|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Dec 5, 2003 21:37:10 GMT -5
Kentucky rifles, eh? I was under the impression that Captain Lincoln's company was issued U. S. muskets with bayonets. Perhaps its time for a CMH update. Lots of water under the bridge since this print was first released!  Regards... Bob. |
|
|
|
Post by Greg Carter on Dec 6, 2003 0:00:18 GMT -5
I couldn't agree more Bob! I think I will break out my watercolors right away!
GMC ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Dec 6, 2003 11:30:03 GMT -5
Bob, How can you worry about being over-picky? I should have noticed my grammatical error there.. plume, yes.. hackle.. no. G. Carter Mr. G... Mr. McBarron painted a feather hackle on the officers... these hackles were the object of my commentary. Instead, the 1821 Illinois militia regs. --supposedly used to construct the artwork-- indicates a "plume." I am fairly certain that a military artist of Mr. McBarron's experience and renown knew the difference. Warm regards, Bob. |
|
|
|
Post by pshrake on Dec 7, 2003 1:14:15 GMT -5
Bob,
Not to slightly deviate from a facinating disussion, but could you suggest where one could find a copy of the Revised 1821 Illinois Militia Act. I have been researching the Illinios milita, and for that matter the condition of the militia on a national level, especially as it related to the events of 1827. I have a series of correspondance from the Secretary of War on the subject and there is reference to this act but I have not yet laid my hands on a copy.
I would be grateful for any suggestions.
Pete
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Dec 7, 2003 12:11:09 GMT -5
Dr. Pete... for such I copy, I must refer you to that Illinois' "resercher par excellence"-- Mr. Carter! Bob. |
|
|
|
Post by Greg Carter on Dec 7, 2003 17:07:21 GMT -5
Such a compliment, Bob! Pete, I provided Bob with some information I was given by the Illinois State Library, and I will post their stuff below. I contacted them via e-mail and requested what I was looking for, and a research librarian was able to send my a literal ton of stuff! ( for the small fee associated with copy machines) Margaret something... she was very helpful and very nice about taking the time to find the stuff. Anyway, there are several pieces of information you will want to ask for, as I found the hard way- 1. The Illinois Constitution of 1818, which was still in effect in 1832, and listed the law providing for the formation of the State Militia. 2. Illinois Militia laws from 1818-1831, all of which were in effect in 1832. I believe the 1826 laws were the most descriptive, if I remember correctly, as they explain the structure of the militia, arms of the men and officers, uniforms of the officers and of the men. The Illinois State Library Gwendolyn Brooks Building 300 S. 2nd Street Springfield, IL 62701-1796 (217)785-5600 TDD (1-800-965-0748) (800)665-5576 (within IL only) Hours: Monday-Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm. www.sos.state.il.us/library/isl/isl.htmlI know it is hard to travel, but a trip to the ISL is definitely worth it. It sits on the Capitol complex across the from the capitol and near the State Archives in Springfield. It is not far from the major sites to see either, and is within easy walking distance of all the downtown hotels and B & B's. I visited there and it is a very commanding building, with multiple floors of historic texts all surrounding an open lobby much like the Field Museum, only a bit more modern. This is even further off the mark, but I think before we all campaign to LNS next summer we should make a concerted drop-in on the ISL or the ISA and photocopy our brains out! Greg Carter |
|
|
|
Post by pshrake on Dec 10, 2003 20:55:01 GMT -5
Sorry for the delay in responding, our computer has been getting mighty neurotic over the last few months and was acting up the last few days.
Thanks Greg for the tip, I will definately follow your advice. I will in the next few days post a letter I found, written by Edward Coles in 1826 describing the condition to the militia in Illinois that year. The letter was a reply to a circular sent out from the Secretary of War who was then attempting to asses the overall quality of the nations militia, with the view of making a series of modifications most notably in the form of manuals. In his relpy to the Sect. of War Coles referred several times to a "recently passed act" which dealt with the organization of the militia in Illinois, hence my interest in the laws.
My research of late has led me to believe that the militia was a somewhat hot topic on the national scene. Calhoun, and Barbour were both discussing the benefits and problems of the institution. The debate took on a more serious tone after Congress hacked the federal budget in 1821. As a result, the Army was severely reduced and there was more emphasis on relyance on militia to fill the gaps.
Among other comments I found this great one from Calhoun who seemed to have a somewhat guarded estimation of the milita. “I am aware that the militia is considered, and in many respects justly, as the great national force; but, to render them effective, every experienced officer must acknowledge, that they require the aid of regular troops. Supported by a suitable corps of trained artillerists, and by a small but well disciplined body of infantry, they may be safely relied on to garrison our forts, and to act in the filed as light troops. In these services, their zeal, courage, and habit of using firearms would be of great importance, and have their full effect. To rely on them beyond this, to suppose our militia capable of meeting in the open field the regular troops of Europe, would be to resist the most obvious truth, and the whole of our experience as a nation.”
What I am trying to determine is that in the light of the national debate, did the militia of Michigan and Wisconsin live up to the potential as some politicians declared they would, and more to the question, at a time of emergency what role did the militia play, especialy in the immediate absence of regular troops?
I now I am digressing here and certainly straying off the topic, but in any case, thanks for the help! ;D
Pete Shrake
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg Carter on Dec 11, 2003 2:40:22 GMT -5
Pete,
Definitely good points you have raised, and one very good question... some thoughts:
First, I couldn't agree more that militia of time period were in great need of backup from regular soldiers. I am sure the more historically in-depth members of this board (excluding myself here) can cite several incidents in the wars preceding the Sauk War where regulars were forced to stand at "charge bayonets" behind the militia just to make them hold their ground.
Taking that side of the issue of discipline, one can only help but to point out that at Stillman's Run, the men who stayed behind were led by a former US soldier; and also that the company assigned to Fort Defiance was reputed to be the best drilled company in the territory, partly owing to the presence of a former US soldier as the company orderly sergeant.
Looking at the other side of the coin, however, one cannot help but note Dodge's command using open-order skirmish drill with bayonets at Pecatonica, which might suggest that the men readily adapted to at least some of the tactics they were taught at one point or another.
On the subject of following the militia laws, I have to refer to Whitney's several volumes, where there are several requests for arms in large quantities (Ferguson's Company requesting 150, for example) as well as small quantities of arms and bayonets issued out to numerous companies and battalions of the militia, which strongly suggests the lack of arms or unsuitablilty of existing arms for military service, despite the requirements of the law that stated that each man was to acquire and maintain a "musket, fusee or rifle, bayonet or tomahawk", etc.
Just a thought.
GMC
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Dec 12, 2003 11:36:51 GMT -5
Greg... I had no idea that Captain Adams had prior experience in the Regular Army. Was the person about whom you were referring regarding Stillman's Run?
Greg brings up some interesting points here. The "Stillman's Run" debacle aside... there is evidence to suggest that the militia was in many cases better drilled than modern investigators have been willing to discover-- or admit. And this apparently without a formal adherance to the prescritpions of the 1792 militia law!
I guess the old stories about "dirty shirts" and "rag-tag" militia are more fun to re-tell straight-up than to actually investigate whether or not the assertion is factualy true.
Bob.
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg Carter on Dec 14, 2003 21:39:50 GMT -5
I may be mistaken but I swear I read someplace that there was a former US regular at Stillman's Run.. but forget that until I can substantiate my mistake.
On the subject of historical facts and militia, there are many pieces to look at, both before and after the Sauk War, which beg an answer as to why going off to "jine the milisha" has always had a bad stigma... My points as such-
1. The complete destruction of the Kickapoo at Pecatonica, 1832.
2. The route of Black Hawk's band at the Heights of the Ouisconsin, 1832.
3. The staunch defense of the Alamo, 1836
4. The steadfast militiamen at Chalmette, 1815
5. The destruction of the Mexican Army at San Jacinto in 1836
7. The defeat of the British soldiers at Concorde and the subsequent fighting at the very outset of the American Revolution
On the other hand...
1. "The disappearance of an entire army" at Camden in the War of Independence...
2. The complete route of the "Minutemen of '61" at Manassas in 1861.
Granted, many of the incidents I have listed above where fights where US or former US soldiers were interspersed amongst the militia, but I doubt were entirely responsible for their success.
In a couple of cases above, I guess I should also point out that the Regular soldiers who were present (200+ at San Jacinto, for example) were not all good examples, such as deserters and such.
Ending my rant, I believe Mrs. Kinzie herself said that few of the frontier militia had the training to defeat the Indians at the time of the Sauk War. Looking at some of the fights, I would have to beg to differ just a bit.
GMC
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Dec 15, 2003 12:02:43 GMT -5
Pete's John C. Calhoun quote raises some interesting questions within the larger sphere.
Calhoun, by virtue of his service as Secretary of War and an education NOT found on the banks of the Hudson River, appeared to offer commentary not laced with the usual anti-militia gush that eminated from West Pointers. Therefore, one might consider his comments more informed and possibly more objective than those offered by some of his contemporaries.
It was singular that American society, which regarded the citizen-soldier at the very backbone of its defense, could so cruelly debase their service in the same breath!
As Greg has pointed out, there were plenty of examples that fit the "fire and run" rag-tag "dirty shirt" militia thesis. And to be fair---again as Greg has pointed out-- there are numerous examples of martial successes where the militia was properly motivated and led. Couldn't the same could be argued for the Regular Army service as well?
Narrowed to the Black Hawk War, the Stillman's Run debacle stands as the pre-eminant modern public impression of the Illinois militia during the entire conflict-- a drunken, ill-disciplined rabble that fires on well-meaning Indians carrying a white flag. That's a powerful image... and an easier one to place in the eye of the imagination of the reader than a critical assessment of Black Hawk's activities that led him to Old Man Creek in the first place!
Again... it's just easier to run with negative images of the militia-- feeding the Argumentum ad populum logical fallacy-- than to engage in a mature investigation of the matter. And no one challeneges the logical fallacies of these writers because, after all, the story is "all about Black Hawk."
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg Carter on Dec 18, 2003 2:07:19 GMT -5
Not wanting to dim the light on this thread, but getting back to the original subject- I have a challenge, or an observation, rather-
Can anyone here specifically think of an account at any time written that states that "so and so" specifically wore the law-specified blue hunting shirt with red fringe?
GMC
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Dec 18, 2003 9:54:35 GMT -5
Mr. Greg...
In his book My Own Times... John Reynolds wrote:
(Emphasis added.)
Thomas Ford in his History of Illinois wrote:
(Emphasis added.)
Note that these are general references, and not ones that specifically tie to the Illinois Militia Law... or the Black Hawk War for that matter.
I have read similar references to blue fringed red hunting shirts from the War of 1812 period. With the exceptions of chronology and precident, these do not seem pertinent to our discussion of 1832 Illinois militia.
Regards, Bob.
|
|
|
|
Post by pshrake on Dec 22, 2003 23:44:33 GMT -5
Some time ago I noted a letter I had discovered written by Edward Coles, to the Secretary of War in 1826 detailing the condition of the militia in Illinois. The letter was a part of a nationwide fact seeking effort by the Sect. of War as a part of a larger effort to improve the state of the Militia in the U.S. Coles letter is somewhat confusing with out the actual questions as submitted by the Sect. of War. Coles replied to each question numaricaly. I have placed the Sectretarys questions in capital letters and in parenthasis with each of Coles's replies. I hope it is not too confusing, and as always this is my transcription so any errors are mine alone.
Pete Shrake
State of Illinois,
Executive Department, September 8, 1826
Sir: Your letter of July 11 was not received until the 30th of August. In compliance with your request that I would give my earliest attention to the subject, I hasten to reply to your several inquiries, and, to save repetition of them, shall do so in reference to the number and in the numerical order in which they are states.
1. (WHAT IS THE NUMBER OF YOUR MILITIA?) The returns are defective, bit it is believed that thee are enrolled in the militia about 12,000 men rank and file.
2. (ARE THEY ORGANIZED IN STRICT CONFROMITY TO THE LAW OF CONGRESS; IF THEY DIFFER, IN WHAT?) To show fully how the militia are organized, and in what respects we have departed from the provisions contained in the law of Congress, I send you enclosed a printed copy of an act recently passed “for the organization and government of the militia of the State”
3. (ARE THE REGULAR OR VOLUNTEER MILITIA MOST EFFICIENT?) I have no particular experience on this subject, but have always heard and believed the volunteer corps to be by far the most efficient.
4. ( IS THERE PREFRERECNE GIVEN FRO ENTERING VOLUNTEER CORPS?) In a time of profound peace, and with no prospect, as it is believed, of war, there is little zeal displayed in forming volunteer corps. But in case of war there would be, doubtless, a preference to volunteer service, as well from the opportunity it affords for the association of active, patriotic, and high minded men, as for the selection of officers in whom the men would have greater confidence.
5. (DOES THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE VOLUNTEER MILITA OPERATE INJURIOUSLY ON THE REGULAR MILITIA?) No. It operates as a salutary incentive
6. (WHAT PORPORTION DO THE VOLUNTEERS BEAR TO THE REGULAR MILITIA?) About one-twelfth.
7. (WOULD IT PROMOTE THE EFFICIENCY OF VOLUNTEER CORPS IF THEY HAD THE POWER BY LAW OF MAKING BY-LAWS FOR THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT?) I think it would not; but on the contrary, the power in a part of the militia to make by-laws would create a discordance which would be prejudicial to discipline and injurious to the service by weakening the unity and efficiency of the whole.
8,9, and 10. (WOULD A CLASSIFICATION OF THE MILITIA BE AN IMPROVEMENT – ONE TO BE CALLED THE ACTIVE, THE OTHER THE SEDENTARY?, IN MAKING THE CLASSIFICATION, SHOULD AGE OR THE SINGLE OR MARRIED STATE FORM THE DISTINCTION?, IF AGE, WHAT THE PROPER PERIODS?) It would be doubtless, highly beneficial to class the militia; and, in my opinion, they would be classed according to age. All under a specified age, say 25, should from the “active,” all above the “sedentary” militia.
11. (WOULD IT BE AN IMPROVEMENT TO ISSUE COMMISSIONS ONLY TO IMFERIOR GRADES IN TIME OF PEACE; IF SO WHAT SHOULD BE THE HIGHEST?) I am not prepared to give a full answer to this inquiry, but I will say that I should think it highly advantageous to organize the militia in such a manner that, during peace, they should be commanded by officers of full rank. For instance, a regiment during peace to be commanded by a lieutenant colonel, but when called into service to be commanded by a colonel, who should be selected fro his superior qualifications, and without regard to previous rank. There would unquestionably be many advantages resulting from the power of selecting, in time of war and emergency, the best qualified officers, without giving umbrage to any. The militia as it is now organized is a mere school of titles where honors are conferred more from momentary impulse of personal kindness than from a sense of the qualification of the individuals.
12 and 13. (IS NOT THE PERIOD OF SERVICE FOR THREE MONTHS ONLY ONE TOUR ATTENDED WITH GREAT SACRIFICES OF LIFE AND TREASURE AND PRODUCTIVE OF INEFFICIENCY?, IF SO, TO WHAT PERIOD MIGHT IT BE PROPERLY EXTENDED?) Yes The period of service should be at least six months, if not longer.
14. (WHAT ARE THE REGULATIONS OF YOUR STATE AS TO TRAINING THE MILITIA?) In answer to this question, I refer to the enclosed law.
15. (FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE, ARE FREQUENT MUSTERS ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GREAT BODY OF THE MILITIA?) Frequent musters are injurious to society and are productive of little benefit to
the militia. But little military information is gained, bad moral habits are acquired, and much time is lost One company muster, one regimental muster, in each year, would be sufficient to onrol, organize, and teach the men the necessary knowledge to prepare them for being called into service.
16. (WOULD IT BE AN IMPROVEMENT TO CONFINE THE INSTRUCTION TO THE OFFIECERS EXCLUSIVELY?) The officers should be thoroughly drilled and instructed in the duties of the field and camp. But I do not think it would be an improvement to confine the musters exclusively to the officers, as such public opportunities to display military knowledge forms an inducement to acquire it.
17. (IS TE SYSTEM OF INFANTRY TACTICS DIRECTED BY LAW UNIVERSALLY PURSUED?) It is not; chiefly for the want of proper book of instruction
18. (WHAT SYSTEM OF EXECISE AND INSTRUCTION OF ARTILLERY HAVE YOU PRACTICES OR FOLLOWED? WHAT ARE ITS DEFECTS AND REMEDIES?) We have no artillery
19. (WHAT SYSTEM OF CAVALRY TACTICS HAVE YOU ADOPTED? WHAT ARE ITS DEFECTS AND REMEDIES?) We have but one company of Cavalry, and they are drilled according to Duane
I have forwarded two of your printed circulars to Generals Duncan and Street, whose information and experience will enable them to give more correct and valuable information than can be furnished by your friend and fellow citizen,
Edward Coles
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Dec 23, 2003 12:09:20 GMT -5
Pete, this is a fascinating document! Very intresting insights here!  Thank you for sharing this information! Bob. |
|
