tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5326223780463850836.post2243675504916676535..comments2023-10-11T09:12:39.054-05:00Comments on The Trans-Mississippian: What About The 39th Missouri Infantry?Jane Johanssonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11723064098756475302noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5326223780463850836.post-14901035477657703552014-11-02T15:18:57.244-06:002014-11-02T15:18:57.244-06:00It gets tricky doesn't it? The authors that I ...It gets tricky doesn't it? The authors that I quoted were very careful to state "infantry" as a qualification. As far as I know, the First Maine Heavy Artillery did indeed suffer the most killed and mortally wounded in a single engagement of any Civil War unit. However, the heavy artillery units had two more companies than infantry regiments, and correspondingly had many more men that served in them. The First Maine H. A., for example, had 2,202 men serve in it; by contrast the Fifth New York Infantry had a total enrollment of 1,508. Whether it's appropriate to compare "infantry" with "heavy artillery" regiments is a topic that I'll leave to others, but I appreciate you raising an interesting issue.Jane Johanssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11723064098756475302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5326223780463850836.post-78314090135819993432014-10-31T14:21:11.536-05:002014-10-31T14:21:11.536-05:00If you count Heavy Artillery regiments, the 1st Ma...If you count Heavy Artillery regiments, the 1st Maine Heavies suffered a casualty rate of 612 killed and wounded out of 900 men that took part in an attack at Petersburg on June 18, 1864. Out of those 612 casualties 241 were killed or died of wounds. If Heavy Artillery regiment are included, than the 1st Maine Heavies suffered the highest number loss and fatality loss of the ACW.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5326223780463850836.post-19985337487297841902014-09-12T09:05:42.674-05:002014-09-12T09:05:42.674-05:00Pleased that I could contribute in some way to a c...Pleased that I could contribute in some way to a course lecture! I too have considered the possibility that the losses of the 39th Missouri are regarded differently because they occurred during an event considered a massacre. Fox may have had that attitude, but modern historians would probably not differentiate between losses suffered in battles and massacres--it would be interesting to know, however! As for Fox, his opinions on the matter can not be determined from his book. He does state on page 522 that the 39th Missouri's losses occurred during "a massacre at Centralia." On the other hand, he includes the 1st Kansas Colored Infantry (79th U. S. Colored) in his list of 300 fighting regiments even though they suffered heavy casualties at Poison Springs and Flat Rock; many historians consider the latter two as massacres. Interestingly, Fox does not label them that way in his write up on the 1st Kansas. He states that the 1st Kansas suffered heavy casualties at Poison Springs when they "were complete surrounded [and]...cut their way out." He labels Flat Rock as an "affair" and writes that Company K was surprised and "nearly annihilated." Fox failed to list either the 39th Missouri or the 1st Kansas Colored (111 killed at Poison Springs) in his list of "maximum of regimental loss in killed...in particular engagements." In such a big, complicated book this may have been an oversight. Or perhaps it did reflect that he differentiated between "battles" and "massacres." Sounds like an interesting topic for someone to pursue for a journal article or a conference presentation.Jane Johanssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11723064098756475302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5326223780463850836.post-74230671877720865972014-09-11T13:43:03.271-05:002014-09-11T13:43:03.271-05:00Thanks for your work on the 39th Missouri. Without...Thanks for your work on the 39th Missouri. Without you, I wouldn't have known about them or their fate at Quantrill's hands or included them in my Civil War course lecture on guerilla warfare. <br /><br />One possibility for why Fox and others don't consider the 39th as having sustained the greatest loss of life in a single battle: Some don't consider massacres to be real battles, but in a class by themselves. I've seen this particularly in the writings of 19th-century historians.<br />Will HickoxAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com