""Butternut" -- Your Best Guesses" Topic

The idea of 'blending in' would automatically exclude the Officer from wearing all the accoutrements that would make him stand out.An officer in a plain Richmond jacket without any martial frills would be far less conspicuous at 100/200 yards than one dressed in a fine wool frock coat with gold braid on collar and shiny 'chicken guts' on the sleeves.If it were such "a hard thing" to pick out officers in a line of battle at varying distances consider the following…..
Picket's Division casualties at Gettysburg…… Kemper's brigade…Officers 57%,NCO's 45.8%,privates 34.2%.Garnett's brigade Officers 66.7%,NCO's 62.8%,privates 43.7%.Armistaed's brigade Officers 64.3%,NCO's 58.6%,privates 44.6%.Considering that the bulk of these officers were in frockcoats and most were not mounted it seems the Federal troops found it quite easy to pick off the Officers.
The jackets were cheaper than frocks,but most Officers continued to purchase Frockcoats as well as jackets for parades and general martial duties,so the cost would be higher.
My sources have come from decades of research into the Compiled Service Records of the Confederate States.These are available for research at the NA in the USA or on the FOLD 3 site on the internet.These records cover every Officer in every regiment
My example of the Overland campaign was just that,an example.There were many battles in the East after Gettysburg where the Confederates did much of the attacking.
Ewell's attack at Harris farm,Early's valley Campaign,Early's attack on Washington,the assault on Fort Steadman,to name a few.

I think your pretense about officers being more targeted in Pickett's charge does not past the muster. The BIG element in the charge at Gettysburg was several of the higher ranking officers leading from the front. Volley fire and artillery which produced the most casualties before and during the final assault does not speak to an ability to target specific individuals.

VR
James Mattes

Whether attacking or defending, the lieutenants were file-closers behind the two ranks in line. The captains were at the right end of the front rank of each company. Colonels, lt. cols., majors, and adjutants were mounted, normally, and thus more conspicuous but more mobile.

Okay, if uniforms are the main reason officers suffered higher casualties, what explains the higher NCO casualty rate?

Sorry, but you may have looked at a bunch of data, but I can't agree with your conclusion.

vojvoda…I was not talking of higher ranking Officers (ie Generals),who usually wore full uniform frock coats.My data is for regimental officers.The statistics speak for themselves.If I had just shown data from one regiment I could understand your reluctance to accept what I say,but I showed data from all three brigades.To clarify the situation even more out of the 172 Confederate infantry regiments at Gettysburg only 2 had Officer casualty percentages lower than the enlisted men.
donlowry….You state "Colonels, lt. cols., majors, and adjutants were mounted, normally, and thus more conspicuous but more mobile". Not in Pickett's charge they weren't.The number of mounted men within the Regimental organisations and not on Divisional or Brigade staffs amounted to 2! Colonel Williams,1st Virginia and Colonel Hunton,8th Virginia.
firstvarty….You initially questioned some of the ideas put forward by myself,asking for evidence and stating that it would be impossible to answer.I reposted with more evidence and additional crucial data,but you stll refused to accept them.All you tend to do is refute anything I offer as evidence,without offering any kind of data yourself.To be offered statistic after statistic and just reply with a simple "I disagree" without offering a constructive counter argument is basically infantile and does nothing to help push forwards the boundaries of this fine hobby.

See the coat pictured at this posting's link which is actually from a Mississippi Confederate unit that fought at Champion Hill and Vicksburg for another example of coloration of Confederate uniforms.

TMP link

Jim

ColCampbell….Yes this is a 'Columbus Depot'jacket produced in several deep south facilities from late 1862 until around September 1864.They are recognizable by their blue flannel collar and cuffs and their faded tan color.These jackets were issued in the hundreds of thousands to troops in the AOT and to some Trans-Mississippi units.Initially dyed a dark gray they tended to fade very quickly when exposed to the elements.

I've offered counter arguments, but you simply don't accept any reasoning for variations in officer casualties other than their root cause being changes to their uniforms. I guess anyone who doesn't agre with you is "infantile". I've been civil in my responses. You now have decided that personal attack if your new defense of your position. Fine.

Produce an order that says "all officers are to procure shell jackets in order to reduce their visibility to the enemy while in battle", or a letter from an officer saying he bought a jacket specifically for the purpose of being less conspicious. Even if they just thought that, even if it weren't supported by statistics, I'd be fine with that as evidence of why they wore them.

But tying uniform procurement decistions to battlefield deaths is very tenuious. You'd have to show two similar actions, e.g. two division attacks against similar enemies over similar ground with the same overall casualty rates, where officer casualties were much lower in the units where they were documented as having ALL worn shell jackets, versus the second action where they were ALL documented as having worn frock coats. If you can't do that, you have no proof, only guesswork.

I'm not posting here just to be argumentative. I'm interested in exploring the theory "thorton" has that (and I'm summarizing here, so don't shoot me for slightly altering the idea), 1) the enemy could discern officers as being such in frock coats more easily than they could officers in shell jackets, so they aimed their fire at them as a result; 2) Confederate officer casualties went down after Gettysburg primarily due to most of them changing their uniform coats from frock coats to shell jackets; and 3) that this was a purposeful decision made to reduce officer casualties, not a coincidence. Fair assessment?

You have not offered any counter argument,you have merely disagreed with the copious amounts of data that I have put forward.I have spent decades studying this subject.I have written countless essays,had numerous publications and contributed to many other works.I have produced data for you from the Confederate compiled service records showing the increase in shell jacket purchases verses the decline in Officer casualties.You have produced nothing,only a feeble…"I disagree".
Do you honestly think A Confederate Officer would admit to intentionally making himself a less conspicuous target or the Confederate Government would commit to such a thing via General orders? Of course not.The whole thing would reek of cowardess. A more subtle approach was necessary and on March 6th 1864 the Confederates issued General Orders No.28 out of Richmond,allowing Officers to purchase private's clothing.Descriptions after this date are numerous and usually state"men and Officers all dressed alike " or 2I couldn't distinguish between Officer and private."

Climbing back on this horse from some reason…

I went back to one of you earlier postings, thornton, and saw where you said this:

Here is an eyewitness account by a citizen of Carlisle, Pennsylvania, who watched Rodes' infantry division march through on June 27th 1863,en-route to Gettysburg….
"The uniforms while not new were newish; there was no sign of torn coats and badly frayed trousers….Knapsacks and haversack, the whole personal kit, was in order…… The officer's uniforms were of a light gray cloth, the garniture a brilliant gold galloon; the private's a dark gray with few martial frills. Further opportunity for inspection of cavalry, infantry, artillery and the transportation service confirmed my first impression of a fit, well fed,well conditioned army."

So if the officers' uniforms were not only of a different style, but a different color (assuming their trousers were also light gray here), they would be more conspicuous, particularly when engaged in either attacks, skirmishing, or fighting on uneven ground (exposing all troops to enemy fire equally), in addition to having different hats, carrying swords, and possibly wearing crimson sashes. This assumes, of course, that the enemy was targeting them specifically, which depending on the unit and the individual soldier, they might or might not have been. This would not apply for taking artillery fire, or for massed unit firings at longer ranges (> 200 yards) where selecting an individual under battlefield conditions is very hard.

One other possible reason for inflation of officer and NCO casualties at Gettysburg as compared to later battles is explored in the fairly recent idea I saw on the Military Channel link that during Pickett's charge (where a substantial portion of the Confederate casualties took place) , many of the soldiers made a personal decision to not pass over the Emmittsburg road, even if they were unwounded. Unit officers and NCOs probably DID cross, and suffered higher rates of casualties as a result. I guess someone could compare casualty rates for units that were and were not in the charge to see if that holds up to scrutiny.

This does match up with my theory that it was what they were doing (leading from the front in an attack) that made them suffer more casualties. It is something like in Vietnam where officers removed their rank insignia and didn't give/receive salutes in order to be less conspicuous to snipers. But since they still were giving commands, using the radio, and performing a lot of "Follow Me!" type actions, the were still constantly placing themselves in greater danger than their men. Raises the question of whether Conferderate officers as a group decided that they were done being martyrs. If they (as you asert) were willing to change their uniforms to avoid being casualties, would they not also alter their previous habits that put them unnecesarily into harms way as well?

A study of the Confederate burial pit locations show most of them on the federal side of the Emmittsburg Road proving that the bulk of troops crossed over.There is no evidence whatsoever that a higher ratio of officers stormed the Union lines after crossing the road.Pickett's charge casualties amounted to around 20% of total Confederate casualties.
As to your other assertions you may well be right or you may well be wrong…I've just lost the will to live!

Thornton,

You said:

A study of the Confederate burial pit locations show most of them on the federal side of the Emmittsburg Road proving that the bulk of troops crossed over.

Respectfully, that conclusion is unsustainable. The burial sites were chosen based upon the land and not where casualties were dispersed. Virtually all CS burials took place afterward and a large number of troops were used to gather up CS (and Federal) casualties and bring them to specific spots. That they were brought to those locations is easily discerned by examination of extant images which show trousers, coats, etc dislodged/displaced by dragging using either the arms or legs. Once you know what to look for, differences between displaced clothing due to moving/dragging vice looting is easily apparent.

As to specifically targeting officers, I cannot with good conscience accept that conclusion either. There are many accounts of officers instructing their men to NOT target officers, as the man with the rifle was more dangerous than the officer. In point of fact, what instructions regarding combat that were given to Federal troops (and CS, too) were to aim for the belt buckles of the men. By this action, the lower aiming point counteracted the natural tendency to "pull up" or jerk when firing, thus throwing off the aim. You must remember than individual marksmanship was not taught to the men in the ranks, outside of specific Sharpshooter units.

The best answer to your question regarding officer casualties is that "stuff happens".

V/R

Tkindred.You state…"Respectfully, that conclusion is unsustainable. The burial sites were chosen based upon the land and not where casualties were dispersed. Virtually all CS burials took place afterward and a large number of troops were used to gather up CS (and Federal) casualties and bring them to specific spots. That they were brought to those locations is easily discerned by examination of extant images which show trousers, coats, etc dislodged/displaced by dragging using either the arms or legs. Once you know what to look for, differences between displaced clothing due to moving/dragging vice looting is easily apparent."….Absolute rubbish!
The photos of the Confederate dead on the Rose farm(which I assume you are referring to)do show signs of being dragged…but only very short distances,to be placed into sizeable groups for burial.The dead,after being exposed to the elements for several days,were not in the best condition and certainly would not have been dragged a few hundred yards back over the Emittsburg road.And for what?The pastures to the East of the road were just as suited for burial duties as those to the west,so your argument holds no water whatsoever.Also,I do know what to look for in these photos.I have studied them in great detail for years and it was I that pointed out to Bill Frassanito (of Civil war photography fame),that one of the dead soldiers was wearing a 'Georgia jacket',thought to be obsolescent by this time.I will be meeting up with Bill in a few weeks to discuss my latest book which concentrates on these very photos which you seem to know so much about.
As to your claim that men being told not to single out officers is also ridiculous.Officers have been targeted throughout history….period.If Officers were not that important to the make-up of the company,why have them? I have given the data in my previous posts.Go back and read them.You seem to be very much like firstvarty79,disagreeing yet presenting no evidence.

Whatever.

Thornton,

Have you already read the book, Gettysburg's Confederate Dead
by Gregory A. Coco? You should read his book(s). What Tim said is about the dead Rebs is all true. The book provides maps drawn by burial parties in preparation for burial all over the field. They did group the bodies together for mass graves.

Don

Don….Yes I have got that book as well as 'When the smoke cleared at Gettysburg' and 'A strange and blighted land',both of which concur with the evidence presented by me to our brethren above.On page 98 of the latter book there is a detailed map of the burial sites (based on the original Elliot map),which shows far more dead on the East side of the Emittsburg road than the west side.So what Tim said about the dead rebs is wrong.Also I did not say that the bodies weren't buried in groups,of course they were.I have studied this subject for years.I have a book coming out which covers this subject,as stated in an earlier post!

thornton

I'm not a "Luddite" as you seem to feel, and I am open to other ideas/throries. I actually have agreed with the vast majority of the things I;ve seen you post on this site, particularly those things related to the condition and uniformity of the Confederate Army.

That I don't happen to fully agree with your conclusion in this one area, doesn't change my more positive response to your postings in other areas. I'm actually very interested in reading/learning more.

Do you happen have a link to any of your published works related to the subject(s) covered in this thread?

firstvarty1979

I certainly don't think that you are a 'Luddite'.Your arguments,mostly,are well thought out.It just seems that we were going round in circles with you trying to pick flaws,me presenting evidence,you then disagreeing and then attempting to pick more flaws. I have no intention,over an open forum,of giving details of my next published work which concentrates on Confederate uniform issues.If you send me a private message I will gladly list my previous works,about which you seem dubious.

I wasn't looking for information on anything not already published. I understand your concern with that. I was thinking that you might have an Amazon link or something like that which was available to the public, and which you wouldn't have a problem listing on here.

Don't people have to be "supporters" of TMP to send PMs through this site? I thought that was the case.

We have re-discovered one of the biggest problems of the Internet. What would probably be a pleasant conversation in-person, turns into an argument due to a few missed cues, focusing on differences, and using language that is overheated. You may not agree, but I think that was a shared problem in this case.

Information posted by an anonymous party doesn't stand up as well (for whatever reason) as what is spoken by that same individual face-to-face. I don't know you, and you don't know me, so we have no easy way to establish credibility prior to the discussion, which lends itself toward distrust.

I'll be very interested in seeing your most recent work once it is final, and until then, I'll end my commentary on the subject, since you aren't (understandably) able to provide your full documentation on here, and I wouldn't ask for it otherwise, since you have no idea of my trustworthiness.

firstvarty1979…A true Gentleman indeed.I am over in Gettysburg in 5 weeks to meet up with the publishers to finalise the layout and then its all go.