There’s a great discussion going on about different ways to store information on blogs and how to make them more useable to researchers over at Harry Smeltzer’s Bull Runnings, for anyone who might be interested. The link is right here.

I’ve been very intrigued by some of the ideas there, which could cause a chgange of address for this blog over the holidays. Stay tuned for more information.

Time and again during my research I have come across references to “rations,” and the insufficiency of them, difficulty finding and receiving them, etc. This naturally enough led me to question what exactly a ration is. The following description is the Ebensburg, Pennsylvania newspaper The Alleghanian in the May 16, 1861 issue:

“What is a Ration?

For the information of numerous inquirers, we give the following list of articles constituting a ration from the army regulations:
20 oz. Fresh and Salt beef or 12 oz. Pork
18 oz. Soft Bread or Flour, or 12 oz. Hard Bread
2 2/3 oz. Beans or 1 3/5 oz. Rice
1 5/6 oz. Sugar
1 oz. Coffee, ground
¼ oz. Candies
2/3 oz. Soap
½ oz. Salt

This must answer for the subsistence of a soldier during the day and properly husbanded, it is enough.”

Soldiers of different ranks received differing amounts of pay for obtaining their rations when not available (while travelling, for instance), but a ration was the same for private or colonel.

This may help bring home what all was involved when one reads accounts of being ordered to prepare 3 days of rations and march immediately to somewhere, as this went into the same haversack with the spare uniforms and other gear.

My good friend Patty Millich turned up an 1861 version of the army oath of enlistment in the July 11, 1861 edition of The Alleghenian of Ebensburg, PA. I thought it might be interesting to list the oath as it was then and compare it to the same oath administered to enlistees today.

1861:

The following is the oath which all volunteers and regulars mustered into the service of the United States are required to take before their final enrollment into service: “I do solemnly swear that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America; that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all enemies or opposers whatsoever; that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and of the other officers appointed over me, according to the rules of the armies of the United States, so help me God.”

Today:
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
The 1861 oath depicts the wording first adopted in 1789. The oath was modified under Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960, with amendment effective 5 October 1962

Yes, at long last, I’m back to a normal schedule, with normal hours and, hopefully, a regular posting rate once again. Washington was nice, but it’s much nicer to be back in warmer temperatures where one can see more than one mountain at a time (no disrespect intended to the absolutely stunning Mount Rainier).

So, I am now more or less firmly aboard my mount, with the fall semester started, my next to last MA class underway, and piles of research to process and organize. Partial posts have been accumulating over the last couple of weeks, so there should be a good bit new to read here in the near future. For those of you who have stayed faithful through the long summer of infrequent posting, thank you for your patience.

I noticed a post at Civil War Interactive this week that their weekly column “This Week In Blogs” has been discontinued. This column, written by the very dedicated and talented Laurie Chambliss, reviewed 35-40 of the most active Civil War blogs every week and summarized their postings. It was a quality column, and written with style. There were several occasions when I thought Laurie’s summary was more entertaining than my actual posts.

Such a column by its very nature was extremely time-consuming, however, and it has been decided that that time can be put to better use elsewhere. The column is still available on the website, and now provides brief descriptions of all of the featured blogs. Thanks for all of your hard work, Laurie, and best of luck with future endeavors at Civil War Interactive and elsewhere.

My apologies for the scarcity of posts over the last week or two, but we’ve reached that time of year when those who teach young college and university cadets to become army officers must head to the great northwest to train them at summer camp. Things have been a bit hectic getting settled and prepared for the summer’s events, but I am now more or less comfortably ensconced in my hotel (not, fortunately, the one with the bedbug problem) and ready to resume posting. I don’t have all of my resources due to space and airline weight restrictions, but posting will resume at a rate of one to two posts per week as time permits. The last Charles Bates letter for 1863 will post tomorrow, to be followed by several Fiddler’s Green entries, monthly updates on the 6th Cavalry in 1862, and another series of letters by an enlisted man in a different regiment. At least one book will be reviewed as well, as soon as my Father’s Day present makes it from JD to Gina to me out here in Washington. Stay tuned.

Several people have discussed writing,publishing and marketing over the last month or so here in the blogosphere, most noticeably here and here. Responding relatively well to being hit with something repeatedly (though my wife might dispute this), I pay a little more attention to these things than I had previously. So new Civil War releases of nearly any sort catch my eye.

As I was looking through my latest catalog from The Scholar’s Bookshelf yesterday, I noticed that a biography of Civil War cavalryman and later general August Valentine Kautz is due to be published on June 30th. I have an interest in Kautz, since it wasn’t all that long ago that he was popping up everywhere I looked for information in my research. So I thought I’d look for more information on the book. It sounded like something that could be a good addition to my library. Kautz was, after all, one of then original company commanders of the 6th US Cavalry. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to find out much.

A disclaimer before I proceed: I have absolutely nothing against this book, its author, or its publisher. Indeed, as noted above I’m very interested in it and will possibly buy it. I wish the author all the best and hope the book does well. I intentionally don’t mention names, as that isn’t the purpose of the post. But the situation seems to violate all of the rules for how things “should” work according to recent blog posts by folks who know about such things, and may not get the book off to the marketing start that it deserves.

The catalog didn’t have a great deal of information on the book, but among other things it did list the author and publisher. I pulled up the publisher’s website and looked for the book. I found it, on page 3 of the books on the Civil War. Not under a “new releases” category, or on the homepage since the book’s about to come out, but buried amongst older books. Neither the book nor the author have a website, and the book’s description on the publisher’s website was very brief. Curiously, the book is listed elsewhere more prominently than at the publisher’s website, notably on Amazon’s “Hot New Releases” and on Eurospan Books. Perhaps the marketing effort won’t start until closer to the publishing date, but I wasn’t able to learn too much about the work.

The book appears to be a comprehensive look at Kautz’ entire military career, based on personal journals and other correspondence. There is a focus on Civil War activities, but his pre-war assignments in the Pacific Northwest are covered as well. If it as well-written as I suspect, I think it will be a worthy addition to the body of knowledge on the war.

Kautz is a very good subject for a biography, given his various activities before, during, and after the war. I personally don’t think he gets a fair shake, as his reputation at times appears to be that of a not-so-competent commander. This is primarily a result of the disastrous Wilson-Kautz Raid in 1864, which wasn’t his idea and of which he wasn’t even the primary commander. Unfortunately, however, he didn’t have advantage of a successful cavalry expedition into Alabama at the end of the war to make up for it as his compatriot did.

If this post draws attention to the book and helps with its marketing and sales by getting the word out, great. If it makes people angry, sorry.

The best place to find information on this book currently is here. I’ll post more once I’m able to obtain a copy. I look forward to its publishing, I’m just saddened that so few may hear of it.

As I was putting together yesterday’s post, I kept coming across references within the reports to “squadrons” and “large squadrons.” As I noted previously, even in Carter’s history I found the same terms. Now I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but throw something in front of me enough times and I begin to wonder about it.

Squadrons during the Civil War consisted of two companies, without exception that I have encountered in my studies. Battalions consisted of four, but generally were used much less frequently than squadrons. So a squadron is a squadron is a squadron, right?

The answer is yes. The reason the differentiation was made was due to the strengths of different regiments, particularly in this engagement. The 1st U.S. Cavalry in this engagement numbered maybe 300 sabers. Captain Davis’ squadron of 60 in the reports would thus be average. There were various reasons for this, but in general the regiment was close to its pre-war strength.

The 6th U.S. Cavalry, on the other hand, was a recently-formed regiment at close to full strength. Even with all of the men sick or detached from the regiment for various reasons, it still numbered approximately 750 sabers present for duty at the skirmish. At 150 sabers per squadron (only two companies had carbines at this time), its squadrons were “large squadrons.”

Alas, no remarkable revelations or mysteries solved, but at least that question’s not bothering me any more.

Fear not, loyal readers (all three of you), the rumor that I clumsily tripped and fell off the internet is unproven (no one’s seen me on crutches, and the cast comes off tomorrow). The past couple of weeks have been really hectic in “real life”, and this, coupled with an embarrassment of riches in the new material category, has kept me from posting.

This will, of necessity, be a catching up and preview post. This should be a busy week for Crossed Sabers, however. Upcoming posts will include a couple of Fiddler’s Green posts, including a rare enlisted man’s story thanks to a helpful descendant. There will probably be several short vignettes of some folks who’ve popped up a lot in research recently.

I have managed a bit of reading lately, finishing two of this year’s birthday presents. I thought Roger Hunt’s mid-Atlantic volume of his Colonels in Blue series was tremendous. Hunt did an excellent job with the book, and I even found two cavalry regulars hiding in there, Paddy Starr and Andrew Evans. Both of them were in the 6th Cavalry, causing yet another review of their potential Fiddler’s Green entries. For those interested in more on Starr, check J.D. Petruzzi’s Hoofbeats and Cold Steel. His feature there in his Faded Hoofbeats series is the definitive work I’ve seen on him. My only disappointment with the book was that one of the people I was really looking for, Theo Rodenbough, wasn’t there. This certainly wasn’t Roger’s fault, however, since Rodenbough’s in a different work — Brevet Brigadier Generals in Blue, which is now on the wish list.

The other book was Eric Wittenberg’s Protecting the Flank, a work on the cavalry battles in the vicinity of what is now East Cavalry Field on the 2nd and 3rd days of the battle of Gettysburg. I’m a big fan of Eric’s writing, and this book didn’t disappoint. I am now much more informed on the cavalry actions on the Army of the Potomac’s right flank during the battle, and the bibliography yielded another possible source or two for the 6th Cavalry history (so that’s where D.McM. Gregg’s papers are!).

One could point out that if I had all that time to read, I also had time to post, and to this I can only plead a lack of focus. There’s been a bit of new material arriving lately as well, thanks to some generous readers. I was able to obtain copies of William Emory’s papers from 1861 and 1862, as well as two sets of letters by privates of the 6th Cavalry. Stu Richards was kind enough to send along spare copies of two rolls of microfilm, one with the ordnance returns of Union regiments for 1862 and 1863, and the other containing the 5th Cavalry’s regimental returns for the first half of the war. So I should be able to revisit the Exodus from Texas series with some numbers, as well as provide Harry Smeltzer over at Bull Runnings with some hard numbers for the First Bull Run campaign. Thanks again, Stu! And of course Patty Millich seems to turn up something interesting every few days and send it my way as well.

The microfilms from NARA containing the 4th U.S. Cavalry regimental returns are due any day now, so I’d better either starts saving quarters for the library’s microfilm printer or start searching eBay or Craig’s List for one of my own. Hmm, scratch that second option, sounds like a possible straw/ camel issue with my wife.

I noticed last week, that both Jim Miller at Civil War Notebook and Brett Schulte at TOCWOC have posted their nonfiction Civil War libraries, and this is a project that I’m considering as well. Now if I could just decide to go with Word or Excel. I think Word will win, as it’s easier to compile bibliographies and footnotes that way later.

I discovered this warning to writers about the perils of blogging to their craft and productivity and thought it worth sharing. Although “Vampires of the Internet” is a rather dramatic title, I think the author has some good points and the piece applies as much to nonfiction writing as fiction writing. Perhaps more, when one takes into account the research time necessary for historical writing.

Fortunately, I’m nowhere near the level of ‘writer’ as yet (though striving to leave the realm of ‘hack’), so this blog will go on.