Copyright 1971 By CARL L. DAVIS All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, re­ cording, or by any informational storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the author. 9'1ALL Am.1S IN THE UNION ARMY, 1861-1865 By CARL L. DAVIS Bachelor of Science Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 1958 Master of Arts Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 1959 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY July, 1971 / SMALL AIMS IN THE UNION ARMY, 1861-1865 ,/ .... ,\... Thesis Approved: Deari of the Graduate College 803848 ii for LUCY iii PREFACE In 1959 I wrote a Master of Arts thesis in history at Oklahoma State University titled "Army Ordnance and Inertia Toward a Change in Small Arms Through the Civil War." I started with Fred Albert Shannon's Organization §:lls! Agministration of the Union Army, where all students begin the subject of Civil War munitions. Shannon's work, published in the 1920's, remains the standard reference to the activities of the Ordnance Department and the Bureau in Washington, D. c., which commanded it. His views that incompetence, lethargy, and mismanagement on the part of the Ordnance Bureau were responsible for the problems in acquiring and improving arms for the Union army, have remained the standard interpretation of Federal munition problems. These criticisms have been applied to small anns, consisting of rifles, muskets, pistols, and edged weapons. Others have written on the subject since Shannon, but historians have not deviated substantially from the Shannon thesis. Yet, as I worked on the Ordnance Bureau in the late 1950's, I began to suspect that the view of the bureau held by most, if not all historians, was unbalanced. Limited resources and data at that time did not pennit a more detailed examination of the question, but doubts continued to plague me. In 1970, however, I was given an opportunity to examine the papers of the Ordnance Bureau, after this topic was approved for my dissertation by my doctoral committ~e. The examination of these records, together with a great mass of additional documents and other materials, confirmed my view that the general concept of the iv Federal Ordnance Bureau and Department was distorted. This imbalance stemmed not only from the legend of Ordnance Bureau and Department mismanagement created during the Civil War itself, but from a constant tendency of more recent writers to evaluate the organization's work of manufacturing and acquiring anns during the conflict by using measure­ ments of the twentieth century. During both the research and writing of this study, I tried constantly to remember that the nineteenth century had different values, habits, and frames of reference. Only by this means could a realistic appraisal be made of the work done by the Chief of Ordnance and his command. This study is the result of this attitude and treatment. Although it does not vindicate the Ordnance Bureau and Department of all charges made against it, it attempts to take a realistic view of its limitations and anns production capacity. The able and often needed assistance of the staff of the Oklahoma State University Library deserve my appreciation. In particular, I would like to thank Mrs. Marguerite s. Howland, the head documents librarian; Mr. Josh H. Stroman, who was of invaluable help in acquiring much needed material; and Mrs. Heather MacAlpine Lloyd, the reference librarian, who was of inestimable value in my research. I would also like to thank the members of my graduate committee for their aid throughout my entire graduate program and for their careful reading of this dissertation: Dr. Guy R. Donnell, of the Political Science Department; Dr. H. James Henderson, Dr. Theodore L. Agnew, Dr. Homer L. Knight, and Dr. LeRoy H. Fischer, of the History Department. I owe special thanks to Dr. Knight, who, as head of the History Department, made it possible for me to pursue not only this v academic degree, but those before it, and to Dr. Fischer, the chainnan of my graduate committee, whose long, hard, and able editorship of my dissertation is appreciated. I would also like to thank Dr. o. A. Hilton, now retired, of the Okl,ahoma State University History Department, for teaching me how to be a historian; Dr. Odie Faulk, for his kindness and good advice; many friends who tolerated me during this effort; and the people who helped with the preparation of this manuscript. I would also like to thank my daughter, Abigail, for tolerating my absence during tpe writing of this dissertation. But most of all, I want to thank my wife, Lucy, whose encouragement, research assistance, and writing help was indispensable. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. ORDNANCE DEPARI'MENT AIMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS • • • • • • • • 1 II. OOMESTIC ARMS SHORTAGES AND FOREIGN PURCHASES • • • • • • • 45 III. OOMESTIC ARMS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 82 IV. THE BREECH-LOADER CONTROVERSY, J.,811-1861 • • • • • • • • • 130 V. THE BREECH-LOADER CONTROVERSY, 1861-1865 • • • • • • • • • 148 VI. WEAPONS EVALUATION AND POTENTIAL • • • • • • • • • • • • • 174 VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 206 BIBLIOGRAPHY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • 216 vii CHAPTER I ORDNANCE DEPARIMENT AllUNISTRATIVE PROBLEMS The year 1861 dawned in an air of crisis. South Carolina had al- ready declared itself out of the Union, and the other slave states were rife with talk of secession. Nevertheless, activity in the old Winder Building in Washington, D. C., which housed the bureaus of the United States Army, increased only moderately during the secession crisis. If there was a sense of urgency in the Ordnance Bureau, the central headquarters of the Ordnance Department which had charge of the arsenals, depots, and armories, it was not discernible from its actions or correspondence. Colonel Henry Knox Craig, the Chief of Ordnance, fussed about the dim offices of the Ordnance Bureau as he had for nearly a decade, and the routine continued almost unbroken. The reports of the ordnance officers, sergeants, and military storekeepers poured into the bureau, and were dutifully recorded and forwarded to the Second Auditor of the Treasury. The Chief of Ordnance replied to t:,he original f. correspondents, who were strung out at numerous military establishments, that their reports had been received and "appear correct.111 In accordance with law, the bureau was preparing the annual ~iscellaneous Letters Sent, December 26, 1860, to April 17, 1861, R.ecords of the Office of the Chief of Ordnance, Old Military R.ecords Division, National Archives, Washington, Do C. The term Ordnance De­ partment is used when referring to the total function of all its mem­ bers, establishments, and activities. The term Ordnance Bureau is applied only in dealing with the Ordnance Department's central office in Washington, D. c. 1 2 allotment of arms for the state militias, and even here there was little excitement. Most of the governors were asking for the newer rifle musket, Sharps carbine, "long-range" rifle, or some weapon other than the older standard smooth-bore musket, and the bureau was doing its best to fulfill their demands. Some of the governors demanded a greater quantity than their allotment under the quota system set up by the Militia Act of 1808, but their enthusiasm made little impression on the officers of the bureau. Their orders were filled under the law, but their pleas for advancements on the next year's quota or their requests to purchase directly from the government were turned down. Colonel Craig carefully explained to the governors or the states' adjutant generals that he had no authority under the law to fulfill their wishes. And, indeed, the old colonel was quite correct. Such decisions were beyond his authority.2 Yet the loyalty crisis created problems for Craig. In the midst of the routine and bureaucracy, he was aware that the United States might be facing a large scale insurrection; how large, no one could know. Admittedly, he was worried about protecting United States property located in the Southern states, and admonished his subordi- nates not to permit ordnance stores, arms, or buildings to fall into the hands of "traitors." He was perhaps more wily than is usually supposed. The letters from his office indicate that he delayed arms shipments to potentially secessionist states. He informed several of the Southern governors that their state arms, due them under the quota, 2Ibido; United States Congress, United States Statutes!!:, Large (volso I-VII, Boston~ Little, Brown, 1848-1874; vols. IX-present, Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1874-present, Volo II, p. 490. .3 were on their way, when in fact the anns had not been sent at all. When the governors protested that they had received no anns, the old colonel would promise to look into the matter. Years of experience had taught Craig the value of the evasive bureaucratic maneuver. Some governors would never receive the anns.3 Yet, if the war's opening had been delayed, the South would have received their arms and Craig could have done nothing about it. Pain­ staking care had gone into the preparation of the 1861 quotas; no distinction was, or under the l.aw'r could be made between Northern states whose loyalty was unquestioned and Southern states who at any moment might leave the Union, taking the federally supplied anns with them to use against the government. It was not the prerogative of an anny bureau to decide who should be armed when the controversy was of a political or constitutional nature. The regulations of the anny and the militia were clearly stated in the laws of Congress, and most military men considered them invio- late.