Comments on: Shiloh: The First Great Battle of the Civil War http://thismightyscourge.com/2009/04/06/shiloh-the-first-great-battle-of-the-civil-war/ An examination of the men, regiments and brigades that fought in the American Civil War - Plus book reviews, Author Interviews and Photo Essays Sat, 31 Dec 2011 01:59:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Michael Noirot http://thismightyscourge.com/2009/04/06/shiloh-the-first-great-battle-of-the-civil-war/comment-page-1/#comment-71 Michael Noirot Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:23:19 +0000 http://thismightyscourge.com/?p=790#comment-71 Mr. Dispenza, Thank you for your comments on my article, "Shiloh: The First Great Battle of the Civil War." They are very timely and correct. The Federal gunboats Lexington, and Tyler, served Grant very well at Shiloh. While it was not my intention to forget mentioning the meritorious service of these Naval gunboats, they do deserve a significant portion of the credit for the Federal victory there. In Wiley Sword's book, "Shiloh Bloody April" and Edward Cunningham's book, "Shiloh and the Western Campaign of 1862," the contributions of these gunboats is emphasized. Neither side could sleep well that night, and many Confederate soldiers heard the shrieking of large naval ordinance very close by. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention, so other readers can learn of the Navy's significant contributions to the Battle of Shiloh. Mr. Dispenza,
Thank you for your comments on my article, “Shiloh: The First Great Battle of the Civil War.” They are very timely and correct. The Federal gunboats Lexington, and Tyler, served Grant very well at Shiloh. While it was not my intention to forget mentioning the meritorious service of these Naval gunboats, they do deserve a significant portion of the credit for the Federal victory there. In Wiley Sword’s book, “Shiloh Bloody April” and Edward Cunningham’s book, “Shiloh and the Western Campaign of 1862,” the contributions of these gunboats is emphasized. Neither side could sleep well that night, and many Confederate soldiers heard the shrieking of large naval ordinance very close by. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention, so other readers can learn of the Navy’s significant contributions to the Battle of Shiloh.

]]> By: bdispenza http://thismightyscourge.com/2009/04/06/shiloh-the-first-great-battle-of-the-civil-war/comment-page-1/#comment-70 bdispenza Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:59:16 +0000 http://thismightyscourge.com/?p=790#comment-70 Once again, the Union Navy does not even merit a mention at Shiloh. A reading of memoirs and history books will bear this out, but not going to the actual sources written at the time. “about sundown, when the National troops were back in their last position, the right of the enemy was near the river and exposed to the fire of the two gunboats, which was delivered with vigor and effect.” (General Grant's Description of the Battle of Shiloh, From his Memoirs, at www.swcivilwar.com/GrantMemoirsShiloh.html, August 2003.) In his address to his troops following the battle, Beauregard commended his men for driving the enemy “from his camps to the shelter of his iron-clad gunboats, which alone saved him from complete disaster.” (P.G.T. Beauregard's Report of the Battle of Shiloh, at http://www.swcivilwar.com/BeauregardShiloh.html, August 2003.) Even Northern General Halleck, “in spite of his contempt for the Navy, concluded that only the Union gunboats had kept Grant’s army from being destroyed.” (Combined Operations in the Civil War, R. Reed (United States Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, 1978), p. 206.) "During the night the rain fell in torrents, adding to the discomforts and harassed condition of the men. The enemy, moreover, had broken their rest by a discharge at measured intervals of heavy shells thrown from the gunboats; therefore on the following morning the troops under my command were not in condition to cope with an equal force of fresh troops, armed and equipped like our adversary, in the immediate possession of his depots and sheltered by such an auxiliary as the enemy's gunboats." (P.G.T. Beauregard's Report.) Following the battle, Leonard Swett, friend and intimate of Abraham Lincoln, spent three days riding the field. His letter to the president stated: "From all I could learn I believe the gunboats Lexington and Tyler , commanded by Lieutenants Gwin and Shirk, saved our army from defeat. At least it is within bounds to say they rendered us invaluable services." (Official Records--Navies, vol. 22, pp. 766.) Swett knew Lincoln from their days on the Illinois circuit court in the 1850s. Alexander McClure observed, "Of all living men, Leonard Swett was the one most trusted by Abraham Lincoln" (in Lincoln's Lost Speech: The Pivot of His Career, Elwell Crissey, Hawthorn Books, New York, 1967, p. 296.) The vital contribution of the gunboats was well recognized in the South. On 18 April 1862 the New Orleans Daily Delta hit upon the key to Union victory—and wrote what may pass for the epitaph of the entire Southern war effort: “[The battle at Shiloh] has taught us that we have nothing to fear from a land invasion of the enemy if he is unsupported by his naval armaments. It has taught us that the right arm of his power in this war is in his gunboats on our seacoast; and that our only assurance of saving the Mississippi from his grasp is to paralyze that arm upon its waters.” (Ships vs Shore, D. Page, Rutledge Hill Press, Nashville , 1994, p. 282.) As you can see, the Union Navy's contribution to victory at Shiloh was not insignificant or small. If Grant would have been cut off from the Tennessee River by the efforts of Bragg's wing late on the first day, Buell could not have reinforced him and Shiloh would have been a Confederate victory. This could easily have resulted in recognition of the Confederacy by European powers. The only thing that stopped this was, by both Union and Confederate admission, the two Union timberclad gunboats sitting at the mouth of Dill Branch ravine. Not the massed Union artillery as stated in some places, but the 6" and 32-pounder shells fired up the ravine by the gunboats. For the sake of the forgotten heroes of the Union Navy, please correct this. L. R. Dispenza US Naval Landing Party (www.usnlp.org) Navy and Marine Living Hsitory Association (www.navyandmarine.org) Once again, the Union Navy does not even merit a mention at Shiloh. A reading of memoirs and history books will bear this out, but not going to the actual sources written at the time.
“about sundown, when the National troops were
back in their last position, the right of the enemy was near the river and exposed to the fire of the two gunboats, which was delivered with vigor and
effect.” (General Grant’s Description of the Battle of Shiloh, From his Memoirs, at
http://www.swcivilwar.com/GrantMemoirsShiloh.html, August 2003.)

In his address to his troops following the battle, Beauregard commended his men for driving the enemy “from
his camps to the shelter of his iron-clad gunboats, which alone saved him from complete disaster.”
(P.G.T. Beauregard’s Report of the Battle of Shiloh, at
http://www.swcivilwar.com/BeauregardShiloh.html, August 2003.)

Even Northern General Halleck, “in spite of his contempt for the Navy, concluded that only the Union gunboats had kept Grant’s army from being destroyed.”
(Combined Operations in the Civil War, R. Reed (United States Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, 1978), p. 206.)

“During the night the rain fell in torrents, adding to the discomforts and harassed condition of the men. The enemy, moreover, had broken their rest by a discharge at measured intervals of heavy shells thrown from the
gunboats; therefore on the following morning the troops under my command were not in condition to cope with an equal force of fresh troops, armed and equipped
like our adversary, in the immediate possession of his depots and sheltered by such an auxiliary as the enemy’s gunboats.”
(P.G.T. Beauregard’s Report.)

Following the battle, Leonard Swett, friend and intimate of Abraham Lincoln, spent three days riding the field. His letter to the president stated: “From all I could learn I believe the gunboats Lexington and Tyler , commanded by Lieutenants Gwin and Shirk, saved our army from defeat. At least it is within bounds to say they rendered us invaluable services.”
(Official Records–Navies, vol. 22, pp. 766.)
Swett knew Lincoln from their days on the Illinois circuit court in the 1850s. Alexander McClure observed, “Of all living men, Leonard Swett was the one
most trusted by Abraham Lincoln” (in Lincoln’s Lost Speech: The Pivot of His Career, Elwell Crissey, Hawthorn Books, New York, 1967, p. 296.)

The vital contribution of the gunboats was well recognized in the South. On 18 April 1862 the New Orleans Daily Delta hit upon the key to Union victory—and wrote what may pass for the epitaph of the entire Southern war effort:
“[The battle at Shiloh] has taught us that we have nothing to fear from a land invasion of the enemy if he is unsupported by his naval armaments. It has taught
us that the right arm of his power in this war is in his gunboats on our seacoast; and that our only assurance of saving the Mississippi from his grasp is to paralyze that arm upon its waters.”
(Ships vs Shore, D. Page, Rutledge Hill Press, Nashville , 1994, p. 282.)

As you can see, the Union Navy’s contribution to victory at Shiloh was not insignificant or small. If Grant would have been cut off from the Tennessee River by the efforts of Bragg’s wing late on the first day, Buell could not have reinforced him and Shiloh would have been a Confederate victory. This could easily have resulted in recognition of the Confederacy by European powers. The only thing that stopped this was, by both Union and Confederate admission, the two Union timberclad gunboats sitting at the mouth of Dill Branch ravine. Not the massed Union artillery as stated in some places, but the 6″ and 32-pounder shells fired up the ravine by the gunboats.

For the sake of the forgotten heroes of the Union Navy, please correct this.

L. R. Dispenza
US Naval Landing Party (www.usnlp.org)
Navy and Marine Living Hsitory Association (www.navyandmarine.org)

]]>