BENJAMIN HUGER AND THE ARMING OF AMERICA 1825-1861 by William Roy Van Velzer Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History APPROVED: (aruny JI -Gexfatin G ‘James I. Robertson, Jr., Chairman ( o} 4 wy } WMT aN tthe be Clas ow. ot Thomas J /Sariance Daniel B. Thorp / June 10, 1994 Blacksburg, Virginia 55093 VE 55 1994 V308 Ca BENJAMIN HUGER AND THE ARMING OF AMERICA 1825-1861 by William Roy Van Velzer James I. Robertson, Jr., Chairman History (ABSTRACT) This thesis is a military biography of Benjamin Huger. His reputation before the Civil War was that of a distinguished and highly competent ordnance officer. Huger’s brief and disappointing tenure as a Confederate division commander profoundly changed this. Students and historians of the Civil War remember him only as the one who let General George B. McClelland’s army escape certain destruction during the 1862 Peninsula Campaign. The scope of this study is limited to Huger’s life prior to his resignation from the U.S. Army. It begins with a brief discussion of his family, the influential Hugers of South Carolina. Huger’s father, Francis Kinloch Huger, receives special attention as one who had a major impact on his son’s life. He taught young Huger the importance of personal integrity, self-reliance, and the value of a scientific education. These factors accounted for much of Huger’s success as an officer in America’s antebellum Army. Huger’s professional growth occurred during a time of great technological change. Three periods emerge. From 1825-1846, Huger established his reputation as a promising young ordnance officer. He began his long association with Alfred Mordecai, and the development of the Army’s first system of artillery. During the Mexican War, Huger served as Winfield Scott’s chief of ordnance, and as commander of that army’s siege train. His three brevet promotions for "gallantry and meritorious conduct" gave him the rank of colonel. Huger’s final thirteen years in the Ordnance Department saw the completion of the Army’s system of artillery. His experiments with breechloading and rifled small arms were also noteworthy. This work contributed materially to the creation of a system of rifled weapons for American infantry and cavalry. By 1861, Huger was near the pinnacle of his profession. When he resigned in April of that year, he took over thirty-five years of experience with him. The breadth and depth of his expertise made him America’s foremost authority on the subject of heavy artillery. He was as knowledgeable about small arms as any officer in the Army. He had served as an inspector of ordnance, commandant of the Fort Monroe, Va. and Pikesville, Md. arsenals, and superintendent of the Harpers Ferry Armory. Huger’s contributions to the Confederacy would never be as great. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis is the product of a collaborative effort. I wish to thank my committee members, Professors James I. Robertson, Thomas J. Adriance, and Daniel B. Thorp, for scrutinizing these pages in painstaking detail. Their skillful editing of content, grammar, and style has greatly improved the quality of this study. Dr. Robertson receives additional credit for initially suggesting the topic. He also directed me to a number of important repositories. Special mention is due to Dr. Adriance for translating into English the letters of the Marquis de Lafayette. To Dr. Thorp, I express my appreciation for his attention to factual details of the smallest order. Credit for typing this thesis into its final format belongs solely to Diane Cannaday. Her efficiency, flexibility, and professional skills deserve high praise. Little printed material exists concerning Benjamin Huger’s personal and professional life. This required that I place great reliance upon unpublished manuscript sources. Most important of these were the Benjamin Huger Papers contained in the Frost and Rutherford collections of the Alderman Library, University of Virginia. This study would have been virtually impossible without them. I extend my thanks to archivist Ervin Jordan for his advice and assistance in working these collections. The Old Military Division of the National Archives offered invaluable supplementary material. Ordnance Department returns, U.S. Military Academy records, and the records of the Adjutant General’s Office were particularly helpful. With this iV information, it was possible to piece together a previously unknown composite view of Huger’s professional life. In this connection, I owe a special debt of gratitude to Michael P. Musick for his patience, kindness, and accessibility in meeting my research needs. I would also like to thank the following archivists and institutions: Herb Hertsook, South Caroliniana Library; Richard Shrader, Southern Historical Collection; Brenda Eggleston, Clerk’s Office, Fauquier County, Virginia; Michael Antonioni, Harpers Ferry National Historical Park; Judith Sibley, Special Collections Division, U.S. Military Academy Library; Pat Hash, South Carolina Historical Society; David Johnson, Casemate Museum, Fort Monroe, Virginia; the staff of the Library of Congress. While writing this thesis, I was fortunate to make the acquaintance of Mr. Frank H. Terry, great-great-grandson of Benjamin Huger. I give him my heartfelt thanks for allowing me to view his personal collection of Huger family memorabilia. He was also kind enough to provide me with a copy of a taped interview with his grandmother, Mrs. Julia Trible Huger Moniche, one of Benjamin Huger’s three granddaughters. Completion of my graduate studies would not have been possible without the support of my family. To my parents, Mary and Vincent Van Velzer, I owe more than I can ever hope to repay. Their love, thoughtfulness, and faith in my abilities has been a constant source of strength. The same is true for my wife and best friend, Karen. Her warmth, humor, and purity of heart have transcended the worst of times. It is to her that I dedicate this work. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures .. 0... ee ene Vil Introduction... 2... ee eee ee 1 Chapter One: "Our Young Achilles” .............2... 22200000. 5 Chapter Two: A Scientist in Uniform ................-..2.0004- 26 Chapter Three: Seeing the Elephant .....................0.0.. 60 Chapter Four: The Final Battles for Mexico.................... 85 Chapter Five: One of the "Shining Lights of Ordnance” 2... ee 119 Epilogue... 1... 135 Works Cited 2... ee ee eee 140 Vita Le ee 146 Vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Pattern for 12-pdr. Field Gun and Carriage of the Gribeauval System 2. ee ee 2.2 Pattern for 12-pdr. Field Gun and Carriage of the Block-Trail System 2... ee ee 2.3 Examples of Seacoast, Siege, and Field Artillery ............ 2.4 Smoothbore Ammunition ..............2.00 e eens 2.5 Examples of Horse Drawn Battery Vehicles ............... 2.6 System of Field Artillery, 1841 2... ee ee eee 3.1 Vera Cruz 2. wee 3.2 The Approach to Mexico City ............... 2.000008. 4.1 The Valley of Mexico ..........0... 0c ee eee eee eee 4.2 The Battle of El Molino del Rey .............-.....2.-.. 4.3 Mexico City and Chapultepec.................2200004. 4.4 The Battle of Chapultepec ...................-.-0004. 5.1 Small Arms Improvements, 1816-1855 ................. Vii MAJOR GENERAL BENJAMIN HUGER, CIRCA 1863 INTRODUCTION Americans have long been fascinated by their Civil War. There has been a tendency to view that conflict as a barometer for determining the historical value of many of our nineteenth century soldiers. The clashing of sabers, the roar of artillery, and the rush of massed infantry attacks conjure up images as romantic and awe-inspiring as they are tragic and mournful. We celebrate the heroic, eulogize the dead, and ignore the mediocre. Historians have resoundingly cast Benjamin Huger into the last-named category. Where Huger’s name appears at all, it is unhesitatingly associated with his disappointing performance during the 1862 Peninsula Campaign. History also records his perceived indifference over the Confederacy’s loss of Norfolk, Virginia while he commanded that district. After such a dismal showing, so the argument goes, where else but to the Trans-Mississippi Department might he go to be out of harm’s way? The implication is that President Jefferson Davis acted only in honor of their friendship in the antebellum Army when he re-assigned Huger to that strategic backwater. Traces of truth exist in the foregoing interpretation. Most of the errors are matters of degree; others are sheer fabrication. Yet this discussion concerns only isolated elements of a very brief, albeit controversial chapter of Huger’s life. More importantly, the infamy of these five months of 1862 have eclipsed over thirty-five years of highly esteemed military service. Huger’s true place in American military history derives not from his experience as a field commander, but as a soldier-scientist in America’s antebellum Army. From his West Point graduation in 1825 until the outbreak of the Civil War, Huger participated in an important period of growth and maturation of America’s military establishment. These years saw the U.S. Army evolve from a small force preoccupied with frontier and coastal defense into one which would meet the demands of total war. The creation of an entirely new generation of weaponry greatly facilitated this development. It was within this context that Huger earned his reputation as one of the Ordnance Department’s most valuable officers. His work with heavy ordnance made him the Army’s leading authority in that field. In 1851, his Instruction for Heavy Artillery became the Army’s standard text on the subject of siege and garrison artillery. His other work included America’s first attempts to perfect a design for long-range rifled cannon.