Trans-Mississippi Losses: Union Troops

William F. Fox’s Regimental Losses In The American Civil War, 1861-1865 (1898) contains a great amount of interesting statistical data. Near the end of his book, I recently reexamined a table titled “Total Deaths and Percentages By States,” and I extracted part of the data and placed it in the table below. For starters, the statistics below pertain only to Union enlistments, and I have deleted his statistics relating to Veteran Reserves, Regular Army, as well as several other categories. Curious about losses from the trans-Mississippi and how they compared to eastern states, I have highlighted the states and territories from west of the Mississippi. Regrettably, reliable data from the Confederate states are unavailable.

Source: Fox, William F. Regimental Losses In The American Civil War, 1861-1865. (Albany, NY: Brandow Printing Co., 1898), pp. 526-527.

State/Territory	Total deaths	Troops furnished; three years standard	Percent of total deaths
Indian Nations	1,018	3,530	28.8
Tennessee	6,777	26,394	25.6
Kentucky	10,774	43,550	24.7
Arkansas	1,713	7,836	21.8
Alabama	345	1,611	21.4
Louisiana	945	4,654	20.3
Vermont	5,224	26,355	19.8
Michigan	14,753	76,218	19.3
Iowa	13,001	68,118	19.0
Maine	9,398	49,635	18.9
Indiana	26,672	150,177	17.7
Missouri	13,885	78,035	17.7
New Hampshire	4,882	29,150	16.7
Wisconsin	12,301	73,865	16.6
Florida	215	1,290	16.6
Illinois	34,834	210,043	16.5
Kansas	2,630	16,624	15.8
Ohio	35,475	225,669	15.7
Pennsylvania	33,183	214,427	15.4
West Virginia	4,017	27,518	14.5
Mississippi	78	545	14.3
Massachusetts	13,942	98,803	14.1
Minnesota	2,584	18,554	13.9
New York	46,534	334,784	13.8
New Jersey	5,754	44,398	12.9
Maryland	2,982	24,954	11.9
Connecticut	5,354	45,181	11.8
North Carolina	360	3,156	11.4
Delaware	882	7,888	11.1
Nebraska Territory	239	2,175	10.9
Rhode Island	1,321	13,688	9.6
Colorado Territory	323	3,697	8.7
Texas	141	1,632	8.6
New Mexico Terr.	277	4,432	6.2
District of Columbia	290	6,546	4.4
California	573	15,725	3.6
Nevada Territory	33	1,080	3.0
Dakota Territory	6	206	3.0
Oregon Territory	45	1,773	2.5
Washington Terr.	22	964	2.2

The New Mexico Campaign: By Bicycle

Bicycling is something that I enjoy although I have not yet bicycled in any battlefield parks—someday I will! My copy of the August/September 2013 issue of Adventure Cyclist magazine arrived today, and it features an article about a nearly 1,100 mile bicycling expedition that retraced the route of Henry Sibley’s expedition from Texas to Glorieta Pass in New Mexico. Written by Dennis Coello, the article begins, “The Alamo. El Paso. Albuquerque and Santa Fe. Not exactly the names that spring to mind when you think about the American Civil War, are they?” Kudos to the magazine for publishing an article relating to the Civil War in the trans-Mississippi!

A Pertinent Reminder

On a whim, I recently purchased Stephen M. Hood’s John Bell Hood: The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of a Confederate General (2013). Besides the trans-Mississippi, my main Civil War interest is the Army of Tennessee. This is due in part to the fact that my g-g-grandfather served in the Adams-Gibson Louisiana brigade of that often ill-fated army. Although I’ve only read the first forty pages of Hood’s book, I’ve already found it to be a pertinent reminder of how careful historians need to be when crafting their findings. Hood points out that soon after the war, John Bell Hood had a positive reputation, but then he became a convenient scapegoat in Lost Cause historiography. Although some twentieth-century historians, particularly his biographers, wrote favorable assessments of the general, the writings of Stanley Horn, Thomas Connelly, James McDonough, and Wiley Sword have been critical of the General. Hood argues that certain historians (and he names the offenders) have engaged in various academic sins such as misusing sources, relying too much on Lost Cause writings, and inserting unattributed “facts.” The book has hooked me, and I’m looking forward to reading the more analytical sections.

For several years, I collected primary documents relating to the Adams-Gibson Louisiana brigade with a goal of writing a history of the unit. For various reasons, the project was abandoned, however, I noticed some interesting things while collecting sources. Many books argue that Braxton Bragg was unpopular among his troops, and yet I found few negative comments about him in the primary sources that I collected about the brigade. Balancing out the negative remarks, were some rather glowing positive comments. This is rather extraordinary when you consider that the Louisiana brigade was supposedly opposed to Bragg. Randall Gibson, the commander of the 13^th Louisiana, certainly had a run-in with Bragg after Shiloh, but the men in the ranks? For the most part the Louisiana soldiers rarely commented on their commanding generals; other matters drew their attention much more.

And, that points out the danger of the historiographical box. If a historian relies too much on secondary sources, then you run the risk of distorting the past in your own writings. The Hood book made me think more about the various historiographical boxes that relate to the trans-Mississippi. What “facts” do we read time and time again in secondary sources about the trans-Mississippi? Are they really true? Here’s a quick example: on a regular basis, I have read that the trans-Mississippi was a sort of “backwash” for incompetent leaders. Is it true? Certainly, I can think of some poor leaders in the trans-Mississippi: Nathaniel Banks and Sterling Price immediately come to mind. On the other hand, were James G. Blunt, Samuel Curtis, Jo Shelby, and Richard Taylor incompetent? Could it be that the truth is more nuanced than commonly believed?

What else do you commonly read about the trans-Mississippi theater in secondary sources? The next time you read one of these common viewpoints, perhaps you should ask yourself what sources is the comment based on? And, is it really true? Perhaps if historians and readers alike ask themselves such questions more often, we’ll come to a better understanding of that world that we call the past.

Trans-Mississippi Road Tour

Recently, my friend Jim Carrick visited from Scotland, and we embarked on a multi-day series of day trips from Pryor, Oklahoma, to trans-Mississippi sites. Altogether, we visited Civil War sites on five days and traveled approximately 1,100 miles. What a great time! Here’s where we went:

Day One: We started at Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield where the staff rolled out the proverbial red carpet. Park Historian Connie Langum took us on a great tour of the park, and we left with a greater understanding of that early battle. Here is a photograph of Connie and Jim at the Pulaski Battery tour stop.

Day Two: We left about 7:15 am for a trip to the Pea Ridge National Military Park. I conducted today’s tour and concentrated on the Leetown battlefield and events near Elkhorn Tavern. Jim and I also discussed the logistical challenges of the campaign. Today was our hottest day of the week, but drinking lots of water and staying in the shade helped us cope with the temperatures. We ate sack lunches at the East Overlook—the shade and a nice breeze made for a delightful break.

Day Three: Off to Arkansas again for a visit to the Prairie Grove Battlefield State Park. An overcast day meant cooler temperatures for us. After a visit to Hindman Hall, we drove to the Borden House where we walked the trails; a highlight was tracing the route of the 20^th Wisconsin Infantry as they charged Blocher’s Battery. Another was viewing the area where the 1^st Indian Home Guard advanced. I could almost see Major Albert C. Ellithorpe, the subject of my current research project, leading his men there. Although the Prairie Grove campaign was somewhat complicated, the battle itself was notable for piecemeal Union attacks and a stout Confederate defense.

Day Four: Our longest day. We arrived at the Mine Creek Battlefield Historic Site soon after it opened for the day. We enjoyed a presentation by Adrian Zink, the site administrator, who told us about the campaign and showed us replica weapons. Several individuals involved in the battle were afterwards associated with George A. Custer in the postwar Indian conflicts. Another striking feature of the battle was the great superiority in weapons enjoyed by Union soldiers over their Confederate opponents.  After walking the Prairie Trail and discussing one of the largest cavalry battles of the war, we drove to the Fort Scott National Historic Site and met Arnold Schofield. Mr. Schofield gave us a fascinating tour of Fort Scott, a major supply depot and recruiting center during the war. The visit concluded with a fascinating tour of the National Cemetery.

Day Five: Just a short drive took us to the Cabin Creek Battlefield, the least developed and the smallest of the battlefields that we visited. The site was the scene of several actions during the war with the most famous being 2^nd Cabin Creek where Confederate troops captured a wagon train worth an estimated $1.5 million. We met the caretaker of the battlefield, Herman Stinnett, who kindly invited us to his house following our park visit. He and his wife showed us relics from the battlefield and provided great hospitality.

We had also arranged for a tour of the Honey Springs Battlefield, but a heavy rainstorm (most unusual for late July) forced us to cancel our visit.

All in all, it was an outstanding week! How fortunate it is to have these diverse sites preserved for all to study, and how lucky we were to meet such friendly and helpful people. If you haven’t visited a trans-Mississippi battle site, then you’re in for a treat!