War Department Papers Captured in Charlotte

Post-war image of the Mecklenburg County Courthouse

    To my knowledge (limited, I know), there has only been one article ever written on Confederate War Department papers. Dallas D. Irvine wrote "The Fate of Confederate Archives: Executive Office" and it appeared in The American Historical Review in July 1939. Irvine talks a great deal about the Papers of Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, but for the next few lines, I would like to focus on the papers other than those of the Executive Branch.

   Irvine tells us that the papers of the State and War Departments were boxed up and sent away from Richmond. The State Department papers were sent away prior to the evacuation on April 2, 1865. William J. Bromwell, "disbursing clerk," was in charge. The papers were first taken to the Danville Female College, but Bromwell later loaded them back on the train and took the State Department papers to Charlotte. In Charlotte, "the containers were placed in packing crates marked with his [Bromwell's] initials and stored in the courthouse." Later, in fear of a Federal raid, they were removed to the "country" under the care of Mr. A. C. Williams" (826).  Bromwell wrote to Judah P. Benjamin on April 5, so I would assume they were in Charlotte and then the "country" by this date.

   According to Irvine, the papers of the Quartermaster's Department were shipped to Lynchburg, Virginia. All 128 cases of them were captured there. Records of the Exchange Bureau were left in Richmond, along with the records of the Engineer Bureau and from the office of the chief paymaster. The War Department papers were hurried out of Richmond on the night of April 2, 1865, and taken to Charlotte. There were reportedly 81 crates of documents. When Jefferson Davis chose to leave the Queen City, the papers of the War Department were turned over Gen. Samuel Cooper.

   Other papers from the War Department were destroyed, including the records of the Surgeon General, Commissary General, Signal Office, and Army intelligence Office. Other records still missing to this day include those of the Engineer Bureau, Ordnance Bureau, Niter and Mining Bureau, Office of Foreign Supplies, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Engineer Bureau papers were reported as abandoned in a railroad car in Greensboro. The ordnance records might have made it as far as Charlotte. It was reported that some records were destroyed at Fort Mill, South Carolina, possibly including the records of the Naval Department.

Some of the "Rebel Archives." Photo by Lee Spence. 

   The State Department records mentioned above, according to Irvine, were retrieved by Bromwell after the war and brought to Washington, D.C., by Confederate colonel John T. Picket. Picket put the papers up for sale in 1868, and they were finally sold to the US Treasury Department in 1872. In 1906 and 1910, they were transferred to the Library of Congress.

   An interesting paper trail for the War Department records can be found in the Official Records. After the surrender at the Bennett Place, Joseph E. Johnston made his way to Charlotte. Cooper notified Johnston of the papers, and on May 8, Johnston wrote from Charlotte to Maj. Gen. John Schofield: "It has just been reported to me that the archives of the War Department of the Confederate States are here. As they will furnish valuable materials for history, I am anxious for their preservation, and doubt not that you are too. For that object I am ready to deliver them to the officer you may direct to receive them." (OR 47, 3:443)

   Schofield finally responded on May 12, writing from Raleigh. He informed Johnston that he was sending "Lieutenant Washburn, of my staff, to receive the War Department papers... I fully share your desire for their preservation, as they will be invaluable to history, and will take care that they be properly preserved for that purpose." (OR 47, 3:483).

   When C. P. Washburne came calling on the evening of May 14, Johnston was out, but replied to Washburne's note that the documents had already been turned over to the local post commander. However, Johnston agreed to meet with Washburne the next morning. An observer noted that the papers were stored in a building on main street, "in a cellar-a dark, dismal spot... wagons were procured, and the boxes containing the documents conveyed to the railroad" and then taken to Raleigh. There were 83 boxes "of various sizes, from an ammunition box to a large clothing chest... They were also of all shapes. Some of them are rifle boxes, and many of them resemble the ordinary army mess chest." 

   Washburn wrote Col. W. M. Wherry on May 14 from Charlotte that he had the "rebel War Department documents" and would start for Raleigh at 7 o'clock the next morning (OR 47, 3:497). The papers were shipped via rail to Raleigh.

   US Secretary of War Edwin Stanton wrote to Schofield on May 16: "Please turn over to Colonel Cutts, to be brought here immediately, all the rebel War Department papers and correspondence recently captured by you, and all papers or correspondence relating to the rebellion or the operations of the rebel Government in Richmond... Also give Colonel Cutts transportation and every facility to get here with the papers as speedily as possible" (OR 47, 3:510).  At the same time, Schofield writes to Henry Halleck: "I have all the archives of the late rebel War Department, including all the army muster-rolls, officers' reports, captured flags, &c. They amount to about two car-loads" (OR 47, 3:511). Halleck fired back on May 16: "Box up all captured Confederate papers, flags, &c., and send them to C. A. Dana, Assistant Secretary of War... Preserve every paper, however unimportant it may appear. We have the key to their ciphers. Important links of testimony have been discovered here of the Canadian plot." (OR 47, 3:511-12)

   There were several notes passed between Stanton, Halleck, and Schofield on May 17. Halleck informed Stanton that the boxes, "weighing ten tons" would set out that evening. Stanton wanted the papers shipped via rail, but that was not to be. Schofield then prepared a manifest of what he was shipping:  

   Halleck then notified Stanton that the papers "left Raleigh on the evening of the 17th." They were presumably shipped via rail to New Bern "or Beaufort," placed on the steamer John Tracy, and sent to Fort Monroe. Schofield sent a member of his staff, Colonel Treat, with the documents.  (OR 47, 3: 534)

   Stanton was trying to connect Jefferson Davis with the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. The papers soon arrived in Washington, D.C., but the connection between Davis and John Wilkes Booth eluded not only Stanton, but also historians up until this day.

Wade Hampton's Iron Scouts

A week or so ago, I picked up a copy of D. Michael Thomas's Wade Hampton's Iron Scouts: Confederate Special Forces, released by The History Press on March 5, 2018. Thomas's tome follows a group of Confederate cavalry, made up of men from other regiments, detailed to gather information on the movements of the Army of the Potomac in late 1862 through 1865. The group, unofficially known as Hampton's Iron Scouts, raided Federal picket posts and clashed with Federal cavalry patrols, earning praise from Confederate leaders and the enmity of Federal officers. Probably their most famous role came in the September 1864 Beefsteak Raid. The scouts were the ones who found the cattle, notified Hampton, and guided his cavalry force toward their prize.

While I have read deeply into the Army of Northern Virginia's history, the role of scouts is something I have not read much about (probably because, outside of Mosby, there is not a lot of information on the subject). Thomas has done a superb job of scouring various sources to put together a history of a neglected branch of the Confederate army. He not only details their exploits, but provides brief biographical pieces on many of the scouts. Hampton's Iron Scouts were largely men from South Carolina regiments, but there were a few from other commands. Thomas identified these Tar Heels: William M. Waterbury, 3rd NCC; James M. Sloan, 1st NCC; Julius S. Harris, 1st NCC; and George J. Hanley, 1st NCC.

If you are interested in the fringe elements of the Army of Northern Virginia, then Thomas's Wade Hampton's Scout's is recommended. 

Name, Rank, and Serial Number

For the past couple of days, I've been reading "My Dear Friend: The Civil War Letters of Alva Benjamin Spencer, 3rd Georgia Regiment Company C," edited by Clyde G. Wiggins, III.  Spencer was in the band and, while he witnessed the horrors of the war, was not often on the front lines. But he does give us some clues about the inner workings of the army. At the time of the Overland Campaign, they were members of Anderson's division, Hill Corps.

James Longstreet

On April 22, 1864, Spencer penned a letter to his sweetheart back in Georgia.  He was writing from Camp "Jennie Hart" on Madison Run. "A few days since we received orders from Genl. Lee," Spencer wrote, "that should any of the brave soldiers of this army be so unfortunate as to fall into the hands of the enemy, they should not tell to what brigade, division or corps they belonged; but simply give their names, company and regiments; also prisoners should not talk with each other in reference to anything connected with the army.'" Like all good soldiers, Spencer and his compatriots tried to determine what the order meant and came to the conclusion that "Longstreet's corps is undoubtedly at Charlottesville." (110)

Those of us who grew up right, watching old war movies on Saturday afternoons, recall POWs only giving their name, rank, and serial number. Of course, Confederate (and Union) soldiers did not have serial numbers. I've tried to find Lee's order, but I've not had much luck yet.

Longstreet and most of his corps were shipped to Georgia in September 1863 (passing through North Carolina). He was instrumental in the Confederate victory at Chickamauga, and the Confederate defeat at Chattanooga. After a failed attempt to re-capture Knoxville, he spent the winter of 1863-1864 in east Tennessee. With the opening of the spring campaign in Virginia, Lee wanted Longstreet back with the Army of Northern Virginia.

Lee actually planned to use Longstreet to attack the Federals positioned across the Rapidan River (see Lee to Davis, April 25, 1864, Official Records, Vol. XXXIII, 1282-83). Based upon Spencer's letter home, Lee was trying to keep Longstreet's movement a secret.

Name, rank, and regiment. I don't recall reading this in any other source. 

Now taking orders! Kirk's Civil War Raids!

Two books out in one year? Yes sir! I actually never planned to have two books come out within three General Lee's Immortals to be released in the fall of 2017, and Kirk's Civil War Raids Along the Blue Ridge to come out in the summer of 2018. That is not the way things worked out, and I'm ok with that. It just means that I am going to have a supper busy 2018!

months of each other.  I expected

There are books on just western North Carolina and the War (Inscoe and McKinney's Heart of Confederate Appalachia) and on just East Tennessee (Fisher's War at Every Door: Partisan Politics and Guerrilla Violence in East Tennessee). Kirk's Civil War Raids along the Blue Ridge bridges the gap between the areas, tracing the movements of guerrilla bands and regular soldiers as they operated between the two states.

There are a host of characters involved. Union colonel George W. Kirk takes a leading role, but Brig. Gen. Robert B. Vance, Col. John B. Palmer, Col. William H. Thomas, Maj. Gen. George W. Stoneman and others appear at frequent intervals. Kirk's Civil War Raids along the Blue Ridge also covers some of the pivotal events of the War in the mountains, including the Marshal and Shelton Laurel Raids of January 1863, Folk’s raid on Fish Springs, and the skirmishes around Gatlinburg, Greenville, Elizabethton, and Asheville. Of course, Kirk’s activities in Warm Springs, Camp Vance, and as a part of Stoneman's raid are also covered.

Signed copies are $20, shipping included. Release date is March 5. Please visit my website to order your copy today. 

Who shot Jackson?

Ok. That one is pretty easy. Almost everyone agrees it was the 18th North Carolina Troops who shot Jackson. It was not their fault: it was dark; Jackson should not have been out in front of his men that close to the front lines, etc., etc. Scott Ellis recently asked me a much harder question: what company of the 18th North Carolina shot Jackson? We don't actually know, which leads to a much harder, technical question: how were companies deployed in a line within a regiment?

from Hardee's Light Infantry Tactics (1861). 

Some basics: A standard infantry regiment during the war was composed of ten companies. Each company was composed of 100 men, at least early in the war. By mid-1863, it was probably half that. Each company, once a regiment was created, was given a letter designation - A through K, skipping the letter J because it looked too much like the letter I. Traditionally, when ten independent companies were gathered at a training camp, they were given permission to form a regiment and elect their colonel, lieutenant colonel, and major. Then the independent companies were given letter designations. It would be nice to assume that Company A was the oldest company in the regiment, Company B the second oldest, etc., but that does not appear to be true. In looking at three regiments, the 16th North Carolina, 26th North Carolina, and 37th North Carolina, the companies are not lettered chronologically. It is possible that the Company lettering was based upon when they received permission to organize from the governor. (That would take more research to prove.)

We could then assume that Company A would be the first company in line, followed by Company B, Company C, etc. But that's not the way the period manuals laid out the regiment. The very first paragraph in the 1861 edition of Rifle and Light Infantry Tactics... by W. J. Hardee reads: "A regiment is composed of ten companies, which will habitually be posted from right to left, in the following order: first, sixth, fourth, ninth, third, eighth, fifth, tenth, seventh, second, according to the rank of captains." (5) The last little phrase "according to the rank of captains" is what makes this confusing.

Going back to the 37th NC, the regimental line, based upon the seniority of the captains, should look like this on November 20, 1861 (this is from the right): A, E, C, G, K, H, D, I, F, B. That changes on November 21. Capt. William M. Barber (Company F) is promoted to lieutenant colonel and Capt. John G. Bryan (Company G) is elected major. Their successors are now the junior captains in the regiment. 1st Lt. James Reed replaces Captain Bryan, and Pvt. Charles N. Hickerson replaces Captain Barber. Since Hickerson is elected from the ranks, he is the junior captain of all the company commanders in the 37th NC. Now the companies are in line, from the right: A, E, C, G, K, I, D, F, H, B. Usually, the companies on the far right and far left are designated flank companies, or skirmish companies. At times, they are armed with rifles, while the rest of the companies are armed with smoothbore muskets.

Now, this raises a serious question that I have never been able to answer. During the war, when captain turnover was frequent, did the companies change position in the line? I could see this in the old US Army, prior to war. Companies were rarely together to begin with, often stationed at various posts some distance away. Looking at the 37th NC on May 1, 1863, right before the battle of Chancellorsville, the companies should be, from the right, A, E, H, I, D, G, F, K, B, C. And even this may not be right. Captain John Hartzog of Company A was originally elected as captain on August 27, 1861. He resigned and went home on July 15, 1862, but was re-appointed as captain of Company A on February 9, 1863. Does his previous rank come into play?

The reason I use the 37th NC for an example is this: I actually have a listing of companies in line. Noah Collins, in his post-war writings, lays out the company line in late 1861 (from the left): D, B, E, C, K, I, H, G, A, F. As you can see this is nothing like how it should be, according to the rank of the captains.

Along those lines, has anyone ever seen another account of a Confederate regiment where the companies were designated in line? I've been reading letters, diaries, and regimental histories, and I don't recall seeing this any other place.

So, to go back to Scott Ellis's question, no, I don't know which company of the 18th NC shot Jackson. I'm not sure we will ever know the answer to that question. 

Stoneman's 1863 raid

We here in North Carolina talk a great deal about Stoneman's 1865 raid through the western parts of North Carolina. His troopers fought numerous skirmishes and one pitched battle (Salisbury). Unable to destroy the bridge over the Yadkin River on the Rowan-Davidson County line, Stoneman turned back toward the west, moving toward Statesville, Taylorsville, and Lenoir. Stoneman himself returned to Tennessee with about 1,000 prisoners, while the majority of his command moved further west. Stoneman's moving through the western parts of North Carolina most likely played a role in the decision of Gen. Joseph E. Johnston and his surrender to Sherman in late April 1865.

George Stoneman

Yet there is another Stoneman's Raid. On the surface it did not amount to much and, at times, is seen as a failure. Maybe there is more to this raid than meets the eye.

In April 1863, Joseph Hooker puts the Army of the Potomac in motion. His plan is to move swiftly over the Rappahannock River and force Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia out of their Fredericksburg entrenchments. Of course, we know that Lee divided his army, met Hooker, split the ANV again, and won a decisive victory over the Federals. (Short summary.) Part of Hooker's plan was to send his cavalry, under the command of Maj. Gen. George Stoneman, on a long distance raid against Lee's supply lines.  Cutting these lines would help force Lee out into the open. Hooker famously wrote to Stoneman on April 12: "Let your watchword be fight, and let all your orders be fight, fight, fight."

Stoneman's Raid began on April 28. Plagued by bad weather, portions of Stoneman's command were not on the south bank of the North Anna River until May 2. There were several skirmishes, some of the railroad tracks were torn up, depots burned, and telegraph lines cut. Stoneman returned to Union lines on May 8. Hooker was not pleased with Stoneman's results (Hooker and the Army of the Potomac had already retreated). "If Lee had been severed from his base of supplies, I certainly should not have retired across the River before giving him an old fashioned struggle for the ascendency," Hooker wrote after the war. In his eyes, it was Stoneman's fault that Chancellorsville was a lost battle.

But did Stoneman's raid really work? Many soldiers in the Confederate army wrote of being on quarter rations following the battle of Chancellorsville. Tally Simpson (3rd South Carolina Infantry) even goes a step further. On May 10, 1863, he wrote home that "We are beginning to live hard as soon as we return[ed] to camp. Stoneman's raid reduced our rations no little. I am compelled to go hungry half of the time." (228)  William Stilwell (53rd Georgia Infantry) wrote home on May 13: "The whole army is on quarter rations. A lb. and a half of meat from six days-take it as it come-bone, skin, and dirt, and it was so rank that it can hardly be eaten..." (159) Toward the end of May, it appears that rations started flowing once again into the Confederate camps around Fredericksburg.

Kent Masterson Brown, in his remarkable book Retreat from Gettysburg: Lee, Logistics, and the Pennsylvania Campaign (2005), outlines the extreme shortages faced by the Army of Northern Virginia in the spring of 1863. If Lee's army did not move out of the war-ravaged central Virginia area, it faced certain collapse due to a short of food and forage. There are, of course, other reasons, not just Stoneman's raid early in May. There had been a drought in 1862, and too much rain in early 1863. But Stoneman's Raid, and the extra work it took to get the already taxed railroad back into working shape, certainly did not help the dire situation that Lee faced. By mid-June, the Army of Northern Virginia was on its way to the rich barns of Pennsylvania. 

New reference material from Savas Beatie

From time to time, I've made posts on growing a good library. If you have unlimited funds, then you can order away and stock you shelves with good books. I don't have unlimited funds, but I am always looking for good books that allow me to be better at what I do. Recently, Savas Beatie, LLC, released Richard A. Sauers' The National Tribune Civil War Index: A Guide to the Weekly Newspapers Dedicated to Civil War Veterans, 1877-1943. It is in three volumes.

A little background: The National Tribune was a newspaper that began publication in 1877 as a monthly newspaper "to help influence Congress" to help the Federal veterans with their quest in regards to a better pension for former soldiers. In August 1881, the newspaper became a weekly sheet, and began publishing articles by veterans. "We shall be glad at all times to hear from any of our soldiers or sailor friends who have matters of historical interest, incidents, or amusing anecdotes of the war to relate," the editor wrote in August 1881. By 1884, there were over 77,000 subscribers. Articles continued to appear in the National Tribune until 1943.

So, what does this have to do with Southern soldiers? While the majority of the articles that appeared with the pages of the National Tribune were written by former Union soldiers, articles were written from time to time by former Confederate soldiers. For example, volume 3 has a listing of articles pertaining to North Carolina soldiers. The one entry for the 28th North Carolina references an article that appeared on July 23, 1891. Using volume 1, I was able to see that this article pertained to the battle of Cold Harbor. Next, I went to newspapers.com (the articles are not contained in the three volumes - It is only an index), found the National Tribune for July 23, 1891, and searched "Cold Harbor." You can see the article I found here.

The majority of the articles are from Federal soldiers. The Southerners had Confederate Veteran and the Southern Historical Society Papers for their post-war writings. Yet, there are truly some gems to be found with the index. Richard Sauers' work is a fantastic addition to the libraries of those of us who spend our days poring through original sources looking for the smallest details to enhance our scholarship.

The three volumes are only available through Savas Beatie, and the first printing is limited to 100 sets (There were only 30 or set sets left when I ordered). I'm glad I ordered mine. They are a great addition to my library. 

The Most Recognizable Flags in the Confederacy?

18th NC flag, NC Museum of History 

Did the Branch-Lane brigade have the most recognizable flags in the Confederacy? Quite possibly. On the front cover of my new book is the "Branch pattern" flag of the 18th North Carolina Infantry. It is a standard 3rd pattern Army of Northern Virginia flag, with battle honors painted in a distinct white scalloped style. As far as I can tell, no other ANV infantry regiment ever had such a distinctive style flag. The flags of the 3rd, 13th and 15th South Carolina are similar, but not enough to attribute it to the same painter. The battle honors are not as bold.

Following the Seven Days battles, Brig. Gen. Lawrence O'Bryan Branch was authorized to have new battle flags inscribed with the regiments' battle honors. The quartermaster was responsible for furnishing flags to the brigade. The flags of the 7th, 33rd, and 37th regiments were authorized to be emblazoned "New Berne, Slash Church, Mechanicsville, Gaines Mill, Fraziers Farm, [and] Malvern Hill." The flags of the 18th and 28th regiments were embellished with "Slash Church, Mechanicsville, Gaines Mill, Fraziers Farm, [and] Malvern Hill."

37th NC flag, Museum of the Confederacy

When the flags of the regiment were issued to the brigade in December 1862, the battle honors had undergone some changes. Instead of "Slash Church," the flags now had Hanover. Gaines Mill was now Cold Harbor. Other honors were listed as well, including Cedar Run, Manassas, Manassas Junction, Ox Hill, Shaprsburg, and Harper's Ferry.

According to the compiled service records, the flags arrived in camp in early December 1862. Captain George S. Thompson, quartermaster for the 28th Regiment, signed for his regiment's flag on December 4, 1862. The statement reads "One Battle Flag with inscription." That's an important little fact. I would take it to mean that the flags arrived in camp, from Richmond, already painted with their battle honors. Obviously, there was some discussion from the time that Branch requested the flags, until when they were actually painted (after September 1862) with someone at the Quartermaster's Department.

28th NC flag, Museum of the Confederacy 

The brigade, now belonging to James H. Lane, carried these flags through the battles of Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. The 18th NC lost its flag at Chancellorsville. Glen Dedmondt writes in his book, The Flags of Civil War North Carolina, that A. P. Hill's division was issued new flags in June 1863. The 7th NC obviously stuck their "Branch" flag back in a wagon. Their new flag was captured on July 3, on the slopes of Cemetery Ridge by a member of the 1st Delaware Infantry. The 28th North Carolina also lost a flag, but not the new one. Their Branch flag was captured on July 3. Dedmondt believes the 33rd NC carried its new flag through the Gettysburg campaign, until it was captured at the Wilderness on May 6, 1864.

33rd NC flag, Museum of the Confederacy

So the Branch pattern flag of the 18th was captured at Chancellorsville, and that of the 28th at Gettysburg. The 37th North Carolina's Branch flag was captured on April 2, 1865, as the Federals overran the breastworks below Petersburg. The 33rd North Carolina's Branch Pattern flag was supposedly in Battery Gregg as the fighting took place. It was captured at some point after April. So what became of the 7th's Branch pattern flag? The 7th NC had been ordered back to North Carolina in February 1865, to try and help round up deserters. Instead of surrendering their flag, the men cut it up, each taking a piece of it home with him. This seems to be a common practice with Army of Tennessee regiments.

Pieces of all three flags survive. A fragment of the 7th NC's Branch pattern flag is at the North Carolina Museum of History, along with the 18th NC's Branch pattern flag. The Branch pattern flags of the 28th, 33rd, and 37th Regiments are at the Museum of the Confederacy.

7th NC flag fragment, NC Museum of History 

Back to my original argument. I would say that the Branch pattern flags of the Branch-Lane brigade are the most distinctive depot-issued flags of the Army of Northern Virginia.

Thanks to Charlie Knight of the North Carolina Museum of History for help with this post. 

Help save one of the Bethel Regiment's flags!

Preserving flags is no small undertaking. A wool bunting flag can cost several thousand dollars. A silk flag, $20,000. States and museums rarely have that kind of money lying around, so it is up to individuals and groups to raise the funds to have the flags sent to conservators for preservation. When it comes to silk flags, time is of the essence.

Friends in the McDowell Men, Camp 379, Sons of Confederate Veterans, have taken it upon themselves to raise the funds to preserve the flag of Company E, 1st North Carolina Volunteers, the Buncombe Riflemen.

The Buncombe Riflemen were organized on December 20, 1859, in Asheville, North Carolina. Locals were afraid that other fanatics, like John Brown, would follow in his footsteps, raiding government property, kidnapping local citizens, and inciting civil insurrection. Later, the name of the private militia company was changed to the Buncombe Rifles. With hostilities looming between the North and South, the Buncombe Rifles were ordered to Raleigh in April 1861.  The flag above was reportedly made by Miss Anna and Sallie Woodfin; Miss Fannie and Mary Patton; Miss Mary Gaines, and Miss Kate Smith. The flag was made from silk dresses belonging to the young ladies, and was presented to the company by Anna Woodfin. Capt. William McDowell accepted the flag on behalf of the company.

The Buncombe Rifles became Company E, 1st North Carolina  Volunteers, on May 13, 1861. It is believed that Company E became the color company of the regiment, and that this flag flew over them as they fought the Federals at the battle of Big Bethel, Virginia, in June 1861. That distinction would make this banner the first flag to see land combat operations during the war. Later, the General Assembly authorized the regiment to inscribe the word "Bethel" on the flag. The first North Carolina Volunteers was mustered out of Confederate service on November 12, 1861. The flag now resides at the North Carolina Museum of History.

Charge of the 5th NY at Big Bethel. Note flag at upper left. 

Due to the fragile nature of silk flags, if steps are not taken soon to stabilize and conserve this banner, it will be lost to history for good. Please visit Camp 379's website for more information, including how to donate to help preserve the flag of the Buncombe Riflemen. 

Expert?

In case you missed the facebook announcement, I received my first case of General Lee's Immortals yesterday. The rest will arrive next week, and I'll be getting orders out then. If you have still not ordered a signed copy, please visit my store page.

On the inside back cover is a blurb about yours truly: "Michael C. Hardy is a widely recognized expert and author on the Civil War." This is something that the great folks at Savas Beatie wrote. "widely recognized expert" are the three words that I'm trying to wrap my head around. Have I reached the "widely recognized expert" stage? Perhaps.... I guess... With General Lee's Immortals being my twenty-second book, maybe?

I've never been hung up on titles. I don't have a wall of fame in my office that showcases some of the awards y'all have so graciously bestowed upon me. I don't even have my diploma from Alabama framed. I was in awe several years ago when someone reviewing my book on the 58th NC considered me a "veteran Civil War writer."

All I want to do, all I really ever have wanted to do, is to talk history. US history - Southern history. I want to try and capture what's out there for future generations. I want to make it accessible, so school kids and college students and everyday people can go to a library or bookstore and pick up a book and learn. Learn about their communities, and about some of these regiments, and brigades, and battles. And don't tell me it cannot be done. I had a professional tell me once that there was not enough information out there to write a book on Charlotte and the War. I guess I proved that person wrong! (Maybe it was a dare to get me to write the book!)

"Veteran Civil War writer" I get. With twenty-two and soon to be twenty-three books in print, I get the veteran part. "Widely recognized expert?" I'll be the first to say that there is a whole lot I do not know about the time period. I've never read a book on Phil Sheridan (sorry Eric Wittenburg), or Hannibal Hamlin, or anything dealing with the Trans-Mississippi department. Last year’s foray into the legal side of American history has taught me much. And there is so much more to learn, to read through, to talk about.

Oh well, I guess I'll keep digging. I'm quite certain there is something fresh on that next page I'll be turning over. 

Thomas Ruffin and the Confederate States of America.

Is it possible to be in favor of a new country (the Confederate States of America) and not be a believer in secession? Yes, it was. Thomas Ruffin was one of those individuals.


Most folks are probably more familiar with Thomas Ruffin's more famous, historically speaking, cousin, Edmund Ruffin. Edmund Ruffin was an agricultural reformer and Southern national who championed Southern independence. He supposedly fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, and after the demise of the Confederacy, committed suicide. Many years ago, I read Edmund Ruffin's diaries (three volumes, if I remember correctly). It was an interesting reading list, to be sure.


Thomas Ruffin is an entirely different story. Ruffin was born in Virginia in 1787. He graduated with honors from the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University) and moved to Orange County, North Carolina, in 1807. He finished studying law in 1808, served in the General Assembly in 1813, and as Speaker of the House in 1816. Later that year, he was appointed a superior court judge. Ruffin resigned in 1818, but he was reappointed in 1825. In 1829, he was appointed to the North Carolina Supreme Court, and in 1833, was appointed Chief Justice. After twenty-three years on the North Carolina Supreme Court, Ruffin retired in 1852, returning to his plantation on the Haw River in Alamance County. He was later mentioned as a possible U. S. Supreme Court nominee, but declined.


When the Secession debates began, Ruffin was "a moderate voice in support of compromise and conciliation" (Huebner 155). He was the senior member of the Peace Conference in Washington, D. C., in early 1861. "I came here for a purpose which I openly and distinctly avow. I proclaim it here and everywhere. I will labor to carry it into execution with all my strength and ability which my advanced years and enfeebled health have left me... I came to maintain and preserve this glorious Government! I came here for Union and peace!" he was recorded as saying (155). Many of the delegates supported Ruffin's views.


However, Ruffin became frustrated at the unwillingness of others to compromise. When the US House refused to hear the proposal hammered out by the delegates, and the US Senate defeated the proposed amendment, Ruffin's support for the Union began to falter. In April 1861, at a meeting in Hillsboro, Ruffin encouraged his neighbors to "Fight! Fight! Fight!" A month later, as a delegate to the Secession Convention in Raleigh, Ruffin introduced the following proposed ordinance: "By reason of various illegal, unconstitutional, oppressive and tyrannical acts of the Government of the United States of America, and of unjust acts of divers of the Northern non-slaveholding states, it is the settled sense of the people of this state that they cannot longer live in peace and security in the Union heretofore existing under the Constitution of the United States." (156)


Ruffin described his position as a belief in the "sacred right of revolution"--"the right of a whole people to change their form of government by annulling one Constitution and forming another for themselves." Ruffin was not a secessionist, but a revolutionary! To quote Timothy Huebner, Ruffin "endorsed secession not because he believed in a constitutional right to separate from the Union but only as a revolutionary act against an oppressive federal government that he believed had already destroyed the existing Constitution." (156)


For more on Thomas Ruffin, see Timothy S. Huebner, The Southern Judicial Tradition: State Judges and Sectional Distinctiveness, 1790-1890, (1999)
and
J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton, The Papers of Thomas Ruffin (especially volume 4).

Broadly and Deeply

Is it possible to read both broadly and deeply into one subject? Early in 2017, because of my interest in the life of North Carolina Chief Justice Richmond M. Pearson, I set out to read both broadly and deeply into American legal history. I wanted to know more about the lives and work of American jurists.

I guess this quest actually started in 2016, when I read Lawrence Friedman's A History of American Law and Joe Meacham's American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House. Friedman's book has its interesting parts as well as some that are less so(I could never be a corporate or property lawyer). Meacham's biography of Jackson was quite interesting.

In 2018 came Cliff Sloan and David McKean's The Great Decision: Jefferson, Marshall, and the Battle for the Supreme Court. This was a fascinating tome, and, at some point in the future, I want to dive more into the life of John Marshall. Next came John Quincy Adams: Policymaker for the Union by James E. Lewis, Jr. I had read on John Adams before (queue up David McCullough's voice), but never anything on his son, except in other texts. Like John Marshall's work on establishing the Supreme Court as an equal branch of government, John Quincy Adams really established the state department.

Next came Maurice G. Baxter's Henry Clay: The Lawyer, a book I've had for a number of years (published in 2000), but never read. Lawyers in 19th century America practiced all kinds of law, all at once. But they also developed specialties along the way. Clay specialized in real estate law.

Next, I turned my attention to Abraham Lincoln, picking out two books from the tens of thousands on this one man. The first was a collection of essays edited by Roger Billings and Frank J. Williams entitled Abraham Lincoln, Esq.: The Legal Career of America's Greatest President. The title should have given it away: this book was dreadful. Only two of the essays were really quality material (and I don't even remember what they were). One thing I did pick up was that Lincoln excelled in collecting debts. For example, some backwoods store owner would order merchandise from a New York wholesaler and when he did not pay, the wholesaler would hire Lincoln to collect. A much, much better book was James Simon's Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney. Once again, this was a book I have had for some time (published in 2006). This was a superb read, comparing the lives of Lincoln and Roger Taney. At some point, I would really like to dig more into the life of Taney.

Then came Timothy S. Huebner's The Southern Judicial Tradition: State Judges and Sectional Distinctiveness, 1790-1890, a book of essays on six different judges. I was most interested in Thomas Ruffin (yes, cousin to Edmond Ruffin). Thomas Ruffin had retired from the North Carolina Supreme Court by the time of the war, but did play several interesting roles during the conflict. We'll probably look more into his life in a future blog post.

Finally came Justice of Shattered Dreams: Samuel Freeman Miller and the Supreme Court during the Civil War Era. This book (I'm about half way through) is superbly written. It has some of the best summaries of national events, like the Kansas-Nebraska Act, that I recall seeing. Miller was one of the five justices that Lincoln appointed to the US Supreme Court during his presidency. He was a slave-owning Kentucky doctor before giving up on the institution and moving to Iowa to practice law. Miller believed that Southern leaders  who attempted to start the Southern Confederacy should have been hanged or driven into exile.

So, it is possible to read both broadly and deeply? Yes. I read broadly into American history in 2017, coving over 90 years of the past. But I have also read deeply, looking specifically at lawyers and legalities, men and events that influenced American history.

What's next? I'm not sure. Several times in my life, I have taken huge chunks of time to read on a certain subject or individual. I once spent two years reading on Robert E. Lee. I've already confessed that I would like to read more on Marshall and Taney. I have William M. Robinson, Jr.,'s Justice in Grey: A History of the Judicial System of the Confederate States of America, a book I have never read. (It's huge - almost 700 pages.) I'm very interested in the life of John A. Campbell, a sitting US Supreme Court Justice who resigned his seat at the start of the war, went back to Alabama, and was then appointed the Confederate Assistant Secretary of War.  I also have several books I've collected over the years on more recent justices and courts. I originally thought I would spend 2018 looking more into 19th-century  science, but maybe I'll hang out in the legal world a little longer. 

Frazier's Farm or Frasier's Farm?

While working on my images for General Lee's Immortals, I made an interesting discovery. There is inconsistency on the spelling of Frazier's farm. Ok. There are a lot of inconsistencies on spellings in that time period. But this inconsistency happens to be on battle flags.

In December 1862, Branch's brigade received new Army of Northern Virginia battle flags.  These flags had their battle honors painted in white paint, in a very distinctive pattern. Of the five flags issued, four survive. The fifth flag, belonging to the 7th North Carolina State Troops, was cut up at the end of the war near Lexington, North Carolina. A scrap of this flag survives at the North Carolina Museum of History in Raleigh. On this particular issue of flags, the June 30, 1862, battle (a part of the Seven Days Campaign), is spelled "Fraziers Farm."

However, in a later issue of Army of Northern Virginia flags to the 28th North Carolina Troops (May 1864), it is no longer" Fraziers Farm," but it is now "Frasiers Farm." This flag was captured on July 28, 1864, near Malvern Hill, Virginia. A replacement was issued shortly thereafter. This 28th North Carolina flag has been further modified. Now, the battle honor reads "Frasers Farm." This flag was surrendered on April 9, 1865, at Appomattox Court House.

 Being the inquisitive soul that I am, I pulled out my copy of Glenn Dedmondt's The Flags of Civil War North Carolina, and started to look at just the spelling of Frazier's Farm. It would appear that the odd spelling on the flag of the 28th North Carolina was an odd occurrence. Eight other flags bear the name "Frazier's Farm." (I also checked Dedmondt's books on Alabama and South Carolina, and once again the spelling is consistent.)

So our next question is why? Why did the lettering on two different flags issued to the 28th North Carolina, get misspelled, once with "Frasier's Farm," and the next time with "Frazier's Farm." Just who was painting these flags on these two different days?

Of course, these are questions I cannot answer. There is not even a consistent spelling of the family who lived on the farm during the 1862 battle. Is it Frayser's Farm? Frazier's Farm? Or, Frasier's Farm? (Or, maybe Glendale...)

Now taking pre-orders for General Lee's Immortals!

   Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls, I am happy to announce that General Lee's Immortals: The Battles and Campaigns of the Branch-Lane Brigade in the Army of Northern Virginia, 1861-1865, has gone to the printers! The expected release date is January 12, 2018!

   I am now taking pre-orders for signed copies! Hardcover copies of the 400+ plus page book (with maps by Hal Jespersen) are $35.00. This is the first edition, first printing, and they are hardback, with dust jackets.  If you pre-order, I'll cover the shipping, and I'll throw in a limited edition Branch-Lane brigade book mark. The hardback books will sell out fast, and once they are gone, well, they're gone. You can order by visiting my web page:  Order Here!   Or, you can send a check or money order to P.O. Box 393, Crossnore, NC   28616

   My first regimental, a history of the 37th North Carolina Troops, came out 15 years ago. I never thought I would get the opportunity to write about the brigade itself. But four years ago, I took a chance and dropped a note to Ted Savas, asking if his company would be interested in publishing such a book. He said yes, and we will all see the finished product in just a few weeks.

   Writing a brigade history is hard - you cannot put in every example you might come across in your research, only the best one or two. And trying to decide which stories are the best is a challenge. I did something different in General Lee's Immortals than what I  did previously in my histories of the 37th North Carolina and 58th North Carolina. Not only does General Lee's Immortals follow a chronological history of the Branch-Lane brigade, from their creation right after the battle of New Bern to the surrender at Appomattox, but I also created themed chapters as well. There are chapters on brigade medical care; camp life; prisoners of war; and military discipline. Instead of having that material spread out over the text, I was able to concentrate on these topics, showing how brigade medical care (for example) changed over the course of the war. This was something new for me, and I do not recall seeing it in any other brigade history.

   That brings me to another point: I wanted this history of the Branch-Lane brigade to be more than a brigade history. I wanted to try and show how a brigade worked (or sometimes did not work) throughout the war. I'm quite certain a book like that does not exist.

   So much of my writing life seems to have been wrapped up in the Branch-Lane brigade. A regimental history, a battle history (Hanover Court House), articles for magazines and newspapers. I've blogged about it, spoken in cemeteries when grave markers have been dedicated, and participated in living histories at national parks. You could also say that books like Civil War Charlotte: Last Capital of the Confederacy and Watauga County, North Carolina, in the Civil War are products of my research into the Branch-Lane brigade.

   General Lee's Immortals: The Battles and Campaigns of the Branch-Lane Brigade in the Army of Northern Virginia, 1861-1865... I look forward to signing a copy for you next month, and I really look forward to continuing the discussion about a remarkable group of men that served in Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. Please pre-order a copy today!

Blog post 1,000

A milestone - this marks my 1,000th blog post! It took me eleven years to reach this post. What a journey! And, thanks for sharing it with me!

Eleven years ago, I set out in the blogging world. Blogs were not new then, and with all the material out there, I wondered how I might contribute something new. So, I decided to focus my blog on what I knew the most about: North Carolina's role during the Late Unpleasantries. At times, I've used the blog to share where I am traveling, or what I am writing about. At other times, I've shared questions, looking for answers to some of history's mysteries. (Trust me, after 20+ years of researching and writing, I still have more questions than answers). One thing I am still sure about is this: we still know so little about our own history. Time after time I have stood in the great libraries of our state and not been able to find the answer to some little question that I have.

So what is in store? I'm still researching and writing away. I have two new books coming out in the next twelve months. I'm continuing my research into the life of Chief Justice Richmond M. Pearson. And, I plan to continue letting you have glimpses into my world through the pages of this blog. Many blogs that I once followed have grown dormant over the years. But I believe that I still have something to say, something to share, and I look forward to getting your feedback as we share this journey together.

Books on North Carolina and Reconstruction

A few days ago, I saw a poll on facebook, asking people what areas still need coverage regarding the war. Well in front of the pack was the subject of Reconstruction. It had always been my conclusion that the subject, at least dealing with North Carolina, was pretty well covered. Of course, there is always room for a new book or two. I personally would like to see a book on the role of North Carolina's courts and/or the General Assembly during the time period.


There have been (to my knowledge), three books published on Reconstruction in North Carolina, and another that covered the era (think general history). The first was J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton's Reconstruction in North Carolina (1914). This was followed by Richard L. Zuber's North Carolina during Reconstruction (1969). Then came Paul D. Escott's Many Excellent People: Power and Privilege in North Carolina, 1850-1900 (1985). Finally, Mark Bradley's Bluecoats and Tar Heels: Soldiers and Civilians in Reconstruction North Carolina (2009). The last book is a superb treatment of the time following the war.


There are also several biographies of various people involved. Richard Zuber's Jonathan Worth: A Biography of a Southern Unionist (1965) is a good read, as is William C. Harris's William Woods Holden: Firebrand of North Carolina Politics (1987). Gordon McKinney's Zeb Vance: North Carolina Governor and Gilded Age Political Leader (2004), is, in my opinion, the best biography on Vance published to date.


Biographies I must confess that I have yet to read, but that might hold promise, are Donald Connelly's John M. Schofield and the Politics of Generalship (2006) and Otto H. Olsen's Carpetbagger's Crusade: The Life of Albion Winegar Tourge (1965).


Also in the line up are Roberta Sue Alexander's North Carolina Faces the Freeman: Race Relations during Presidential Reconstruction, 1865-1867 (1985), and Richard Reid's Freedom for Themselves: North Carolina's Black Soldiers in the Civil War Era (2008).


So, what have I missed? What would like add to this list? Is the coverage of North Carolina during Reconstruction adequate?

Looking for Pearson's slaves.

Lately, I've been doing quite a bit of digging into the life of North Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Richmond Pearson. Like most people from the past, he is a complex person. Pearson is best known (during the War years) for his refusal to go along with Governor Vance's decision to use the North Carolina militia to enforce Confederate conscription law.

Richmond Pearson

Was Pearson a Unionist? Hmm... I've not really uncovered a personal statement from him on the subject. Maybe I'll find one. At the same time, many of the state's Unionists kept quiet on the matter while the war was being waged. Pearson did become one of the leading Republicans in North Carolina after the war ended.

According to the 1860 Yadkin County Census, Pearson owned 37 slaves. Of these, 13 were female, 24 male; the oldest ones were 45 (two males), and 26 were 16 years old or younger. Of course, the slave census tells us nothing about them or their lives. (It is interesting to note that Pearson's neighbor was David Cozzens, a lower middle-class free person of color who was also a farmer. Several of the Cozzens family from Yadkin and Watauga Counties were Confederate soldiers.)

Turning to the 1870 Yadkin County Census, there are two black Pearson families. I am going to speculate that these are some of the former slaves of Richmond Pearson. Family one is the Winnie Pearson family. She is 56 years old, and there are five other members of the family: George (19), Nancy (18); Nicholas (14) Henry (12), and Jane (3). Two other black Pearsons are living in the Sylvester Speer (white) family, and list their occupations as laborers. They are Charles (23) and Sandy (24). It is possible that they are a married couple, and Sandy may have a different surname. There are no other black Pearsons in Yadkin County. There are a few others in Wilkes and Davie counties.

So what happened to these enslaved men and women? How did they get the news of the Emancipation Proclamation, and more importantly, the 13th Amendment? Like other enslaved peoples, did they chose to stay on working for Richmond Pearson after the war ended, or  did they simply walk away, looking to begin a new life elsewhere? I'm not sure I'll ever be able to answer those questions. 

New exhibit at Mars Hill University

It today's anti-Civil War craze, it is nice to see a good quality exhibit on local aspects of the troubles of the 1860s. Mars Hill University has done just that, putting together exhibits and material on the War in the mountains.

Madison County is a prime place to explore the topic. From early war violence, when the sheriff took a shot at a local Unionist, and was then killed, to the numerous raids into and out of the Shelton Laurel, the area had more than its fair share of conflict. Except in places like Bentonville or Fort Fisher, where large-scale battles took place, Madison County just might be the bloodiest ground in the state.

Much of the exhibit focuses on the life of James Keith, lieutenant colonel of the 64th North Carolina Troops. Some of his regiment were the men sent into the Laurel area to deal with the dissidents after the January 1863 salt raid into Madison. In the course of the exhibit and the accompanying video, a different theory is advanced that just maybe, Keith was not responsible for the thirteen killed that cold January morning.

There are plenty of texts and documents to peruse, along with several artifacts from the area.

I do wish the documentary and exhibit had gone a little further in their explanations. There are many period letters and newspaper pieces stating that gangs of men and boys were coming out of the Laurel area of Madison County and robbing people in the surrounding environs blind. A mention or two of those accounts would have carried the conversation even further.

"The Civil War in the Southern Highlands: A Human Perspective," at the Rural Heritage Museum is well worth your time, and admission is free. It is always great to be on the campus of Mars Hill University. The exhibit runs through March 4, 2018. 

No room for nuance in NPR's narrative?

In reading a piece on NPR on how "Confederate Statues were Built to Further a 'White Supremacist Future,'" it is clear that Miles Parks only wants to further widen the divisions that have always existed in the United States and which the media, unfortunately, exploits. Parks, and the others he quotes, miss one key element in their anti-monument pep rally : Economics 101.

The chart accompanying  the article shows peaks in when monuments were erected. The majority of the Confederate monuments were erected between 1905 and 1920. (It would be interesting to see a comparable chart regarding Union monuments, but who cares about them, right? They don't fit the narrative. )

Enter the Second Industrial Revolution. In the last couple of decades of the 19th century, and the first 20 years of the 20th century, the United States entered a phase of rapid industrialization. There were numerous new discoveries and inventions, like the automobile. It boggles the mind to think of all the related industries beyond those of the plants of Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler that the automobile created. Oil had to be refined (and shipped), and gas stations, roads, dealerships, and repair shops had to be constructed. All of this would lead to the rise of inns for travelers to stay, and restaurants in which they could eat. Added to this were advances in machinery, tools, electricity and lights, etc., etc. By 1895, the United States had outpaced Great Britain for first place in manufacturing output. Economic growth between 1890 and 1910 was above 4%. People had jobs, had money to spend, and had money to give to civic projects.

There were over 50 Confederate monuments raised in the 1910s and 1920s in North Carolina. The economy could support it. When the stock market crashed in 1929, followed by the Great Depression, the erection of monuments slowed to a crawl. Parks quotes Jane Daily, an associate professor at the University of Chicago as saying "Most of the people who were involved in erecting the monuments were not necessarily erecting a monument to the past, but were rather, erecting them toward a white supremacist future." Hmm. Professor Daily, can you actually prove that, or is that just an assumption? Which people? Where is the documentation?  I've looked into the erection of North Carolina monuments for the better part of twenty years. First, there is no treasure trove of material, usually just little snippets of the past found in newspapers of the time. I've never seen an article, letter, or diary state "Oh, we're against African-Americas. Let's put up a monument so these people know who is still the master, no matter what year it is." Never.  Maybe someone was thinking that , but historians cannot get into the mind-reading business without supporting evidence.  Parks's article also seems to lead readers into thinking that these monuments just magically appeared overnight. The truth of the matter is that it took years for the groups that erected these monuments (mostly women and many of them widows and children of veterans) to raise the necessary funds. In Stanley County, it took ten years to raise the first $6,000. That was in 1880. The monument was not actually finished and dedicated until 1925. In Burke County, the base of the monument was dedicated in 1911, but the bronze soldier on top was not dedicated until 1918.

Economics is not the only subject that gets left out the discussion. What about the African-Americans in North Carolina who also participated in the fundraising or dedication of the Confederate monuments? There is a great picture of the dedication of the Unity Monument at Bennett Place in 1923 that shows an African-American man front and center, sitting on a platform, apparently listening to something going on that we cannot see. Whatever is going on has his attention, unlike the row of politicians, or veterans, behind him, who appear to be mostly asleep. I wish we knew his story. There are other well-known photographs of black men, proudly bedecked in Confederate Veteran reunion ribbons and medals. Their story is complicated, and it needs to be told. 

Certainly, there is no doubt that life for African-Americans in the Jim Crow era was horrible.  Even until quite recently, ridiculous and humiliating rules and assumptions were firmly in place, and they were as appalling and wrong then as they would be now. Not long ago, as our family watched Hidden Figures (an amazing  movie that I highly recommend both for its treatment of the space program and of social issues), our younger child was stunned that anyone would expect someone to use a different coffee carafe because of her race. She had trouble grasping that such nonsense was ever perpetuated in our country, and kept asking "Did that really happen?"  We should all be horrified that anyone could be treated the way African-Americans  (along with many other ethnic groups) have been treated. Perhaps somebody in the process of putting up a monument somewhere did have nefarious intentions, but we do not know that for certain, and if we make assumptions about those people, judging them by our standards, we are not only misunderstanding the past; we are misunderstanding actual people, whose complex lives cannot be boiled down to a slogan or shoved into a box that suits our narrative, whatever it may be.  We should recognize that the past is just as complicated as the present, that people are complicated, and that every era, like every person, is a mixed bag of both good and ill.

In the end, I think just as strong of a case can be made for economics being a driving force behind the erection of Confederate monuments in the nation as the one for the era of Jim Crow. Very likely, some of both motivations, along with others, were part of the mix; people are complicated. At least with economics, it is easier to prove. Just look at the numbers. Perhaps Dr. Dailey's remarks have been taken out of context or truncated.  It is possible her original words were more complicated, reflective of a more complex view of the past than the article demonstrates. While we cannot quantify how good or bad people are, how pure or evil their hearts may have been, we can look at their finances. Unfortunately, early twentieth-century economics doesn't grab readers and viewers, but if the media were more focused on telling a whole picture than on promoting division and fomenting conflict, maybe we would all view ourselves, and our past, with more nuance, and maybe we would be more interested in hearing those complicated stories than in calling names and making assumptions. 

You can read the original article here. 

Colonel Hargrove, the 44th NCT, and the 1863 battle of South Anna Bridge.

I was doing some research recently, and I came across this story. Sometimes, pieces like this make me want to dive in and write about a particular regiment or battle. This came from the Oxford Public Ledger September 24, 1908.

Tazewell Hargrove

   During the battle of South Anna Bridge, on June 26, 1863, Lt. Col. Tazewell Hargrove was commanding two companies of his regiment, the 44th North Carolina Troops, "about 80 men" against 1,500 "Yankees," engaging them for 4 hours - was himself knocked down twice, wounded in two places by sabre, in two places with bayonet, and after firing all the loads from his pistol, threw it at a Yankee and knocked him down, causing him to swallow several of his teeth. He [Hargrove] had sworn never to surrender and never did, but was captured by several Yankees who seized him and threw him down and held him, they were too thick around him to sabre or pistol him. Private Cash of Co, "A," stood upon the abutment of the Bridge, and ran a sabre bayonet through a Yankee, the bayonet sticking half a foot out behind his back, and had drawn his weapon for another thrust, when he was shot by two Yankees through the head. Private Cates of Co. "G," stood on top of a breastwork for an hour amid a storm of bullets, he was posted there to see when the enemy, who were formed beyond a little rising ground should advance. I [William H. Harrison, maybe] stood myself at the other end of the work, for a like purpose, and the Yankee who guarded me asked me if I was man who was standing at the other end of the work, with sword and pistol on, I said yes, and he good humouredly replied, 'well you are hard to hit. I took four deliberate cracks at you hardly 150 yards, but I am glad I missed you.'"

According to the NC Troop books, Volume X, Hargrove's coat was found after the battle with "eight sabre cuts." He was taken to Fort Delaware, and later was a part of the Immortal 600. Hargrove survived the war, taking the Oath of Allegiance on July 24, 1865.