862ai: Union Forces at the Siege of Fort Donelson Tennessee 12-16 February 1862

Comments

4 responses to “862ai: Union Forces at the Siege of Fort Donelson Tennessee 12-16 February 1862”

1. 

   Billy

   October 12, 2014

   Very detailed order of battle. Any idea on the total numbers of Union cannon present at the Fort Donelson battle? I’m scouring the Official Records right now but so far haven’t found anything. If you’re interested however in the numbers of Confederate artillery at Fort Donelson and its environs I can be of some help.

   The fort had a Lower Battery and an Upper Battery. The Lower Battery consisted of eight 32-pdrs. and one 10-inch Columbiad.
   The Upper Battery was much smaller, with two carronades and one rifled gun.
   (from the after-action report of Capt. B.G. Bidwell found in Official Records, Vol. 7, pg. 394 on the website of Cornell University found at http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0007;node=waro0007%3A3;view=image;seq=411;size=100;page=root )

   Inside the fort itself were one large 8-inch howitzer (described as “good”) and two small 9-pdrs. (described as being “of little account”).
   (after-action report of Lieut. Col. Milton Haynes found in Official Records, Vol. 7, pg. 388 and featured on the website of Cornell University found at http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0007;node=waro0007%3A3;view=image;seq=404;size=100;page=root )

   Aside from these pieces there was other artillery in the vicinity and helping with the defense as well, the field artillery of the divisions making up the rest of the expanded garrison, defending the line of entrenchments facing west and south ringing the fort. These amounted to another 35 cannon in total in seven batteries, the numbers found by adding up the individual battery gun holdings found in the after-action reports of Brig. Gen. Bushrod Johnson found in Official Records, Vol. 7, pg. 359 on the website of Cornell University found at http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0007;node=waro0007%3A3;view=image;seq=375;size=100;page=root ; and Brig. Gen. Simon Bolivar Buckner found in Official Records, Vol. 7, pg. 329 on the website of Cornell University found at http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0007;node=waro0007%3A3;view=image;seq=345;size=100;page=root
   as well as two of the batteries’ holdings found in “The Battle of Fort Donelson” article on the website CivilWarHome.com found at http://www.civilwarhome.com/ftdonelson.html

   You may have already known all this but if not I am glad to be of whatever assistance I can. This is an excellent blog and please keep up the good work. Best wishes to everyone there.

   Reply
   1. 

      Brett Schulte

      October 12, 2014

      Billy,

      Thanks for the compliment. Unfortunately, I don’t have any more detail than what you see here. If you find the answer, definitely let us know! I’m doing the same kind of detailed work on the Siege of Petersburg now.

      Brett

      Reply
2. 

   Billy

   October 13, 2014

   Brett,
   You’re most welcome. And today with a lot of digging I did manage to find exact numbers for the Union artillery in Grant’s force besieging Fort Donelson. The Official Records are pretty amazing, I’m still dumbfounded at the amount of information there. While the after-action reports found in Series I, Vol. 7 pertaining to Fort Donelson, though a voluminous amount of records, some 78 individual records in all, contained some of what I needed, like McClernand’s detailed report, it doesn’t contain Brig. Gen. Charles Smith’s account of the battle however I found that Series I, Vol. 52 does, apparently his was found too late to go in its appropriate place. An old book specifically about one of the batteries that took part in the battle revealed the remaining bit of information needed. OK so here goes:

   There were eight batteries supporting Grant’s offensive against Fort Donelson, viz.
   1st Illinois Light Artillery, Bty. B (Taylor’s Bty.)
   1st Illinois Light Artillery, Bty. D (McAllister’s Bty.)
   2nd Illinois Light Artillery, Bty. A (Dresser’s Bty.)
   2nd Illinois Light Artillery, Bty. E (Schwartz’s Bty.)
   1st Missouri Light Artillery, Bty. D (Richardson’s Bty.)
   1st Missouri Light Artillery, Bty. H (Welker’s Bty.)
   1st Missouri Light Artillery, Bty. K (Stone’s Bty.)
   1st Illinois Light Artillery, Bty. A (Wood’s Bty., the “Chicago Artillery”)

   The after-action report of Brig. Gen. John McClernand found in Official Records, Vol. 7, pg. 175 on the website of Cornell University found at http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar&cc=moawar&idno=waro0007&node=waro0007%3A3&view=image&seq=191&size=100
   shows the first four as amounting to the following:
   Bty. B, 1st Ill. (Taylor’s) – four 6-pdr. howitzers and two 12-pdr. howitzers
   Bty. D, 1st Ill. (McAllister’s) – three 24-pdr. howitzers
   Bty. A, 2nd Ill. (Dresser’s) – three 6-pdr. rifled James guns
   Bty. E, 2nd Ill. (Schwartz’s) – two 6-pdr. howitzers and two 12-pdr. howitzers

   The after-action report of Brig. Gen. Charles Smith found in Official Records, Vol. 52, pg. 7 and featured on the website of Cornell University found at http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0109;node=waro0109%3A2;view=image;seq=15;size=100;page=root
   shows the following for the next three batteries:
   Bty. D, 1st Missouri Light – four rifled Parrotts
   Bty. H, 1st Missouri Light- four rifled Parrotts
   Bty. K, 1st Missouri Light – four rifled Parrotts
   Smith also notes that they were a mix of 10- and 20-pdr. Parrotts. The EXACT mix may be able to be inferred from the Battle of Shiloh/Pittsburgh Landing in which they also took part, in which they also had four Parrotts apiece, and in which the mix was as follows: Bty. D: four 20-pdr. Parrotts; Bty. H: two 10- and two 20-pdrs. ; Bty. K: four 10-pdrs. which is shown on your own order of battle for Shiloh/Pittsburgh Landing. It would be almost a certainty that their gun holdings didn’t change between February and April 1862 if the total numbers and types remained the same so I think it’s safe to say that the three Missouri batteries had these holdings of four 20-pdrs., two 10 and two 20s and four 10-pdrs. respectively at Donelson.

   As for the remaining battery, Bty. A, 1st Illinois Light Artillery, I found it in a book called History of Battery A, First Illinois Light Artillery Volunteers by C.B. Kimbell, Cushing Printing Co., Chicago, Ill., 1899, pg. 36
   in which the author states: “On the 1st of November [1981], we received all of our new harnesses and two new howitzers, and were now a full six gun Battery.”
   In reading further he mentions the death of one of his battery’s artillerymen but mentions no change in the numbers of their howitzers before Fort Donelson so it’s safe to presume they still had their full complement of six pieces.

   Which gives us a grand total of 34 artillery pieces for Grant’s force, a mixed bag of howitzers, Parrott rifles and James rifles. (This is all of course not counting the shipboard guns of Foote’s gunboat flotilla, which if you want to know the names of the gunboats involved in the Fort Donelson fight were the following:
   The ironclads St. Louis, Carondelet, Pittsburgh and Louisville and the timberclads Tyler and Conestoga. This was found in the after-action report of Flag Officer Andrew Foote found in Official Records, Vol. 7, pg. 166 on the website of Cornell University found at http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0007;node=waro0007%3A3;view=image;seq=182;size=100;page=root

   Some non-Official Records sources, like some blogs, mention there being seven gunboats in the attack on Fort Donelson but I have looked into this and the seventh one, Lexington, was busy patrolling the Tennessee River at the time and took no part in the battle. It was only six.)

   Hope this helps in some way.

   -Billy

   Reply
3. 

   Billy

   October 13, 2014

   Correction:
   In the above comment I misquoted C.B. Kimbell in his book about Battery A, 1st Illinois Light Arty. in which he says “On the 1st of November…”
   It should read [1861], not “1981” of course, I was typing too fast I guess.

   Reply