Answering Infamous Falsehoods: General Schimmelfennig’s Chancellorsville Protest

In the days following the defeat at Chancellorsville, the soldiers of the Third Division of the 11th Corps were horrified to see their good names besmirched in the newspapers. “Every newspaper that fell into our hands told the world a frightful story of the unexampled misconduct of the 11th Corps,” remembered Major General Carl Schurz, commanding the division. “How the ‘cowardly Dutchmen’ of that corps had thrown down their arms and fled at the first fire of the enemy, had led in the disgraceful flight without firing a shot, and how these cowardly ‘Dutch’ had overrun the whole battlefield and came near stampeding other brigades or divisions. I was thunderstruck.”

          Another soldier who was “thunderstruck” was one of Schurz’s brigade commanders, Brigadier General Alexander Schimmelfennig. In this extraordinary letter to General Schurz, Schimmelfennig insisted that the truth be heard and justice obtained for his men.

“The officers and men of this brigade of your division, filled with indignation, come to me with newspapers in their hands and ask if such be the rewards they may expect for the sufferings they have endured and the bravery they have displayed,” he wrote. “It would seem as if a nest of vipers had but waited for an auspicious moment to spit out their poisonous slander upon this heretofore honored corps. Little would it be heeded were these reports but emanations from the prurient imaginations of those who live by dipping their pens in the blood of the slain instead of standing up for their country, sword and musket in hand.” In Schimmelfennig’s opinion, it was Charles Devens’ First Division of the 11th Corps who deserved the barbs of the press. “For the surprise by the flank and from the rear, in broad daylight, by a force quadruple our own, it is not the Third Division (the center) that should be held accountable, but the First Division, the right wing and those whose duty it was to foresee such an event and prepare for it.”

General Schimmelfennig’s letter was widely printed in the German language press, but this English translation originally appeared in the June 8, 1863, edition of the Daily Sandusky Commercial Register. 

 

Brigadier General Alexander Schimmelfennig commanded the First Brigade of the Third Division, 11th Army Corps during the Chancellorsville campaign. Born in 1824 in Lithauen, Prussia (now Poland), he served in the Prussian army as an engineering officer, taking part in the Schleswig-Holstein War and the suppression of the 1848 revolt in Baden. He emigrated to the U.S. in 1853 and worked for the war Department before joining the Union army as colonel of the 74th Pennsylvania. Wounded during the Battle of Gettysburg, Schimmelfennig hid in a pigsty for two days until the Confederate army departed the area. He would later see service in South Carolina where he contracted first malaria then tuberculosis. At war's end, he obtained a leave of absence to recover his health at Dr. Aaron Smith's Living Water Cure near Wernersville, Pennsylvania. The "cure" didn't work and Schimmelfennig died suddenly of the effects of that disease September 5, 1865. 

Headquarters, First Brigade, Third Division, 11th Corps, Army of the Potomac

May 10, 1863

General,

          The officers and men of this brigade of your division, filled with indignation, come to me with newspapers in their hands and ask if such be the rewards they may expect for the sufferings they have endured and the bravery they have displayed. The most infamous falsehoods have been circulated through the press concerning the conduct of the troops of your division in the battle of the 2nd instant.

 It would seem as if a nest of vipers had but waited for an auspicious moment to spit out their poisonous slander upon this heretofore honored corps. Little would it be heeded were these reports but emanations from the prurient imaginations of those who live by dipping their pens in the blood of the slain instead of standing up for their country, sword and musket in hand. But they are dated “Headquarters of General Hooker” and they are signed by responsible names.

The reports of the officers commanding regiments of this brigade will be sent in tomorrow and at an early day I shall have the honor to send in my own; but you will allow me here to mention a few facts and to ask, on behalf of my brigade, becoming satisfaction.

It is known now at least, I trust, that the First Division which gave way on May 2nd was that of General Devens (because attacked in front and from flank and rear), Colonel von Gilsa’s brigade firing one round per man and General McLean’s brigade not firing at all; that it was the second line of your division which, though overrun by the First Division, changed front from the south to the west in less than two minutes’ time. The brigade battery, that of Captain Dilger being on the left, checked the heavy column of the enemy pouring in upon us from the front and both flanks. The first line of your division, in conjunction with Colonel Buschbeck’s brigade of General von Steinwehr’s division, formed in the rear of my two regiments, the 82nd Illinois (Colonel Hecker), and the 157th New York (Colonel Brown) and manned the rifle pits; the Second Brigade, Second Division, being at that critical moment detached from our corps by order of Major General Hooker.

General Carl Schurz
Third Division, 11th A.C.

Your two brigades and that of Colonel Buschbeck, numbering together not quite 4,000 muskets, alone stood the brunt of the battle and held at bay the enemy’s masses for at least one hour. Colonel von Gilsa’s and General McLean’s brigades could not be rallied again. Captain Charles W. Dietrich, my assistant adjutant general, seized the colors of one of General McLean’s regiments, planted them in the ground, and endeavored in vain to rally the regiment.

The three brigades above mentioned, although outflanked on both wings, firmly stood their ground until sufficient time had elapsed for the corps behind to come to their support and take up a position in the rear. Your command did all that could be expected from it under the circumstances. For the surprise by the flank and from the rear, in broad daylight, by a force quadruple our own, it is not the Third Division (the center) that should be held accountable, but the First Division, the right wing and those whose duty it was to foresee such an event and prepare for it. My report will show conclusively that my brigade and the Third Division did everything possible to avert the catastrophe which followed. The only reconnaissance undertaken was those made by my brigade, and the enemy’s movements were reported by me fully two hours before the battle commenced.

General, I am an old soldier; to this hour, I have been proud to command the brave men of this brigade but I am sure that unless the infamous falsehoods regarding us be retracted and reparation made, their good will and soldierly spirit will be broken and I shall no longer be at the head of the same brave men I have heretofore had the honor to lead. In the name of the good cause of our country I ask, therefore, for satisfaction. If our superior officers be not sufficiently in possession of the facts, I demand an investigation; if they are, I demand that those who have slandered the division be excluded by a direct order from our lines and that the names of the perpetrators of these falsehoods be made known to me and my brigade, that they may be held responsible for their reprehensible acts.

 Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

A. Schimmelfennig, commanding First Brigade, Third Division, to Major General Carl Schurz, commanding Third Division

General Schimmelfennig's signature
(Alexander Historical Auctions)

Sources:

Letter from General Alexander Schimmelfennig, Daily Sandusky Commercial Register (Ohio), June 8, 1863, pg. 1

Schurz, Carl. The Reminiscences of Carl Schurz. Volume 2: 1852-1863. New York: Doubleday, Page, and Co., 1917, pg. 432-433

Comments

Post a Comment

Most Popular Posts

Arming the Buckeyes: Longarms of the Ohio Infantry Regiments

Image
     A common question that comes up in conversation about Civil War Buckeye regiments is "What were they armed with?" We are fortunate in that the state of Ohio kept good records of how the regiments were armed when they went into service, this being especially true for those regiments which went into service in 1861 and 1862. The state adjutant general's reports for 1861 and 1862 have been heavily drawn upon to construct this article, as well as consultation with Phil Spaugy who has done extensive research on how Ohio's troops were armed during the war.      Buckeyes carried a fairly wide variety of weapons into the field, and the below article breaks this down into weapons of both domestic manufacture and imported arms. The early days of the war found the state of Ohio practically bereft of longarms; as an example, when the 1st and 2nd Ohio Volunteer Militia left the state in late April 1861, they left unarmed, being armed at Lancaster, Pennsylvania on t...
Read more

Bullets for the Union: Manufacturing Small Arms Ammunition During the Civil War

Image
       Civil War bullets are perhaps the most common item collected from the era; the two armies expended bullets by the millions during the four years’ conflict and spent or deformed bullets of all shapes and sizes have made fascinating and affordable collectibles since the guns went silent in 1865.       I recently acquired a display piece featuring 35 different types of small arms ammunition used during the Civil War, including everything from a small .28 caliber ball up to a .69 caliber three-ring Minie and it triggered some questions: how did the Federal army obtain its small arms ammunition during the war? Where did the lead come from to make the bullets, and where and how was the ammunition manufactured? This post seeks to answer those questions. A typical .58 caliber 3-ring Minie bullet   “Whenever the blasts of war blow in the ears of men who trade in the implements of destruction, they are apt to experience more joy than the true ...
Read more

Dressing the Rebels: How to Dye Butternut Jeans Cloth

Image
     In the early days of the Civil War,  the Southern states found themselves with an abundance of cotton but a shortage of cloth with which to make army uniforms. The trade in cloth prior to the war had largely been to send raw cotton or wool north to New England (or Great Britain) where it was converted into usable cloth; but now that trade was broken and the Southern states were thrown upon their own resources in their efforts to properly clothe the Confederate army.  This collection of Confederate enlisted men's frock coats and shell jackets gives some indication of the variety of shades of butternut worn during the war. All of them are shades of yellow brown, some heavier on the yellow and some heavier on the brown. The blue used around the collar or as rank insignia indicates that the soldier was in the infantry. Surviving Confederate uniforms are considered rather rare and command quite a healthy price in the collecting market. For an in-depth study of h...
Read more

The Wizard of Oz and the Civil War

Image
T he 1939 film The Wizard of Oz has delighted viewers for 85 years and ranks as a personal favorite, especially during the Halloween season. While watching it with the family the other night, I wondered if there were any connections between the film and the Civil War. Not surprisingly, the answer is yes and those connections touch both the blue and the gray.           Interestingly both “witches” in the film not only had Civil War ancestors but had connections with Civil War soldiers from Ohio. Margaret Hamilton, the “Wicked Witch of the West,” was born in Cleveland, Ohio on December 9, 1902, to attorney Walter Jones Hamilton and his wife Mary Jane Adams; Margaret’s grandfather was Judge Edwin Timothy Hamilton. Judge Hamilton had served as a private in Co. D of the 84 th Ohio Infantry during the summer of 1862. The 84 th Ohio, a three months’ regiment, served nearly the whole of its service attached to the Railroad District in western Ma...
Read more

The Vaunted Enfield Rifle Musket

Image
     The English-made Model 1853 .577 caliber Enfield Rifle Musket was widely regarded as the best infantry arm in the world at the outbreak of the Civil War in April 1861. Favorable international press describing its efficiency in the Crimean War and in suppressing the Indian rebellion led to the widespread desire of American infantrymen (both Federal and Confederate) to be armed with these accurate and well-made arms. The lock plate of this well-worn P1853 Enfield rifle musket produced in 1862 shows the typical markings of a British-made weapon that made it through the Federal blockade.  ( Army of Tennessee Relics ) Enfield-pattern weapons were imported into the states by the tens and hundreds of thousands during the war years; one estimate stated that the Federal government purchased 500,000 while the Confederates purchased another 400,000. The Confederate government dispatched Captain Caleb Huse to Europe in April 1861 to purchase weapons and Huse focused on se...
Read more

In front of Atlanta with the 68th Ohio

Image
  The arrow corps badge of the 17th Army Corps was worn by many members of the 68th Ohio in the latter days of the war.       Private Edward A. Bigelow of Co. F of the 68th Ohio Volunteer Infantry wrote this brief account of the Battle of Atlanta just two days afterwards to his father back home in Henry County, Ohio. The regiment formed a part of Colonel Robert K. Scott's three regiment all-Ohio brigade consisting of the 20th, 68th, and 78th regiments, being designated the Second Brigade of the Third Division of Frank Blair's 17th Army Corps. Bigelow's letter originally appeared in the Napoleon Press newspaper and was copied in the Toledo Daily Commercial which was providential as no known copies exist today of the wartime Napoleon Press.  
Read more

Charging Battery Robinett: An Alabama Soldier Recalls the Vicious Fighting at Corinth

Image
W riting 30 years after the Battle of Corinth, James A. McKinstry of the 42 nd Alabama recalled his experiences storming Battery Robinett with Colonel William P. Rogers of the 2 nd Texas and expressed guilt that it was perhaps his action that brought about the colonel’s demise. “On seeing a line of Federals approaching, and before giving the situation a thought, I immediately raised my gun and fired full into the breast of a Federal sergeant, who was in front of the column, and only a short distance from us.  'Twas then that Captain George Foster shouted, "Cease firing, men! cease firing!" and waved his handkerchief, then I realized the true situation. 'Twas too late! That fatal volley had been turned on our little band from the muzzles of 1,500 muskets. I was still standing just as I was when I fired my last shot, and within a few feet of Colonel Rogers, when a Minie ball went crashing through my left hip and turned me half round; another went tearing through my ...
Read more

Cook & Brother of New Orleans

Image
    The lockplate of a New Orleans-made Cook & Brother Enfield rifle produced in 1862 shows the fine craftsmanship that became the hallmark of the maker throughout the Civil War. Note the stars and bars flag at left, an emblem used on C&B's production throughout the war and the Cook & Brother, N.O. 1862 markings. Earlier production weapons at New Orleans had the flag located just above the maker's name while later weapons produced in Athens, Georgia would have a modified flag and Athens on the plate followed by the serial number.        In the spring of 1861, two English-born businessmen, Ferdinand and Francis Cook of New Orleans, perceived the need for the South to have its own domestic production of firearms and  set out to prove "that rifles could made here as well as in Yankee land or in Europe." The brothers  elected to produce copies of the British Model 1853 .577 caliber Enfield rifle as this was considered the benchmark longarm...
Read more

I Want to See a Battle: A Hoosier at Shiloh

Image
W riting in his diary, Private Manius Buchanan of the 29 th Indiana recalled the eagerness with which his regiment marched towards Savannah, Tennessee with the sounds of the battle of Shiloh ringing in their ears.           “The forced march was kept up until 2 p.m. when we were halted until 4 p.m,” he noted. “The rest was really needed, but the continual question is ‘Why are we stopped here?’ The sound of battle increased in volume and anxiety to be up and doing grows more intense. As I am weak from a late sickness, I am urged to fall to the rear; but no, in common with all, I want to see a battle and fear this will be my only chance.” The regiment would go into action the following afternoon, and of the four neighborhood boys who had enlisted together in Co. B, only Buchanan escaped unscathed. One afternoon's exposure to the horrors of battle was all it took to satisfy this Hoosier's desire to see the elephant. “I wanted to see a battl...
Read more

An Interview with Forrest in May 1864

Image
  “The noise of battle is the only music that ravishes the senses of Forrest.” I t was May 1864. Back east, the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of the Potomac were locked in the deadly dance of the Overland Campaign while in Georgia, General William Tecumseh Sherman's army squared off against General Joseph E. Johnston and the Army of the Tennessee in the campaign for Atlanta.       Based in relatively quiet northern Mississippi, General Nathan Bedford Forrest bided his time waiting for a Federal advance from Memphis. Earlier in the month, General Samuel Sturgis led a brief campaign into Mississippi but Forrest was sure Sturgis would venture out again. In the meantime, he tried to keep his reorganized command intact despite persistent demands from his superiors that he return the absentees and deserters who inflated his ranks (nearly 1,000 in number) to their original commands.      Around this same time,  an old acquaintance from Me...
Read more