DOCSLIB.ORG

Buell Brien Papers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Buell Brien Papers State of Tennessee Department of State Tennessee State Library and Archives 403 Seventh Avenue North Nashville, Tennessee 37243-0312 BUELL-BRIEN PAPERS 1805-1943 Processed by: Harriet C. Owsley and JWW Archival Technical Services Date Completed: March 8, 1960 Manuscripts Accession Number: 267 Location: III-A-1-7, Oversize Drawer M-12-18 Microfilm Accession Number: 829 MICROFILMED INTRODUCTION The papers of George P. Buell (1833-1883), Civil Engineer, 1852; Lieutenant Colonel, 58th Indiana Infantry, 1861; Brigadier General, 29th Infantry, 1866; Colonel, 15th Infantry, 1879; and the papers of Buell's father-in-law, John Smith Brien (1807-1867), lawyer and jurist; member of the Tennessee Legislature, 1838-1839, 1865-1866; Judge of the Chancery Court, 1851-1853; Judge of the Circuit Court, 1858-1861, were obtained for the Tennessee State Library and Archives Manuscripts Section in 1960 from Miss Rochette Buell, Nashville, Tennessee, grand-daughter of George P. Buell and great grand-daughter of John Smith Brien. The papers have been separated into military and non-military items. The military correspondence has been arranged chronologically and the non-military correspondence is in an alphabetical order. The chief correspondents are listed for the non-military papers. For students of the period prior to the Civil War the papers of Judge Brien contain items of value. He represented the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in their suit against the Methodist Episcopal Church, North, in 1850 and won his case. Judge Brien had large interests in iron furnaces and several suits involved these interests. The correspondence contains expressions of opinion regarding secession and politics during the 1850's. The Buell Papers are composed primarily of military papers both for the Civil War and for the Wars against the Indians during the 1870's and 1880's west of the Mississippi in which General Buell played an important part. For those interested in the exploits of the United States Army during the period after the Civil War a study of these papers would be rewarding. The collection consists of 15.36 linear feet of shelf space, and numbers approximately 10,000 items. Literary rights in the unpublished writings of George P. Buell and John Smith Brien in these papers have been dedicated to the public. Single photocopies of unpublished writings may be made for purposes of scholarly research. SCOPE AND CONTENT NOTE The Buell Papers comprising approximately 10,000 items covering the years 1805-1943 may be divided into two nearly equal parts -the military and the non-military. The military papers contain two order books of Don Carlos Buell for the years 1849-1858 but the largest portion of the military papers are concerned with the career of General George P. Buell during the Civil War and during his later operations against the Indians, west of the Mississippi. The bulk of the military papers fall in the later period 1870-1882 and are composed of general and special orders, ordnance reports, telegrams, military correspondence, endorsement books, court martial records, account books, and military maps. The official report of the Battle of Chickamauga is one of the most valuable items of the military papers. The largest portions of the non-military items are the papers of Judge John S. Brien, father-in-law of George P. Buell. They contain about 90 legal documents and briefs dealing with the cases of Judge Brien. These include the cases of the Iron Mountain Furnace and the suit brought in 1850 by the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, against the Methodist Episcopal Church, North. About 70 letters for the period 1839-1867 make up the correspondence of Judge Brien and include such names as D. N. Barrow, John Bell, W. G. Brownlow, Robert S. Caruthers, R. M. Corwin, J. W. Dobbs, Ephraim H. Foster, M. P. Gentry, James C. Jones, William Ledbetter, Daniel Lord, J. W. Maybin, J. Netherland, Balie Peyton, Finch P. Scruggs, O. P. Temple, Theodore Trauemicht, Felix Zollicoffer, and others. Eight small docket books give the schedules of cases of Judge Brien while he served as Circuit Court Judge of Davidson County, 1857-1861. There are also two brief books belonging to the Judge dated 1845 and 1858-1861. Approximately 1000 letters compose the correspondence of the Pickett sisters, Lida (Mrs. Theodore Caskins), Alice (Mrs. Albert Akers), and Miss Lucy Pickett who never married but had a number of admirers. There are a few letters of Albert Akers and the two Pickett men, Howard and Joe. The Picketts were nieces and nephews of Mrs. John S. Brien who reared them after their parents' death. A diary kept by Mrs. John S. Brien begins with a memoir of her early life and becomes a diary beginning October 20, 1877, with occasional entries until February, 1882, when her grandson, Don Carlos Buell, came to live with her and to attend Montgomery Bell Academy. About 125 letters make up the correspondence of Mrs. George P. Buell (Rochie Brien) and her son, Don Carlos. In addition to these letters, there is a little diary kept by Mrs. Buell from March, 1876, to October, 1877. The diary begins with a trip from Fort Griffin, Texas, to Ringgold, Texas, which required two months. The country is described as being very beautiful for most of the trip. Several days were spent at San Antonio. After Custer's forces were massacred in Dakota by the Sioux Indians, General Buell was ordered to construct a fort farther west than Fort Abraham Lincoln from which Custer had set out on his fateful advance against the Indians. Mrs. Buell went home to Nashville in August, 1876 to be with her mother, Mrs. Brien. She joined her husband in November, 1876, at the Cheyenne Agency. The diary ends with a description of the battlefield where Custer made his last stand. The remainder of the non-military papers are concerned with the family and ancestors of George P. Buell. The oldest letter in the collection was written by Don C. Buell to his father and is dated January 29, 1808, Ithaca, New York. This Don C. Buell must have been an uncle of the two Civil War Generals, although there is no proof of this in the papers. Twenty-seven letters bound together were written by John F. Lane while a student at West Point to members of his family with the dates 1824-1836. John F. Lane was the brother of Ann Lane Buell and Jane Lane Huntington and the son of Amos and Mary Foot Lane. One hundred and thirteen letters received by John F. Lane, 1831-1834, from his mother, father, sisters, brothers, and some others are bound in a volume. Another volume contains 44 letters, 1832-1836, which are the correspondence of E. M. Huntington and his wife, Jane Lane Huntington. A diary of Mary Foot Lane was kept periodically from August, 1829 to November 21, 1852. Mary Foot, born January 29, 1778, daughter of John Foot of Watertown, Connecticut, married Amos Lane and moved to Cincinnati in 1808 and later to Lawrenceburg, Indiana. Her husband died in 1826. Her daughter, Ann Lane, born March 1, 1809, married George P. Buell, Sr. The career of their son, George P. Buell, Jr., who married Rochie Brien of Nashville, Tennessee, is the primary concern of these papers. George Buell's non-military correspondence includes the names of F. Adkinson, J. H. Bradford, Don Carlos Buell, Powell Clayton, Will A. Coulter, Will Cumback, J. A. Davenport, Edwin J. Davis, J. W. Forney, W. H. Francis, John C. Fremont, James A. Garfield, Henry Gillum, B. F. Grafton, B. W. Gray, E. B. Hart, Rutherford B. Hayes, John Pope, Marshall O. Roberts, Felix H. Robertson, M. Samaniego, W. T. Sherman, John M. Trew, and O. B. Wilcox. There are approximately 100 letters and papers of Salmon A. Buell, a brother of George P. Buell. Some of the papers deal with the perpetual calendar, an invention of S. A. Buell. Forty-four letters to various members of the Buell family were written by Sister Ann Cecilia from the convent at Galesburg, Illinois, and several other places. She was a sister of George P. Buell, Five large account books and thirteen small ones; four small pocket diaries; some correspondence, letters and telegrams dealing with the Railroad Business of George P. Buell; documents relating to Silver Mines in Colorado; legal papers dealing with purchases of land in the west; several hundred bills and receipts; genealogical data concerning the Brien, Buell, Lane, and Foot families; three scrapbooks; a few photographs; and some personal memorabilia make up the remainder of the collection. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH George P. Buell 1833, October 4 Born and raised at Buell homestead near Lawrenceburg, Indiana. Son of Ann Lane and George P. Buell, Sr., brothers and sisters were: Salmon A., John L., Julian O., Mary L., Almira, and Ann Lane. 1851 Obtained position on Indiana-Cincinnati Railroad. Trained for civil engineer. 1852 Position as civil engineer for Columbus-Shelby Railroad in Indiana. 1853 1st Assistant Engineer at Fort Wayne, Indiana -headquarters for above railroad. 1854 Attended Norwich Military Academy. 1856 Graduated from Norwich Military Academy. 1857 City Civil Engineer at Leavenworth City, Kansas Territory. 1861, December Commissioned Lieutenant Colonel 58th Indiana Infantry. 1862, June Commissioned Colonel. 1865, January Brevet Brigadier General Volunteers - Federal Army - for long, faithful and most valuable service and for able management of pontoon trains. 1865, July Honorably mustered out. 1865, December 27 Married Rochette Brien. 1866, July Lieutenant Colonel 29th Infantry. U. S. Army. Sent West of Mississippi to fight Indians. 1867, March Brevet Colonel for gallant and meritorious services in the battle of Missionary Ridge, Tennessee.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Abraham Lincoln Papers
    Abraham Lincoln papers 1 From Abraham Lincoln to Henry W. Halleck [Draft] , February 16, 1862 1 Fort Donelson in Tennessee fell unconditionally to Ulysses Grant early on February 16, giving the Union its first decisive victory in the West. In exultation but also some apprehension, Lincoln here displays his early passion for military detail by counseling Halleck, in command at St. Louis, about what threats faced him next, and what next moves he ought to make. He also urges joint action on the part of Halleck and Don Carlos Buell, in command at Louisville, as he had done previously. See Lincoln to Buell, January 6, 1862, January 7, 1862, January 13, 1862. Executive Mansion, Washington, Feb. 16, 1862 You have Fort Donelson safe, unless Grant shall be overwhelmed from outside, to prevent which latter will, I think, require all the vigilence, energy, and skill of yourself & Buell, acting in full co- 2 operation. Columbus will not get at Grant, but the the force from Bowling-Green will— They hold the Railroad from Bowling-Green to within a few miles of Donelson, with the Bridge at Clarksburg 3 undisturbed— It is unsafe to rely that they will not dare to expose Nashville to Buell. A small part of their force can retreat slowly towards Nashville, breaking up the Railroad as they go, and keep Buell out of that City twenty days— Mean time Nashville will be abundently defended by forces from 4 all South & perhaps from here at Manassas— Could not a cavalry force from Gen. Thomas on the upper Cumberland, dash across, almost unresisted, at and cut the Railroad at or near Knoxville, Tenn.? In the midst of a bombardment at Donnelson, why could not a Gun-boat run up and destroy the Bridge at Clarksburg? Our success or failure at Donnelson is vastly important; and I beg you to put your soul in the effort— I send a copy to Buell— 2 Confederate forces at Columbus and Bowling Green, Kentucky.
    [Show full text]
  • Braxton Bragg Essay
    Essential Civil War Curriculum | Judith Lee Hallock, Ph.D., Braxton Bragg | February 2012 Braxton Bragg Braxton Bragg By Judith Lee Hallock, Ph.D. Braxton Bragg. The mere mention of his name today elicits giggles and guffaws, as though his entire military career were a joke. While it is true that his battlefield command proved non-stellar, his reputation has suffered more than that of others who performed even more poorly. One reason for this may be attributed to his unfortunate personality - contentious, irascible, quarrelsome, vengeful, and quick to blame others for his mistakes. These traits, along with suffering frequent illnesses, do not make an effective leader of men. As the Civil War began, despite his cantankerousness, Bragg was held in high regard; great deeds were expected of him. Unfortunately, in the crucible of war, he did not live up to those expectations. Bragg grew up in Warrenton, North Carolina, located in an affluent tobacco- growing area, where slaves made up more than half the population. Braxton’s father, Thomas Bragg, settled in Warrenton around 1800. He worked as a carpenter, and eventually became a successful contractor. In 1803, Thomas married Margaret Crosland, with whom he had twelve children. Braxton, the eighth child, was born on March 21, 1817. Braxton attended the Warrenton Male Academy for nine years, where his teachers regarded him as an excellent student. By the time he was ten, his father had decided that Braxton would attend the Military Academy at West Point, and he worked assiduously at winning an appointment for his son. After years of lobbying, Thomas succeeded, and at the age of sixteen Braxton entered the academy with the class of 1837.
    [Show full text]
  • Forts Henry and Donelson
    Forts Henry and Donelson Essential Questions: What were the outcomes of the Battles of Fort Henry and fort Donelson? What was the significance of these battles? The Fort Henry Campaign, February 1862 In early 1862, as the Union army struggled in the East, General Ulysses S. Grant and Flag-Officer Andrew H. Foote requested permission to go down the Tennessee River into northwest Tennessee. The purpose of the expedition was to capture Fort Henry, which overlooked the western section of the Tennessee River. Henry was not as strong a fort as other Southern strongholds on the Mississippi.1 Yet the Tennessee River cut Tennessee in half and dipped into Alabama, making it a crucial avenue for an advance into the Deep South. Also, capturing Fort Henry opened up the way to Fort Donelson on the Cumberland River. By February, Grant and Foote were on the move. The roads were too muddy for travel by Grant’s large army, so Grant was ordered to steam down the Tennessee River with Foote’s fleet. On February 5, Foote’s transports deposited Grant’s 15,000 soldiers below Fort Henry. The plan involved the ironclad riverboats pounding the fort from one side with Grant approaching overland from the other. When the steamers approached the fort, an artillery duel began. The ironclads were so effective that Confederate General Lloyd Tilghman surrendered in a little over an hour. Grant’s troops had not even arrived. Fort Henry was in Union hands along with “seventeen heavy guns, General Lloyd Tilghman and staff, and 60 men.”2 Also, the river belonged to the Federals all the way to Alabama.
    [Show full text]
  • Stones River
    STONES RIVER NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD TENNESSEE Rosecrans Advances the southerly course of the stream. This On December 26, 1862, General Rosecrans movement, if successful, would place part of Stones River marched the Union army out of Nashville the Union army between the Confederates and advanced against Bragg's position. By and their supply base at Murfreesboro. NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD December 30, the Union troops faced the Striking first, the Confederates had the ad­ Confederates near Stones River. vantage. At daybreak on the 31st, they furi­ ously assaulted the Union right wing, driving But the advance had not been without it and part of the center back through the The first big battle in the Union campaign destined to end incident. Moving swiftly with cavalry, Brig. surrounding cedar woods to the Nashville in Sherman's "March to the Sea" Gen. Joseph Wheeler raided the Union army, Pike. Only inspired fighting by Brig. Gen. burning and destroying wagon trains and Philip H. Sheridan's right-wing brigade and harassing the rearguard. Starting on the stubborn holding of most of the center by night of December 29, he completely circled Maj. Gen. George H. Thomas averted a of all western Tennessee, as well as Nash­ the Union army, returning to the Confed­ Union rout. ville and part of middle Tennessee. How­ erate lines early on December 31. Wheeler ever, the invasion of Kentucky by Gen. had destroyed nearly a million dollars worth All thought of the Union attack against Braxton Bragg's Confederate army tempo­ of Federal property and had taken 700 Bragg's right wing was now dropped.
    [Show full text]
  • Battle of Shiloh
    Battle of Shiloh Essential Questions: What was the outcome of the Battle of Shiloh? What was the significance of the Battle of Shiloh? After victories at Fort Henry and Fort Donelson, the Union army in the West seemed ready to defeat the Confederates anywhere they were. The Union Army of the Tennessee, led by Ulysses S. Grant, pushed deep into the state with the idea of linking up with Don Carlos Buell’s Army of the Ohio and pursuing the rebel army in Mississippi. The Confederates wanted to force Grant out of Tennessee. Grant moved his army to a small port called Pittsburgh Landing located on the western section of the Tennessee river. A small church named Shiloh, meaning “place of peace” in Hebrew stood nearlby. It was there that the Confederates attacked on April 6, 1862. After two days of hard fighting, 20,000 men were either killed or wounded.1 It was, up to that time, the largest battle to ever take place in the Western Hemisphere. After defeating the Confederates at Fort Henry and Fort Donelson, Grant continued to chase the rebels. He knew the defeated rebel army was regrouping around Corinth, Mississippi, and it was Grant’s intention to build up his own forces and strike the enemy there. So, even with the “weather cold and roads impassable,” Grant went south toward Pittsburg Landing on the Tennessee River. Grant estimated the Confederate strength at Corinth to be between 50,000 and 60,000.2 When he arrived at Pittsburg Landing, Grant did not order his soldiers to entrench, but instead waited patiently for Major-General Don Carlos Buell’s Army of the Ohio to arrive from the north.
    [Show full text]
  • 21 DL Battle of Stones River
    Battle of Stones River The fall and early winter of 1862 was a difficult time for the Union army and northern morale. Although he had stopped a Confederate invasion, General George B. McClellan had failed to cut off the fleeing Confederates and destroy Robert E. Lee’s army after the Battle of Antietam. Instead, Lee’s army slipped quietly back into Virginia where it would continue to cause frustration for the Federal army. In December, the Union Army of the Potomac, commanded by General Ambrose Burnside, was soundly defeated at Fredericksburg. Also, General Ulysses S. Grant, the hero of Fort Donelson and Shiloh, had failed to capture the Mississippi River post at Vicksburg. This failure was largely due to Confederate cavalry raiders, such as Nathan Bedford Forrest and Earl Van Dorn, who ran circles around Grant’s plodding army cutting communication lines and confiscating supplies. Although a Confederate invasion of Kentucky had been repulsed at Perryville, General Don Carlos Buell seemingly refused to deploy his Army of the Cumberland to attack Confederate General Braxton Bragg’s Army of the Tennessee. In October, Buell was replaced by William S. Rosecrans. Lincoln made it clear that if Rosecrans wanted to keep his job, he had better march against Bragg.1 In essence, the Union needed a victory, and Lincoln hoped Rosecrans would provide it. In December, President Jefferson Davis visited Bragg’s headquarters at Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Citizens of the small town showered the beloved president with balls and dinners. While there, Davis sent a large number of Bragg’s men westward to slow Grant’s approach to Vicksburg.
    [Show full text]
  • University Microfilms
    INFORMATION TO USERS This dissertation was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding o f the dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • Dirck on Engle, 'Don Carlos Buell: Most Promising of All'
    H-Indiana Dirck on Engle, 'Don Carlos Buell: Most Promising of All' Review published on Monday, May 1, 2000 Stephen D. Engle. Don Carlos Buell: Most Promising of All. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999. xvii + 476 pp. $45.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-8078-2512-9. Reviewed by Brian Dirck (Assistant Professor of History, Anderson Univerity)Published on H- Indiana (May, 2000) Most Mediocre of All Don Carlos Buell does not seem to have left much of a mark on the Civil War's outcome, despite having performed adequately in some important tasks. As commander of the Union Army of the Ohio from the beginning of the war through October, 1862, Buell oversaw the capture of Nashville. He is perhaps best known for having come to the rescue of a beleaguered Ulysses S. Grant at Shiloh, and for stopping -- or at least getting in the way of -- Braxton Bragg during his invasion of Kentucky. But when Buell left the army under a cloud in late 1862 for his failure to pursue Bragg after the Battle of Perryville, few seemed to care or even notice. He lacked the colorful eccentricities of William T. Sherman or Stonewall Jackson, the solid record of success in critical moments like George S. Thomas or James Longstreet, or even the spectacular failures of Ambrose Burnside. Buell seemed like the Civil War equivalent of tapioca pudding, a man who "had only participated in, not contributed to, the military conquest of the Confederacy" (p. 350). This relative obscurity is one reason why, until now, Buell did not have a biography.
    [Show full text]
  • Conflict and Controversy in the Confederate High Command: Johnston, Davis, Hood, and the Atlanta Campaign of 1864
    The University of Southern Mississippi The Aquila Digital Community Dissertations Spring 5-1-2013 Conflict and Controversy in the Confederate High Command: Johnston, Davis, Hood, and the Atlanta Campaign of 1864 Dennis Blair Conklin II University of Southern Mississippi Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations Recommended Citation Conklin, Dennis Blair II, "Conflict and Controversy in the Confederate High Command: Johnston, Davis, Hood, and the Atlanta Campaign of 1864" (2013). Dissertations. 574. https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations/574 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of The Aquila Digital Community. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The University of Southern Mississippi CONFLICT AND CONTROVERSY IN THE CONFEDERATE HIGH COMMAND: JOHNSTON, DAVIS, HOOD, AND THE ATLANTA CAMPAIGN OF 1864 by Dennis Blair Conklin II Abstract of a Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of The University of Southern Mississippi in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2013 ABSTRACT CONFLICT AND CONTROVERSY IN THE CONFEDERATE HIGH COMMAND: JOHNSTON, DAVIS, HOOD, AND THE ATLANTA CAMPAIGN OF 1864 by Dennis Blair Conklin II May 2013 The Union capture of Atlanta on September 2, 1864 all but assured Abraham Lincoln's reelection in November and the ultimate collapse of the Confederacy. This dissertation argues that Jefferson Davis's failure as commander-in-chief played the principal role in Confederate defeat in the war's most pivotal campaign. Davis had not learned three important lessons prior to the campaign season in 1864.
    [Show full text]
  • William Starke Rosecrans – a Presentation to the Peninsula CWRT
    William Starke Rosecrans – a presentation to the Peninsula CWRT Hal Jespersen www.posix.com/CW March 15, 2011 Outline • Sources for my talk • Early life and military career • West Virginia & The Valley • Western Theater: Corinth, Iuka, Corinth • Army of the Cumberland: Stones River, Tullahoma, Chickamauga & Chattanooga • Missouri and postbellum career Sources • William M. Lamer’s 1961 biography is definitive – Perhaps overly sympathetic to WSR, antagonistic to US Grant • Battle studies by Cozzens, Woodworth, Eicher • Wikipedia articles and maps by Hal Jespersen Accomplishments by 1864 • Rosecrans’s letter to James A. Garfield, December 30, 1864: – Fought the first successful battle involving important results in the War – Made the first successful campaign against Lee – Helped to lay the foundation of the first free State made out of a slave State – Invented and had built the first [four-wheeled, light] Army ambulance – First suggested and put into operation … photographed information maps – Inspector General system adopted throughout the Army – Build up the cavalry of Mississippi, giving Sheridan the opportunity of winning his first star – Won Iuka and Corinth against great odds – Built up the dispirited mounted force of Buell’s Army and brought it to be the victorious cavalry of the Army of the Cumberland – Fought Stones River – Drove Bragg from Shelbyville, Tullahoma and Chattanooga, wresting from a superior force the keys of East Tennessee, Georgia and the center of the Southern Confederacy – Drove Price from Missouri, and did much
    [Show full text]
  • Episode 107: Lincoln Gets Frustrated with His Generals
    Episode 107: Lincoln Gets Frustrated with His Generals http://civilwar150.longwood.edu After the Battle of Perryville in early October, Confederate General Braxton Bragg began a slow retreat back to Tennessee. Although his outnumbered men had performed well at Perryville, Bragg realized that the dream of Kentuckians rushing to join the Confederate army was not going to materialize. He headed first toward Knoxville and then farther south to Chattanooga. Although some of his subordinate officers complained bitterly that Bragg did not stay and fight longer in Kentucky, Bragg felt there was little to be gained by remaining in the border state. On the opposing side, Major General Don Carlos Buell did not send his Union troops in vigorous pursuit of the Confederates. This passive approach was too much for a frustrated Abraham Lincoln. Already annoyed with what he considered a lack of aggression by George McClellan after the Battle of Antietam, Lincoln was not satisfied with having another complacent general in command. On October 24, 1862, Buell was replaced as head of the Army of the Cumberland by William Starke Rosecrans. Rosecrans was a 43-year-old West Point graduate, born in Ohio and the great-grandson of Stephen Hopkins, who had been Governor of Rhode Island and signer of the Declaration of Independence. At West Point, Rosecrans had been roommates with James Longstreet who would rise to fame as a Confederate general. Early in the war, Rosecrans devised the plan that enabled McClellan to win the victory at Rich Mountain in western Virginia that would start McClellan on the path to leading the Union armies in the east.
    [Show full text]
  • Important Battles of the Civil
    Social Studies Survey I CAN: 1. Explain the significance of major battles that happened during the Civil War 2. Analyze how the improvement of technology (such as the Minie ball) but the lack of improvement in war strategy lead to massive casualties unlike any seen in American History Fort Sumter (SC) Battle of Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861) Begins the Civil War Confederates demanded that Fort Sumter surrender Union troops refused Confederates opened fire April 13 – Union surrendered Started the 4 year war 4 more states join the Confederacy after the Battle of Fort Sumter (AK, TN, VA, NC) First Battle of Bull Run/Manassas July 21, 1861 (Virginia) Union Confederates 2896 Casualties 1982 Casualties Irvin McDowell Joseph E. Johnston and P.G.T Beauregard Victory Bull Run Cont. Thomas J. Jackson was given the nickname “Stonewall”: “There is Jackson standing like a stone wall! Rally behind the Virginians!” Defeat lead North to realize they needed a large, well- trained army Two names because North named them by natural resources and South by nearby towns, farms, etc. Battle of Shiloh April 6-7, 1862 (Tennessee) Union Confederates 13,047 Causalities 10,700 Causalities U.S Grant Albert Sidney Johnston Victory (highest ranking officer to be killed in battle) Battle of Shiloh Cont. Up to this point, bloodiest battle in American History (23,700 causalities) “Bloody Pond” probably not there; definitely not that bloody In Hebrew, Shiloh means “place of peace” Battle of Antietam/Sharpsburg September 17, 1862 (MD) Union Confederate 12,400 Casualties 10,300 Casualties General George B. McClellan General Robert E Lee Probably victory Battle of Antietam Cont.
    [Show full text]