Lorna, After reading your post on the list and the mentioning of colored infantry, I wanted to share something that many people don't realize, especially people who know very little about the war. During the war, the Union had regiments known as United States Colored Troops. In most cases, these units are shown by the abbreviation of USCT. These units were actually segregated, usually with the only white men being their commanding officers, although there were many black non-commissioned officers (sergeants & corporals) who served. The Confederates, on the other hand, did not segregate their troops and the men who served, no matter what race, creed, religion, color, or nationality, fought along side each other. Another point of interest is that the USCT were paid less than their white counterparts of the same ranks versus those in the Confederate Army who were all paid the same according to their rank. Although most Black Confederates served as body servants, cooks, teamsters, etc., there are many documented instances where Union soldiers wrote of being attacked by and fighting against Black Confederate soldiers. One example of this was in a diary written by a Union doctor who was captured behind enemy lines. In 1862 he observed the Army of Northern Virginia moving toward Sharpsburg and noted the following: "Wednesday, September 10 At 4 o'clock this morning the Rebel army began to move from our town, Jackson's force taking the advance. The movement continued until 8 o'clock P.M., occupying 16 hours. The most liberal calculation could not give them more than 64,000 men. Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in the number.... They had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. They were supplied, in many instances with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc., and they were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy army. They were seen riding on horses and mules, driving wagons, riding on caissons, in ambulances, with the staff of generals and promiscuously mixed up with all the Rebel horde." Another example is from a letter that a Union soldier wrote home to his local newspaper in Indiana about his unit's exchange of fire with Black Confederates in the Fall of 1861. This one story ended up being printed in newspapers all over the North. "..a body of seven hundred Negro infantry opened fire on our men, wounding two lieutenants and two privates. The wounded men testify positively that they were shot by Negroes, and that not less than seven hundred were present, armed with muskets. This is, indeed, a new feature in the war. We have heard of a regiment of Negroes at Manassas, and another at Memphis, and still another at New Orleans, but did not believe it till it came so near home and attacked our men.... One of the lieutenants was shot in the back of the neck and is not expected to live." One of the most famous units of USCT was the Massachusetts 54th of which the movie "Glory" was made about. Although they volunteered to be the first to assault Battery Wagner in South Carolina, the sad fact is so many times, the Union used the USCT as cannon fodder with a prime example being the Crater at Petersburg. In my German GG Grandfather's memoirs, he noted the following about this: "After a short while the Yankees made a heavy charge against the break they had made. They charged with their Negroes in front, and the white Yankees behind them, with their bayonets fixed. It was certain death for a Negro not to advance upon the charge. Our Regiment, the 61st under the command of Major Henry Harding (one of my ancestors) was sent to assist in repelling the charge. When the Yankees attacked and our men found the attackers were Negroes, the cry of "No Quarter" was given. Men clubbed their rifles, others drove their bayonets through them. It was a fierce hand to hand fight. The poor Negroes would cry for quarter but no quarter they received. The whole were killed. It was a heavy slaughter. Some two thousand were killed or more." These are just a few facts about the war that many people are not aware of. If we're to study the history of this war, we must learn everything about it that we can, including, "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly." Actually, in so many of today's "modern" books on the war, the authors tend to give their personal opinions on what happened, omitting many details of what actually did happen. In my studies and research, I've found the best books to be older ones (pre 1990) along with diaries, memoirs, and other first hand accountings of what happened. To me, nothing can beat these first hand accountings of things that happened by those who were actually there. Lastly, as a local historian, I always try to abide by Cicero's statement in regard to history, which states, "The first law of the historian is that he shall never dare utter an untruth. The second is that he shall suppress nothing that is true. Moreover, there shall be no suspicion of partiality in his writing, or of malice." Its kind of like old Sergeant Joe Friday's line from the old Dragnet series...."Just state the facts, Maam." Edward

Edward left off the "War of Northern Aggression". Butternut was the color of the Confederate uniform early on.To add to what might be confusing in sorting out all the types of units, start with Squad. Squad: 4 to 8 men. Platoon: 4 Squads. Company: 4 to 6 platoons. Battalion: 4 to 6 Companies. Here is where it gets tricky. Some Armies, in their Table of Organization, have Brigades and some do not. Some have Regiments and some do not. Calvary also had cannon but usually light cannon that could move fast with the unit. Does the Army study Civil War tactics? You better believe they do both for the good, the bad and the ugly. Stonewall's quick marching and never give up attitude is one. Then there is the fighting you do not want like McClellan, Hooker, and Burnsides. Edward is right on the reading although Bruce Cannon's writing is also good. Someone wrote about men between 17 and 25. Late in the war the South was running out of bullets and men. They conscripted younger and older men. My g-g-grandfather was 41 with 3 or 4 children and was called up. He was killed in early 1845. All ages and sexes need honor this week-end. Nurses and WAC's did their part for this country. Lee said it was good that war was so terrible lest we grow too fond of it. Amen, Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: <civil-war-request@rootsweb.com> To: <civil-war@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 12:21 PM Subject: CIVIL-WAR Digest, Vol 3, Issue 71 > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / Federal? > (Manaia Alofa) > 2. Re: Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / Federal? > (Alice Gayley) > 3. Re: Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / Federal? (akeegan) > 4. Fw: Re: Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / Federal? > (Jim Gilmer) > 5. Re: Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / Federal? > (Manaia Alofa) > 6. Re: Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / Federal? > (Alice Gayley) > 7. Re: Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / Federal? > (Dennis J. Francis) > 8. Re: (CIVIL-WAR) WILLIAM DICKENS CompanyE52 Regiment Infantry > (Edward Harding) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 11:20:06 -0700 (PDT) > From: Manaia Alofa <manaiaalofa@yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / > Federal? > To: civil-war@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <575674.24559.qm@web32201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Edward: > > "The Southern states seceded from the Union and just > wanted to be left alone," > > The statement above bothers me. > > "Although most people call this the Civil War, > actually, the official name for it as written in the > Original Records is The War of the Rebellion." > > Then, which side was rebelling? That would mean the > Union side, more or less, were the "bullies" so to > speak. Do the generals of today study tactics/plans of > previous wars and act accordingly? Or do they try to > come up with new strategies? > > I know: research! I will read up on books you'd > suggested also. Be ready. > > --Manaia > > ++++ > > --- "Edward Harding" <eharding2@suddenlink.net> wrote: > > > Although most people call this the Civil War, > actually, the official name for it as written in the > Original Records is The War of the Rebellion. > How it became known as the Civil War is anyone's guess > as a true civil war has one group trying to invade and > taking over the existing government of another group. > The Southern states seceded from the Union and just > wanted to be left alone, so therefore, "civil war" > really isn't a proper name for it. Many people call > the South "traitors" because of their secession, but > very few know or realize that secession was actually > taught at West Point before the war. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 14:22:59 -0400 > From: "Alice Gayley" <agayley@verizon.net> > Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / > Federal? > To: <civil-war@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <001d01c8bd02$080022b0$2f01a8c0@YOUR78DADCEFFE> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; > reply-type=original > > Manaia, >> >> Now, does it mean anything if I say "the South" or >> "Confederates" when talking to someone from the >> Southern States? Or from the Northern States? > > When you are talking about the Civil War/War of the Rebellion, most people > (both NOrth and South") understand that "the South" means the Confederates > or the Rebels and "the North" means the Union, the Federals, or the > Yankees. > The Union equivalent of "Butternut" was the "Blue." >> >> Now here in California we, of course, never hear of >> the "Western States" or "Eastern States" but we hear >> the "Mainland". And it's often heard when someone from >> the Islands is speaking of the USA (the Mainland) and >> these are people born before the 1970s. > > The Western Theater of operations and the Eastern Theater of operations > was > equivalent to those terms used in World War II. General Eisenhower's > command was the European Theater of Operations (ETO); General McArthur > was > in command on the Pacific Theater of Operations, etc. > > As Mike explained, the Confederates and the Federals military were also > organized by Departments. For the Federals, the Department of the > Cumberland, the Department of the Ohio, etc. The heads of these > departments > were in charged of all military operations within their area. Similarly > today's military operations in the U. S. is organized by Districts; for > example, the Military District of Washington, etc. > > If anyone has anything to add to the above (or correct me where I am > wrong), > please do so. > > Alice Gayley > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 14:35:59 -0400 > From: "akeegan" <akeegan@wowway.com> > Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / > Federal? > To: <civil-war@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <000701c8bd03$d8b17840$0ee10e45@YOUR780C524461> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > When I think of the Civil War I wonder if the mother of a wounded > Confederate solider felt more pain than a Northen Mother > Did a Confederate soldier feel more pain from hunger that a Northen > soldier > Did the Children of a Southern Soldier miss there father more than a Union > Soldier's children, No course not So were they not all brave and noble > Soldiers fighting for what the each believe to be right . > On this Memorial Day I will honor both and place no blame on either side > Ann > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Manaia Alofa" <manaiaalofa@yahoo.com> > To: <civil-war@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 2:20 PM > Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / Federal? > > >> Edward: >> >> "The Southern states seceded from the Union and just >> wanted to be left alone," >> >> The statement above bothers me. >> >> "Although most people call this the Civil War, >> actually, the official name for it as written in the >> Original Records is The War of the Rebellion." >> >> Then, which side was rebelling? That would mean the >> Union side, more or less, were the "bullies" so to >> speak. Do the generals of today study tactics/plans of >> previous wars and act accordingly? Or do they try to >> come up with new strategies? >> >> I know: research! I will read up on books you'd >> suggested also. Be ready. >> >> --Manaia >> >> ++++ >> >> --- "Edward Harding" <eharding2@suddenlink.net> wrote: >> >> >> Although most people call this the Civil War, >> actually, the official name for it as written in the >> Original Records is The War of the Rebellion. >> How it became known as the Civil War is anyone's guess >> as a true civil war has one group trying to invade and >> taking over the existing government of another group. >> The Southern states seceded from the Union and just >> wanted to be left alone, so therefore, "civil war" >> really isn't a proper name for it. Many people call >> the South "traitors" because of their secession, but >> very few know or realize that secession was actually >> taught at West Point before the war. >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> CIVIL-WAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 13:37:36 -0500 (Central Daylight Time) > From: "Jim Gilmer" <jimgilmer@charter.net> > Subject: [CIVIL-WAR] Fw: Re: Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / > Federal? > To: <civil-war@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <48370EEF.000001.00232@JIM> > Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > -------Original Message------- > > From: Jim Gilmer > Date: 5/23/2008 1:32:44 PM > To: civil-war@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / Federal? > >>From the Northern perspective, the South was rebelling. From the Southern > perspective, the North was the aggressor. > > Jim > > -------Original Message------- > > From: Manaia Alofa > Date: 05/23/08 13:21:17 > To: civil-war@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / Federal? > > Edward: > > "The Southern states seceded from the Union and just > wanted to be left alone," > > The statement above bothers me. > > "Although most people call this the Civil War, > actually, the official name for it as written in the > Original Records is The War of the Rebellion." > > Then, which side was rebelling? That would mean the > Union side, more or less, were the "bullies" so to > speak. Do the generals of today study tactics/plans of > previous wars and act accordingly? Or do they try to > come up with new strategies? > > I know: research! I will read up on books you'd > suggested also. Be ready. > > --Manaia > > ++++ > > --- "Edward Harding" <eharding2@suddenlink.net> wrote: > > > Although most people call this the Civil War, > actually, the official name for it as written in the > Original Records is The War of the Rebellion. > How it became known as the Civil War is anyone's guess > as a true civil war has one group trying to invade and > taking over the existing government of another group. > The Southern states seceded from the Union and just > wanted to be left alone, so therefore, "civil war" > really isn't a proper name for it. Many people call > the South "traitors" because of their secession, but > very few know or realize that secession was actually > taught at West Point before the war. > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CIVIL-WAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 11:32:14 -0700 (PDT) > From: Manaia Alofa <manaiaalofa@yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / > Federal? > To: civil-war@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <476059.20581.qm@web32205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Alice: > > Artillery Corps: heavy weaponry? cannons? > > Cavalry Corps: soldiers who rode on horses? > > Infantry Corps: everyone else on foot? > > I'm trying to get the gist before I hit the books. Is > Corps short for Corporations? > > It's a wonder anyone could win a war let alone fight a > war with all this planning and designing going on just > to strategize. > > "I'm tired already." More musings later. > > --Manaia > > ++++ > > --- Alice Gayley <agayley@verizon.net> wrote: > >> Manaia, >> >> Generally, >> >> An Army was made up of one Artillery Corps, one >> Cavalry Corps and an >> Infantry Corps. >> >> The Infantry Corps was made up of divisions (two or >> three or more). >> Infantry Divisions were made up of Brigades (usually >> three or more) >> Brigades were made up of Regiments (no fixed number >> generally three or four >> or more) >> Regiments were made up of Companies (Infantry >> regiments usually had ten >> companies designed as: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, >> and K), although there >> were larger regiments. Cavalry regiments usually >> had more than ten >> companies. >> >> Battalions were larger than a regiment and smaller >> than regiment. Perhaps >> some one else can speak to the size of a battalion. >> >> Hope this helps, >> Alice Gayley > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 14:57:59 -0400 > From: "Alice Gayley" <agayley@verizon.net> > Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / > Federal? > To: <civil-war@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <000a01c8bd06$ecdcb5c0$2f01a8c0@YOUR78DADCEFFE> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; > reply-type=original > > Manaia, >> >> Artillery Corps: heavy weaponry? cannons? Exactly. There was also >> "Light" artillery, but we'll save that for a later time. >> >> Cavalry Corps: soldiers who rode on horses? Exactly. Although sometimes >> when they fought in battle they dismounted. >> >> Infantry Corps: everyone else on foot? Right. > >> I'm trying to get the gist before I hit the books. Is >> Corps short for Corporations? No, it's a French term as in "esprit de >> corps." > >> >> It's a wonder anyone could win a war let alone fight a >> war with all this planning and designing going on just >> to strategize. > > Well, think about our foreign relations in today's world. What else are > they except planned and designed strategies to prevent some other country > from attacking us, either at home or elsewhere in the world? Battle > strategies are almost as old as man himself. Think about the Romans and > the > Carthagens, or the British and the U. S. Army in the Revolutionary war. > War > is not simple; never has been. Yes, the individual soldier has to run > into > battle and shot at what he sees, but there are those above him who have > picked his target, decided the direction in which he will run, and the > time > he steps off. > > Having grown up during WWII, I'm always in awe of the men in the > Revolutionary and Civil Wars when linear warfare was used. How could you > just line up and start shooting at each other, e. g., Pickett's charge at > Gettysburg? It's easier to understand hiding behind rocks, buildings, > etc. > to protect yourself and not making yourself a target. I'm all for ambush! > > Alice > >> "I'm tired already." More musings later. >> >> --Manaia >> >> ++++ >> >> --- Alice Gayley <agayley@verizon.net> wrote: >> >>> Manaia, >>> >>> Generally, >>> >>> An Army was made up of one Artillery Corps, one >>> Cavalry Corps and an >>> Infantry Corps. >>> >>> The Infantry Corps was made up of divisions (two or >>> three or more). >>> Infantry Divisions were made up of Brigades (usually >>> three or more) >>> Brigades were made up of Regiments (no fixed number >>> generally three or four >>> or more) >>> Regiments were made up of Companies (Infantry >>> regiments usually had ten >>> companies designed as: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, >>> and K), although there >>> were larger regiments. Cavalry regiments usually >>> had more than ten >>> companies. >>> >>> Battalions were larger than a regiment and smaller >>> than regiment. Perhaps >>> some one else can speak to the size of a battalion. >>> >>> Hope this helps, >>> Alice Gayley >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> CIVIL-WAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 15:06:46 -0400 > From: "Dennis J. Francis" <donncadhf@wowway.com> > Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / > Federal? > To: <civil-war@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <004b01c8bd08$265609e0$849f9543@YOUR2C968E82F1> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alice Gayley" <agayley@verizon.net> >> >> Was Troop equal to a regiment or a company?ever too old to learn! >> > -------------------------------- > Troop is equivalent to a company. > > Troop is more of a post-war term, though. > > Dennis > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 15:15:07 -0400 > From: "Edward Harding" <eharding2@suddenlink.net> > Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] (CIVIL-WAR) WILLIAM DICKENS CompanyE52 > Regiment Infantry > To: <civil-war@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <000401c8bd09$50907960$6401a8c0@edwardo98sxo50> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Lorna, > > After reading your post on the list and the mentioning of colored > infantry, > I wanted to share something that many people don't realize, especially > people who know very little about the war. > > During the war, the Union had regiments known as United States Colored > Troops. In most cases, these units are shown by the abbreviation of USCT. > These units were actually segregated, usually with the only white men > being > their commanding officers, although there were many black non-commissioned > officers (sergeants & corporals) who served. The Confederates, on the > other > hand, did not segregate their troops and the men who served, no matter > what > race, creed, religion, color, or nationality, fought along side each > other. > Another point of interest is that the USCT were paid less than their white > counterparts of the same ranks versus those in the Confederate Army who > were > all paid the same according to their rank. Although most Black > Confederates > served as body servants, cooks, teamsters, etc., there are many documented > instances where Union soldiers wrote of being attacked by and fighting > against Black Confederate soldiers. > > One example of this was in a diary written by a Union doctor who was > captured behind enemy lines. In 1862 he observed the Army of Northern > Virginia moving toward Sharpsburg and noted the following: > > "Wednesday, September 10 > At 4 o'clock this morning the Rebel army began to move from our town, > Jackson's force taking the advance. The movement continued until 8 > o'clock > P.M., occupying 16 hours. The most liberal calculation could not give > them > more than 64,000 men. Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in the > number.... > They had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. They > were > supplied, in many instances with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc., > and > they were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy army. > They were seen riding on horses and mules, driving wagons, riding on > caissons, in ambulances, with the staff of generals and promiscuously > mixed > up with all the Rebel horde." > > Another example is from a letter that a Union soldier wrote home to his > local newspaper in Indiana about his unit's exchange of fire with Black > Confederates in the Fall of 1861. This one story ended up being printed > in > newspapers all over the North. > > "..a body of seven hundred Negro infantry opened fire on our men, wounding > two lieutenants and two privates. The wounded men testify positively that > they were shot by Negroes, and that not less than seven hundred were > present, armed with muskets. This is, indeed, a new feature in the war. > We > have heard of a regiment of Negroes at Manassas, and another at Memphis, > and > still another at New Orleans, but did not believe it till it came so near > home and attacked our men.... One of the lieutenants was shot in the back > of > the neck and is not expected to live." > > One of the most famous units of USCT was the Massachusetts 54th of which > the > movie "Glory" was made about. Although they volunteered to be the first > to > assault Battery Wagner in South Carolina, the sad fact is so many times, > the > Union used the USCT as cannon fodder with a prime example being the Crater > at Petersburg. In my German GG Grandfather's memoirs, he noted the > following about this: "After a short while the Yankees made a heavy charge > against the break they had made. They charged with their Negroes in > front, > and the white Yankees behind them, with their bayonets fixed. It was > certain death for a Negro not to advance upon the charge. Our Regiment, > the > 61st under the command of Major Henry Harding (one of my ancestors) was > sent > to assist in repelling the charge. When the Yankees attacked and our men > found the attackers were Negroes, the cry of "No Quarter" was given. Men > clubbed their rifles, others drove their bayonets through them. It was a > fierce hand to hand fight. The poor Negroes would cry for quarter but no > quarter they received. The whole were killed. It was a heavy slaughter. > Some two thousand were killed or more." > > These are just a few facts about the war that many people are not aware > of. > If we're to study the history of this war, we must learn everything about > it > that we can, including, "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly." Actually, in > so > many of today's "modern" books on the war, the authors tend to give their > personal opinions on what happened, omitting many details of what actually > did happen. In my studies and research, I've found the best books to be > older ones (pre 1990) along with diaries, memoirs, and other first hand > accountings of what happened. To me, nothing can beat these first hand > accountings of things that happened by those who were actually there. > Lastly, as a local historian, I always try to abide by Cicero's statement > in > regard to history, which states, "The first law of the historian is that > he > shall never dare utter an untruth. The second is that he shall suppress > nothing that is true. Moreover, there shall be no suspicion of partiality > in his writing, or of malice." Its kind of like old Sergeant Joe Friday's > line from the old Dragnet series...."Just state the facts, Maam." > > Edward > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > To contact the CIVIL-WAR list administrator, send an email to > CIVIL-WAR-admin@rootsweb.com. > > To post a message to the CIVIL-WAR mailing list, send an email to > CIVIL-WAR@rootsweb.com. > > __________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CIVIL-WAR-request@rootsweb.com > with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body > of the > email with no additional text. > > > End of CIVIL-WAR Digest, Vol 3, Issue 71 > **************************************** >

----- Original Message ----- From: "Alice Gayley" <agayley@verizon.net> > > Was Troop equal to a regiment or a company?ever too old to learn! > -------------------------------- Troop is equivalent to a company. Troop is more of a post-war term, though. Dennis

Manaia, > > Artillery Corps: heavy weaponry? cannons? Exactly. There was also > "Light" artillery, but we'll save that for a later time. > > Cavalry Corps: soldiers who rode on horses? Exactly. Although sometimes > when they fought in battle they dismounted. > > Infantry Corps: everyone else on foot? Right. > I'm trying to get the gist before I hit the books. Is > Corps short for Corporations? No, it's a French term as in "esprit de > corps." > > It's a wonder anyone could win a war let alone fight a > war with all this planning and designing going on just > to strategize. Well, think about our foreign relations in today's world. What else are they except planned and designed strategies to prevent some other country from attacking us, either at home or elsewhere in the world? Battle strategies are almost as old as man himself. Think about the Romans and the Carthagens, or the British and the U. S. Army in the Revolutionary war. War is not simple; never has been. Yes, the individual soldier has to run into battle and shot at what he sees, but there are those above him who have picked his target, decided the direction in which he will run, and the time he steps off. Having grown up during WWII, I'm always in awe of the men in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars when linear warfare was used. How could you just line up and start shooting at each other, e. g., Pickett's charge at Gettysburg? It's easier to understand hiding behind rocks, buildings, etc. to protect yourself and not making yourself a target. I'm all for ambush! Alice > "I'm tired already." More musings later. > > --Manaia > > ++++ > > --- Alice Gayley <agayley@verizon.net> wrote: > >> Manaia, >> >> Generally, >> >> An Army was made up of one Artillery Corps, one >> Cavalry Corps and an >> Infantry Corps. >> >> The Infantry Corps was made up of divisions (two or >> three or more). >> Infantry Divisions were made up of Brigades (usually >> three or more) >> Brigades were made up of Regiments (no fixed number >> generally three or four >> or more) >> Regiments were made up of Companies (Infantry >> regiments usually had ten >> companies designed as: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, >> and K), although there >> were larger regiments. Cavalry regiments usually >> had more than ten >> companies. >> >> Battalions were larger than a regiment and smaller >> than regiment. Perhaps >> some one else can speak to the size of a battalion. >> >> Hope this helps, >> Alice Gayley > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CIVIL-WAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

When I think of the Civil War I wonder if the mother of a wounded Confederate solider felt more pain than a Northen Mother Did a Confederate soldier feel more pain from hunger that a Northen soldier Did the Children of a Southern Soldier miss there father more than a Union Soldier's children, No course not So were they not all brave and noble Soldiers fighting for what the each believe to be right . On this Memorial Day I will honor both and place no blame on either side Ann ----- Original Message ----- From: "Manaia Alofa" <manaiaalofa@yahoo.com> To: <civil-war@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 2:20 PM Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / Federal? > Edward: > > "The Southern states seceded from the Union and just > wanted to be left alone," > > The statement above bothers me. > > "Although most people call this the Civil War, > actually, the official name for it as written in the > Original Records is The War of the Rebellion." > > Then, which side was rebelling? That would mean the > Union side, more or less, were the "bullies" so to > speak. Do the generals of today study tactics/plans of > previous wars and act accordingly? Or do they try to > come up with new strategies? > > I know: research! I will read up on books you'd > suggested also. Be ready. > > --Manaia > > ++++ > > --- "Edward Harding" <eharding2@suddenlink.net> wrote: > > > Although most people call this the Civil War, > actually, the official name for it as written in the > Original Records is The War of the Rebellion. > How it became known as the Civil War is anyone's guess > as a true civil war has one group trying to invade and > taking over the existing government of another group. > The Southern states seceded from the Union and just > wanted to be left alone, so therefore, "civil war" > really isn't a proper name for it. Many people call > the South "traitors" because of their secession, but > very few know or realize that secession was actually > taught at West Point before the war. > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CIVIL-WAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Manaia, > > Now, does it mean anything if I say "the South" or > "Confederates" when talking to someone from the > Southern States? Or from the Northern States? When you are talking about the Civil War/War of the Rebellion, most people (both NOrth and South") understand that "the South" means the Confederates or the Rebels and "the North" means the Union, the Federals, or the Yankees. The Union equivalent of "Butternut" was the "Blue." > > Now here in California we, of course, never hear of > the "Western States" or "Eastern States" but we hear > the "Mainland". And it's often heard when someone from > the Islands is speaking of the USA (the Mainland) and > these are people born before the 1970s. The Western Theater of operations and the Eastern Theater of operations was equivalent to those terms used in World War II. General Eisenhower's command was the European Theater of Operations (ETO); General McArthur was in command on the Pacific Theater of Operations, etc. As Mike explained, the Confederates and the Federals military were also organized by Departments. For the Federals, the Department of the Cumberland, the Department of the Ohio, etc. The heads of these departments were in charged of all military operations within their area. Similarly today's military operations in the U. S. is organized by Districts; for example, the Military District of Washington, etc. If anyone has anything to add to the above (or correct me where I am wrong), please do so. Alice Gayley

Manaia, Generally, An Army was made up of one Artillery Corps, one Cavalry Corps and an Infantry Corps. The Infantry Corps was made up of divisions (two or three or more). Infantry Divisions were made up of Brigades (usually three or more) Brigades were made up of Regiments (no fixed number generally three or four or more) Regiments were made up of Companies (Infantry regiments usually had ten companies designed as: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and K), although there were larger regiments. Cavalry regiments usually had more than ten companies. Battalions were larger than a regiment and smaller than regiment. Perhaps some one else can speak to the size of a battalion. Hope this helps, Alice Gayley ----- Original Message ----- From: "Manaia Alofa" <manaiaalofa@yahoo.com> To: <civil-war@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 1:43 PM Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / Federal? > Alice: > > I should be up on this first, but while I have your > atten-hut. > > What determines a: > > Division: > > Brigade: > > Regiment: > > Company: > > Battalion: > > Calvary/Troop: > > Grateful, > --Manaia > > ++++ > > --- Alice Gayley <agayley@verizon.net> wrote: > >> To build on Mike's organizational message, an Army >> Corps was generally >> organized as >> >> Divisions which were made up of >> Brigades which were made up of >> Regiments which were made up of Companies and/or >> Battalions >> >> The Cavalry also used the word "Troop." (Can one of >> you Cavalry types help >> me out here? Was Troop equal to a regiment or a >> company? Thanks!) >> >> Alice Gayley >> Never too old to learn! > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CIVIL-WAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

-------Original Message------- From: Jim Gilmer Date: 5/23/2008 1:32:44 PM To: civil-war@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / Federal? >From the Northern perspective, the South was rebelling. From the Southern perspective, the North was the aggressor. Jim -------Original Message------- From: Manaia Alofa Date: 05/23/08 13:21:17 To: civil-war@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / Federal? Edward: "The Southern states seceded from the Union and just wanted to be left alone," The statement above bothers me. "Although most people call this the Civil War, actually, the official name for it as written in the Original Records is The War of the Rebellion." Then, which side was rebelling? That would mean the Union side, more or less, were the "bullies" so to speak. Do the generals of today study tactics/plans of previous wars and act accordingly? Or do they try to come up with new strategies? I know: research! I will read up on books you'd suggested also. Be ready. --Manaia ++++ --- "Edward Harding" <eharding2@suddenlink.net> wrote: Although most people call this the Civil War, actually, the official name for it as written in the Original Records is The War of the Rebellion. How it became known as the Civil War is anyone's guess as a true civil war has one group trying to invade and taking over the existing government of another group. The Southern states seceded from the Union and just wanted to be left alone, so therefore, "civil war" really isn't a proper name for it. Many people call the South "traitors" because of their secession, but very few know or realize that secession was actually taught at West Point before the war. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CIVIL-WAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

To build on Mike's organizational message, an Army Corps was generally organized as Divisions which were made up of Brigades which were made up of Regiments which were made up of Companies and/or Battalions The Cavalry also used the word "Troop." (Can one of you Cavalry types help me out here? Was Troop equal to a regiment or a company? Thanks!) Alice Gayley Never too old to learn! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Ruddy" <mpruddy@gmail.com> To: <civil-war@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 1:18 PM Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / Federal? > Manaia > There is good reason to be confused and even those of us who have spent > years studying the war get confused from time to time, for instance, > both the North (Union, Federal, USA, Blue) and the South (Confederate, > CSA, Grey, Butternut) had an Army of Tennessee and both also had a > Department of Tennessee. > > Army Corps describes a group of several divisions under one General. And > Army describes a group of Army Corps under one General. Theater of > operation generally describes the area in which various Armies operated > and Department describes the area of assignment of several Armies. > There was a lot of shifting around of Armies back and forth between > commands depending on where the needs were the greatest and therefore an > Army fighting in one Department could be moved to another and so on down > to Brigade level. Infantry Regiments for the most part remained fixed in > size and command, however Cavalry and Artillery many times had Companies > split off and loaned or transferred to different Brigades or Divisions. > Any Department could be enlarged or reduced and Armies could be added or > removed so the designations held at one time could change with military > requirements. The Department designation was only relatively > representative of the area in which the Department was located. > > The Union Army of the Tennessee was formed in October of 1862 and was > commanded by US Grant until 1863 then General Sherman until March 1864, > then James McPherson until he was killed July 1864. Gens Logan and > Howard commanded alternately until the end Aug 1865. This Army consisted > of the XIII, XV, XVI, and XVII Army Corps. > > The Confederate Army of Tennessee was formed in Nov 1862 under Braxton > Bragg. In Dec of 1863 the command shifted to General Johnston and in > July of 1864 command was taken from Johnston and given to General John > Bell Hood who commanded until Jan 1865 when Gen Taylor took over and Feb > when the command was returned to Johnston who surrendered the army in > April of 1865. > > There are two good books to read that will help immensely with > understanding the war. Shelby Foote's Trilogy and Mark Boatner's The > Civil War Dictionary. The Trilogy is huge but is as good as any for > understanding the military and civilian aspect of the Civil War. The > Civil War Dictionary allows one to look up specifics like "the Army of > The Cumberland" etc.... By the way the Army of the Cumberland (Union) > fought in Tennessee also... > And by all means keep asking questions on the list because many on this > list have significant resources to guide them in their answers. > Mike > > > Manaia Alofa wrote: >> Hello Mike: >> >> I am gonna have to read these posts all at one time >> instead of when they've been posted - grin. >> >> >>> The Army of Tennessee was the portion of the >>> Confederate Army that fought in >>> the western areas during the war (between the >>> Appalachians and Mississippi). >>> >> >> But nothing North. No states after the Mason-Dixon >> line? Just below that line? Got it! >> >> >>> And the Army of the Tennessee was a Union/Federal >>> unit which fought in the >>> Western Theater. >>> >> >> Now this is where I am always confused - the word >> "Theater". I'm not that well versed on WW2 but because >> of my dealings in the South Pacific I'd had to learn >> the WW2 Pacific theater and now the Western theater? >> All my mind is capable of seeing is a movie theater >> every time I hear/see those words. >> >> Puhleese elaborate. >> >> <GRIN> >> --Manaia >> >> ++++ >> >> --- NPeters102@aol.com wrote: >> >> >>> In a message dated 5/23/2008 10:24:36 A.M. Eastern >>> Daylight Time, >>> eharding2@suddenlink.net writes: >>> >>> The Army of Tennessee was the portion of the >>> Confederate Army that fought in >>> the western areas during the war (between the >>> Appalachians and Mississippi). >>> >>> And the Army of the Tennessee was a Union/Federal >>> unit which fought in the >>> Western Theater. >>> >>> Respectfully, >>> >>> Mike Peters >>> npeters102@aol.com >>> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> CIVIL-WAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CIVIL-WAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

My, my, my... did you miss your true calling? General Gayley! <salute> Remind me to be on your side! --Manaia ++++ --- Alice Gayley <agayley@verizon.net> wrote: > Manaia, > > > > Artillery Corps: heavy weaponry? cannons? > Exactly. There was also > > "Light" artillery, but we'll save that for a later > time. > > > > Cavalry Corps: soldiers who rode on horses? > Exactly. Although sometimes > > when they fought in battle they dismounted. > > > > Infantry Corps: everyone else on foot? Right. > > > I'm trying to get the gist before I hit the books. > Is > > Corps short for Corporations? No, it's a French > term as in "esprit de > > corps." > > > > > It's a wonder anyone could win a war let alone > fight a > > war with all this planning and designing going on > just > > to strategize. > > Well, think about our foreign relations in today's > world. What else are > they except planned and designed strategies to > prevent some other country > from attacking us, either at home or elsewhere in > the world? Battle > strategies are almost as old as man himself. Think > about the Romans and the > Carthagens, or the British and the U. S. Army in the > Revolutionary war. War > is not simple; never has been. Yes, the individual > soldier has to run into > battle and shot at what he sees, but there are those > above him who have > picked his target, decided the direction in which he > will run, and the time > he steps off. > > Having grown up during WWII, I'm always in awe of > the men in the > Revolutionary and Civil Wars when linear warfare was > used. How could you > just line up and start shooting at each other, e. > g., Pickett's charge at > Gettysburg? It's easier to understand hiding behind > rocks, buildings, etc. > to protect yourself and not making yourself a > target. I'm all for ambush! > > Alice

Hello Dennis: Ah! That's why the change of name? 52nd Regiment, United States Colored Infantry (William Dickens regiment; d.SEP 5, 1863) Regiment is re-named after siege of Vicksburg. Organized March 11, 1864, from 2nd Mississippi Infantry (African Descent). Attached to 2nd Brigade, 1st Division, United States Colored Troops, District of Vicksburg, Miss., to October, 1864. 2nd Brigade, 4th Division, 16th Corps, to November, 1864. 2nd Brigade, 1st Division, United States Colored Troops, District of Vicksburg, Miss., to February, 1865. Maltby's Brigade, District of Vicksburg, Miss., and Dept. of Mississippi, to May, 1866. SERVICE.-Post and garrison duty at Vicksburg, Miss., till June, 1865. Action at Coleman's Plantation, Port Gibson, July 4, 1864. Bayou Liddell October 15. Duty at various points in the Depts. of Mississippi and the Gulf till May, 1866. Mustered out May 5, 1866. --Manaia ++++ --- "Dennis J. Francis" <donncadhf@wowway.com> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alice Gayley" <agayley@verizon.net> > > > > Was Troop equal to a regiment or a company?ever > too old to learn! > > > -------------------------------- > Troop is equivalent to a company. > > Troop is more of a post-war term, though. > > Dennis

Manaia There is good reason to be confused and even those of us who have spent years studying the war get confused from time to time, for instance, both the North (Union, Federal, USA, Blue) and the South (Confederate, CSA, Grey, Butternut) had an Army of Tennessee and both also had a Department of Tennessee. Army Corps describes a group of several divisions under one General. And Army describes a group of Army Corps under one General. Theater of operation generally describes the area in which various Armies operated and Department describes the area of assignment of several Armies. There was a lot of shifting around of Armies back and forth between commands depending on where the needs were the greatest and therefore an Army fighting in one Department could be moved to another and so on down to Brigade level. Infantry Regiments for the most part remained fixed in size and command, however Cavalry and Artillery many times had Companies split off and loaned or transferred to different Brigades or Divisions. Any Department could be enlarged or reduced and Armies could be added or removed so the designations held at one time could change with military requirements. The Department designation was only relatively representative of the area in which the Department was located. The Union Army of the Tennessee was formed in October of 1862 and was commanded by US Grant until 1863 then General Sherman until March 1864, then James McPherson until he was killed July 1864. Gens Logan and Howard commanded alternately until the end Aug 1865. This Army consisted of the XIII, XV, XVI, and XVII Army Corps. The Confederate Army of Tennessee was formed in Nov 1862 under Braxton Bragg. In Dec of 1863 the command shifted to General Johnston and in July of 1864 command was taken from Johnston and given to General John Bell Hood who commanded until Jan 1865 when Gen Taylor took over and Feb when the command was returned to Johnston who surrendered the army in April of 1865. There are two good books to read that will help immensely with understanding the war. Shelby Foote's Trilogy and Mark Boatner's The Civil War Dictionary. The Trilogy is huge but is as good as any for understanding the military and civilian aspect of the Civil War. The Civil War Dictionary allows one to look up specifics like "the Army of The Cumberland" etc.... By the way the Army of the Cumberland (Union) fought in Tennessee also... And by all means keep asking questions on the list because many on this list have significant resources to guide them in their answers. Mike Manaia Alofa wrote: > Hello Mike: > > I am gonna have to read these posts all at one time > instead of when they've been posted - grin. > > >> The Army of Tennessee was the portion of the >> Confederate Army that fought in >> the western areas during the war (between the >> Appalachians and Mississippi). >> > > But nothing North. No states after the Mason-Dixon > line? Just below that line? Got it! > > >> And the Army of the Tennessee was a Union/Federal >> unit which fought in the >> Western Theater. >> > > Now this is where I am always confused - the word > "Theater". I'm not that well versed on WW2 but because > of my dealings in the South Pacific I'd had to learn > the WW2 Pacific theater and now the Western theater? > All my mind is capable of seeing is a movie theater > every time I hear/see those words. > > Puhleese elaborate. > > <GRIN> > --Manaia > > ++++ > > --- NPeters102@aol.com wrote: > > >> In a message dated 5/23/2008 10:24:36 A.M. Eastern >> Daylight Time, >> eharding2@suddenlink.net writes: >> >> The Army of Tennessee was the portion of the >> Confederate Army that fought in >> the western areas during the war (between the >> Appalachians and Mississippi). >> >> And the Army of the Tennessee was a Union/Federal >> unit which fought in the >> Western Theater. >> >> Respectfully, >> >> Mike Peters >> npeters102@aol.com >> > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CIVIL-WAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Hello Jim: Glad you could join in... uhm... Now that I have a little bit more incite (just a little) I can safely say it is still too early for me to make comment - grin. But I will. > From the Northern perspective, the South was > rebelling. At this precise moment in time, my mind wonders about the book I haven't finished "Gandhi & Churchill: The Epic Rivalry that Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age". Were Southerners indiscreetly showing Ghandi idealism to Lincoln's abrupt ways of governing? Just one thought. > From the Southern > perspective, the North was the aggressor. Now this part of your statement kind of cancels out my statement about the South - doesn't it? Time for more research. Too early to make good any kind of judgement. Thanks! --Manaia ++++ --- Jim Gilmer <jimgilmer@charter.net> wrote: > > > -------Original Message------- > > From: Jim Gilmer > Date: 5/23/2008 1:32:44 PM > To: civil-war@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Army of Tennessee / Army of > Vicksburg / Federal? > > >From the Northern perspective, the South was > rebelling. From the Southern > perspective, the North was the aggressor. > > Jim

To build on Edward's fine examples of the differences between the Confederate and Union naming conventions for battles, the same was true for the most part in naming their armies. The Confederates named their armies for the location where an army was raised, while Union/Federals named their armies for rivers; hence the Union army was made up of the Army of the Potomac, the Army of the Tennessee, etc. Alice Gayley ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edward Harding" <eharding2@suddenlink.net> To: <civil-war@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 10:18 AM Subject: Re: [CIVIL-WAR] Army of Tennessee / Army of Vicksburg / Federal? > Manaia, > > The Army of Tennessee was the portion of the Confederate Army that fought > in > the western areas during the war (between the Appalachians and > Mississippi). > The portion of the Confederate Army that fought in the eastern states was > known as the Army of Northern Virginia. > > The name Confederate is indeed Southern. The country formed by the states > that seceded from the Union was The Confederate States of America, hence > the > abbreviation C.S.A. The Federals was a name that was also used for > Union > troops. > > In you studies of the war, you'll also find differences in the names of > many > battles. With the Union Army invading Southern territory, it was usually > the Confederates who chose the field of battle since they were familiar > with > the terrain. Because of this, the Union/Federals usually named battles > for > nearby rivers or streams while the Confederates used the names of the > towns. > A few examples are: > > Union Confederate > Bull Run Manassas > Antietam Sharpsburg > Stone's River Murfreesboro > Fair Oaks Seven Pines > Elkhorn Tavern Pea Ridge > > Although most people call this the Civil War, actually, the official name > for it as written in the Original Records is The War of the Rebellion. > How > it became known as the Civil War is anyone's guess as a true civil war has > one group trying to invade and taking over the existing government of > another group. The Southern states seceded from the Union and just wanted > to be left alone, so therefore, "civil war" really isn't a proper name for > it. Many people call the South "traitors" because of their secession, but > very few know or realize that secession was actually taught at West Point > before the war. There are many names for this war including: The War > Between > the States, The War for Southern Independence, Mr. Lincoln's War, and > numerous others. On a humerous side, I like Daisy Moses' (Granny > Clampett) > name for it: The War Twixt the Yankees and the Americans. > > Once you study the war more, you'll get the hang of all these names. I > know > it can be confusing at first, but before you know it, you'll be able to > identify names of places either from Union/Federal names or from > Confederate > names. I'm hoping this small bit of information will be of some help to > you. > > Edward Harding > Life Member: Sons of Confederate Veterans > Life Member: Military Order of Stars & Bars > SCV National Genealogy Committee Member > http://ehardingwbtsancestors.homestead.com/Index.html > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CIVIL-WAR-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hello nn: I am sorry if I caused you any discomfort and please know it was not intentional. I personally cannot answer your heart-felt questions. But I can say because of recent experience with Virginia list/ers the grudges of yesteryear is still strong. And my Heart goes out to both sides because I feel there really still is a North and a South. Happy Memorial Day, --Manaia ++++ --- akeegan <akeegan@wowway.com> wrote: > When I think of the Civil War I wonder if the mother > of a wounded > Confederate solider felt more pain than a Northen > Mother > Did a Confederate soldier feel more pain from hunger > that a Northen soldier > Did the Children of a Southern Soldier miss there > father more than a Union > Soldier's children, No course not So were they > not all brave and noble > Soldiers fighting for what the each believe to be > right . > On this Memorial Day I will honor both and place no > blame on either side > Ann

Alice: Artillery Corps: heavy weaponry? cannons? Cavalry Corps: soldiers who rode on horses? Infantry Corps: everyone else on foot? I'm trying to get the gist before I hit the books. Is Corps short for Corporations? It's a wonder anyone could win a war let alone fight a war with all this planning and designing going on just to strategize. "I'm tired already." More musings later. --Manaia ++++ --- Alice Gayley <agayley@verizon.net> wrote: > Manaia, > > Generally, > > An Army was made up of one Artillery Corps, one > Cavalry Corps and an > Infantry Corps. > > The Infantry Corps was made up of divisions (two or > three or more). > Infantry Divisions were made up of Brigades (usually > three or more) > Brigades were made up of Regiments (no fixed number > generally three or four > or more) > Regiments were made up of Companies (Infantry > regiments usually had ten > companies designed as: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, > and K), although there > were larger regiments. Cavalry regiments usually > had more than ten > companies. > > Battalions were larger than a regiment and smaller > than regiment. Perhaps > some one else can speak to the size of a battalion. > > Hope this helps, > Alice Gayley

Thank you for the great response to my listing. I have been away on vacation and just read my email. While I was gone I did some research in the West Virginia Archives. There I found the muster rolls and several other documents. It seem that William Dickens was captured at Gauley Bridge and was later release in Alexandria. He was then discharged and offered a promotion to go to serve with the 2nd Regiment E company colored infantry. He died in Vicksburg but I don't know if he was killed in battle or not. I just got home and have not had a chance to go over all the papers yet. It seems that he died very shortly after he was promoted. I was told my next place to look is in Mississippi. Since I am not planning a trip anytime soon. I will use the information you all so graciously provided. Thank you again, Lorna **************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)

Edward: "The Southern states seceded from the Union and just wanted to be left alone," The statement above bothers me. "Although most people call this the Civil War, actually, the official name for it as written in the Original Records is The War of the Rebellion." Then, which side was rebelling? That would mean the Union side, more or less, were the "bullies" so to speak. Do the generals of today study tactics/plans of previous wars and act accordingly? Or do they try to come up with new strategies? I know: research! I will read up on books you'd suggested also. Be ready. --Manaia ++++ --- "Edward Harding" <eharding2@suddenlink.net> wrote: Although most people call this the Civil War, actually, the official name for it as written in the Original Records is The War of the Rebellion. How it became known as the Civil War is anyone's guess as a true civil war has one group trying to invade and taking over the existing government of another group. The Southern states seceded from the Union and just wanted to be left alone, so therefore, "civil war" really isn't a proper name for it. Many people call the South "traitors" because of their secession, but very few know or realize that secession was actually taught at West Point before the war.

Alice: I should be up on this first, but while I have your atten-hut. What determines a: Division: Brigade: Regiment: Company: Battalion: Calvary/Troop: Grateful, --Manaia ++++ --- Alice Gayley <agayley@verizon.net> wrote: > To build on Mike's organizational message, an Army > Corps was generally > organized as > > Divisions which were made up of > Brigades which were made up of > Regiments which were made up of Companies and/or > Battalions > > The Cavalry also used the word "Troop." (Can one of > you Cavalry types help > me out here? Was Troop equal to a regiment or a > company? Thanks!) > > Alice Gayley > Never too old to learn!

In a message dated 5/23/2008 10:24:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, eharding2@suddenlink.net writes: The Army of Tennessee was the portion of the Confederate Army that fought in the western areas during the war (between the Appalachians and Mississippi). And the Army of the Tennessee was a Union/Federal unit which fought in the Western Theater. Respectfully, Mike Peters npeters102@aol.com **************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)