 with no losses, or as many as 7,000 men with losses amounting to 250. Could time be a clue? No, seldom were time spans listed in OR reports. A skirmish could precede a large battle, or be an isolated incident. An action could not be determined to be any different from an engagement and at times a scout meant reconnaissance, and vice versa. The Tennessee total of 2,777 incidences cannot represent a comprehensive number of combat operations in Tennessee during the Civil War. For example, my findings show 58 citations under the word "skirmishes." How many "skirmishes?" Three? Fifteen? Similarly, how is an "affair" different from an "engagement," or a "retreat" from a "withdrawal?" There was no designation "conscript sweep" in any of the OR circumstantial combat reports or indexes. Many references to conscripting activity are found in correspondence, newspaper reports and journals. I have found nothing to indicate how conscripting actually worked. One hint comes from Brigadier General Gideon J. Pillow in January 1863. As conscription officer for the Army of Tennessee he reported to General Bragg that he had ordered his field commanders: to rake Bedford County, in which there are 1,500 men liable to duty under the conscript law. I was anxious to clean out that county by one movement, and doing it at once to avoid giving alarm. A partial movement over one portion of the county will give the alarm, and cause the conscripts to scatter and hide out So, not only was there resistance to the Confederate draft, but being conscripted was more accurately a swift, jolting experience with cavalrymen dragooning farm boys against their will. Why else would Pillow fear they would scatter and hide out? Scattering and hiding out were contradictory to my notions of Confederate youth eager to follow the rebel battle flag. Likewise was the apparent opposition to enlisting in the Confederate army by some young men in the cities. Among the insights I found startling was the general calm and resignation displayed in newspapers concerning the February 1861 vote to stay in the Union. The secret nature of the business of the legislature was equally curious, especially after the awe-inspiring pro-Union vote in February. Why was it secret? What went on behind closed doors? Another insight revolved around the attempt of the state government to finance its war effort. It was pitiful, even comical. Men of means and position agitated more about the transfer of state debt to the Confederate government and having it reimburse bondholders for expenses rather than providing for soldiers. In late January 1862, it was obvious to the members of the Fayetteville Committee of Correspondence that volunteers from Lincoln County would get no winter clothing from the Confederate government. They wrote to Confederate Secretary of War , offering to clothe them with uniforms made from wool textiles manufactured in Fayetteville. Flush with promises of huge profits arms manufacturers promised state officials the moon but could not deliver, forcing the governor to impound all civilian-sporting pieces for military use. The formation of refugee juvenile gangs in the cities in 1864 came as a surprise. One gang called "the Forty Thieves" originated in Louisville and spread down the railroad to Nashville, Chattanooga, and even Atlanta. Another, the "Mackerel Brigade," formed in Memphis. Turf battles were fought with rival gangs that came from New Orleans. The magnitude of illegal cotton trading near Memphis, Chattanooga and in Middle Tennessee was intriguing. The editor of the Chattanooga Daily Rebel was infuriated, as was W. T. Sherman in Memphis. The War Department quietly sanctioned the practice. Inflated prices, currency and commodities' speculation were common. The anti-Semitism displayed by Grant and Sherman was previously unknown to me. I know some may find this an onerous conclusion, but Nathan Bedford Forrest was defeated a number of times in Tennessee. There was at least one case of mass murder of white USCT officers committed by Confederate soldiers under Forrest's command. The incidence and extent of guerrilla, or as some prefer, "partisan ranger," activity and the attempts to suppress it were widespread. Home guard units on both sides often took on characteristics of terrorist gangs, and were only in it for the money. Col. Fielding Hurst, for example, extorted over $100,000 from citizens of West Tennessee, while his brother in law squeezed $50,000 out of McNairy County alone. Both Confederate and Federal forces took political prisoners and hostages to extort loyalty. Hints were found regarding the vigilante-like behavior of "Committees of Public Safety" that formed in Memphis and Nashville before fighting took place. Such groups were apparently as much mechanisms for slave and class management as instruments to appropriate the wealth of those whose beliefs were not "pc" ["politically Confederate"]. Another unique chapter of the war in Tennessee cities dealt with the U. S. Army Medical Corps and prostitution. The practice was far and away a great threat to the army, and in 1863 officials in Nashville exiled the courtesans to Louisville. The "Cyprians" weren't welcomed there and were restored to Nashville. The only solution was to set up a legalized and licensed system of prostitution based upon medical inspection. Memphis duplicated the system a year later. Additionally, the Medical Corps made strides in improving and maintaining public health, constructing sewers, removing dead animals, rubbish and offal from the streets, and enforcing small pox inoculation. Early in the war the "Southern Mothers" formed in Memphis, and similar groups in other cities, to help sustain and nurse wounded Confederate troops. 64 bellicose belles of Gordonsville, Smith County, petitioned Governor Johnson in November 1862 for arms they wished to use in "aiding to put down the rebellion. "If you accept us" they wrote, "please send them immediately�.If not we will arm ourselves land bushwhack it." They were not at all like the pro-Confederate and wealthy Rebecca Carter Craighead of Nashville who took a trip to NYC in the summer of 1864. There she purchased a $400 dress and fine jewelry. There was poetry in the newspapers, as well as accounts of flag or sword presentations and humorous accounts of grand balls and camp life and editorials complaining of martial prohibition. The theater was active in the cities. In February 1864 John Wilkes Booth appeared in Nashville and got rave reviews. An interesting comment on class-consciousness is found in a letter from Lieutenant-General Leonidas Polk to his wife written in February 1863. He mentions that he promoted his son to his staff because the young man found the artillery captain to whom he was assigned too demanding. While Confederate soldiers went without, Polk sent his wife material and dress patterns. He complained his staff officers were too busy seeking paramours about the countryside to write their reports on the battle of Stones River. In the months before the fiasco at Fort Donelson, slave owners were asked to provide labor to help build fortifications at Nashville and other points. Few did, and some bragged about not complying. The forts weren't built. It struck me as ironic that the very people who had the most to gain from the Confederacy refused to support it, and not out of loyalty to the Union, but out of a stingy spirit of deception and duping the government. In Middle Tennessee, at least, a sort of sliding scale of class-consciousness and prejudice existed in which the poorest whites resented the Confederacy for conscripting their sons to fight a rich man's war. The middle class, while supportive of the Confederacy, was ambivalent. The richest were the most stalwart in their support of the rebellion and often send Confederate foraging parties to those they considered traitors to the cause. Two apparently gay men carried out spy missions in West Tennessee while dressed as women. Other insights included the October 1863, proposal by Nashvillian S. R. Cockrill to the Commissioners of the Confederate States for a five step strategy to harvest fish in Tennessee's rivers to feed the armies. General Pillow endorsed the idea and proposed using his conscription force to aid in the plan. In February 1865, the Board of Commissioners for the State of Tennessee met in Aberdeen, MS. They worked long and hard to establish an extensive "schedule of prices for produce and army supplies�to continue in force until altered." That there was no Confederate authority in Tennessee that late in the war apparently did not cross their minds. General Pillow, by the way, on two different occasions wrote to the Federal commanders in Memphis in attempts to obtain safe passage so that he might take care of his property within Union lines. If this wasn't treason (as well as stupid) it was very close. Another insight into the war was finding the location of the first recorded instance of actual fighting in Tennessee - it had to start somewhere. The site was on the Cumberland Plateau, near the Kentucky border, in Pickett County, at a place called Travisville. This was a new finding to historians and the natives. In time a historical marker was unveiled to an appreciative crowd of locals and politicians. A 40-page booklet entitled "A Documentary Guide to the Civil War on the Tennessee Cumberland Plateau" was produced, and given its limited run of 120 copies, was out of print in a week. This was an insight that led me to entrepreneurial musings about profiting from history and new notions about history education. Namely, documentary evidence was a popular commodity and a teaching tool. This reference book approach to the Civil War in Tennessee can have a more populist application. I like to think that as a printed text this work will prove of interest to "civilians" who have neither the time nor the research skills to find this data. The public has no familiarity with such documents because of a number of factors, the most compelling being that it is difficult to find what they want in primary sources, especially the OR. It simply bewilders them. Which brings up the professional versus avocational expenditure of the time it takes to conduct research. In West Tennessee's Civil War history there was a skirmish on June 30, 1862 at a place then called both Morning Sun or Rising Sun - a Confederate victory, by the way. One constituent, an elderly enthusiast, said he had spent most of his adult life looking for any information about the fight but could not find it. He didn't know where to look. I knew where to look and provided him with that information within minutes. It wasn't that hard to do, but then I'm a historian. I wondered if it would have been easier for him to consult a documentary guide to the Civil War in Tennessee. While this work cannot be called comprehensive, it is big. It presents more diversity than any one study, and it is that diversity that can help refocus attention away from "neat fightin' stuff" to a better understanding of the complexity of the war in Tennessee -- and no doubt other states. It can serve an educational function and maybe even attenuate the dogged "us vs. them" thinking, what Jim Loewen identifies as a "neo-Confederate mentality." That approach interprets the war as a uniformly martial white male southern heritage, the product of the United Daughters of the Confederacy's successful efforts that "distorted why the South seceded and made hash of Civil War history from beginning to end." . "The heritage syndrome," as Michael Kammen calls it, is "an impulse to remember what is attractive or flattering [to one's peers] and ignore the rest." History and heritage, it follows, are two different things. It might be best to reflect on the phrase: "we weren't there, we didn't do that." A documentary guide to the Civil War in Tennessee -- and other states -- can be presented to the public in a fashion to help counter the zeal and anecdotal wisdom of reenactors, farbs, and relic collectors. Otherwise they will continue to guide the public's interpretation of the Civil War as a celebration of a monolithic and contrived filiopietistic heritage instead of study and appreciation of a many faceted history. To paraphrase Marie Antoinette: "Let them read documents." (3,189 words)