A Journal of the American Civil War: V3-3

By Theodore P. Savas

Balanced and in-depth military coverage (all theaters, North and South) in a non-partisan format with detailed notes, offering meaty, in-depth articles, original maps, photos, columns, book reviews, and indexes.

96th PA Volunteers on the battlefield and in the feud – Walker’s Texas Division at Fortress Vicksburg – 93rd IL Infantry and Putnam

• Language: English
• Publisher: Savas Publishing
• Release date: Dec 31, 2021
• ISBN: 9781954547254

Book preview

OF BATTLEFIELDS AND BITTER FEUDS

The 96th Pennsylvania Volunteers

David A. Ward

¹

As the soldiers of the 96th Pennsylvania Volunteers trudged back to their camp near the Chickahominy River on the morning of June 27, 1862, many of the men in the regiment sensed that, overnight, the war on the Peninsula had somehow profoundly changed. Tired from performing fatigue duty near Old Tavern, where the Unionists assisted in the construction of an earthen redoubt, the infantrymen were denied rest upon reaching their destination. Instead of a much-needed halt, the weary volunteers were issued two days’ rations and ordered to march toward the Chickahominy crossings. The booming of the artillery on the north side of the river, which grew louder with each step, foreshadowed the fury that awaited the soldiers of the 96th Pennsylvania on the Union-held heights above Woodbury’s Bridge. At 3:00 p.m., after resting several hours in the vicinity of Golding’s farm, the Pennsylvanians, along with the rest of Joseph J. Bartlett’s Second Brigade, were ordered to cross the Chickahominy to support Fitz John Porter’s V Corps, then under attack by elements of Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia.²

Slocum’s division marched slowly across the rickety span and up Turkey Hill toward the battle raging across Boatswain’s Swamp. Now, at last, these green volunteers, mostly Irish, German and Welsh immigrants from the southern anthracite coal fields of Schuylkill County, were advancing to meet the foe in battle. As they marched toward the battleground under the command of their colonel, Henry Lutz Cake, the volunteers from Pennsylvania knew that the warm, humid Virginia weather would soon give way to a storm of lead and iron.

The maelstrom of battle at Gaines’ Mill would test the combat effectiveness of the coal miners-tumed soldiers.³

Nearly ten months prior to the Battle of Gaines’ Mill, Henry L. Cake, former colonel of the 25th Pennsylvania Volunteers—one of the ninety-day regiments formed in response to Lincoln’s initial call for volunteers—received permission from the War Department to recruit and organize a regiment of infantry. Thirty-three years old at the outbreak of the rebellion, Cake was a natural choice to command the 96th Pennsylvania Volunteers. After moving to Pottsville in 1847, he established a weekly newspaper, the Mining Record, and quickly became a familiar face at local political gatherings. As Cake’s influence within the community grew, he became a member (and later the chief financial supporter) of the National Light Infantry, one of the town’s militia companies. Throughout the 1850s, Cake acquired interests in the booming anthracite coal industry, and by 1861 was one of the county’s most successful businessmen—as well as an attractive political candidate with lofty aspirations. Commanding the 25th Pennsylvania during the early days of the war, Cake led that unit through the Rockville expedition and later participated in Robert Patterson’s movements in the Shenandoah Valley, experiences which helped him secure the colonelcy of the 96th Pennsylvania from governor Andrew G. Curtin.⁴

Col. Henry L. Cake

Near the end of September 1861, Cake’s new command was mustered into United States service. Jacob G. Frick, a native of Northumberland, Pennsylvania, was elected by the line officers to serve as the regiment’s lieutenant colonel. The 36-year old Frick had served as a second lieutenant in the Mexican War and later acted as an assistant instructor of infantry tactics at Fort McHenry. Frick’s military experience made him an attractive officer for a regiment of untrained citizens-tumed-soldiers. Major Lewis Martin, a civil engineer with militia experience, and a former junior officer with the 25th Pennsylvania, completed the field officer staff of the regiment. To Cake, Frick, and Martin fell the arduous task of training these volunteers in the intricate maneuvers of nineteenth-century warfare and the rudiments of military drill and discipline.⁵

During the crisp October days, while Lieutenant Colonel Frick attempted to mold the 96th Pennsylvania into an effective fighting force, Colonel Cake was preoccupied with other matters. Throughout the late summer and continuing into the autumn, Cake was frequently absent from Camp Schuylkill, the regi-ment’s camp of instruction, attempting to gamer the necessary political backing that would enable him to earn a seat in the Pennsylvania State Senate. Cake’s political campaign failed to gain him a seat in Harrisburg, and succeeded only in undermining his military relationship with Frick. Before personality differences and regimental politics could completely divide the field and staff officers of the unit, however, the Pennsylvanians left Pottsville to join the Army of the Potomac in Virginia. Upon reaching Washington, the Schuylkill County regiment was ordered to cross the Potomac and select a suitable site for winter quarters.⁶

Like the winter weather, officer relations—particularly in the upper echelon regimental staff—turned cold and stormy during the long encampment in the Virginia countryside. The senior line officer at Camp Northumberland, Capt. Peter A. Filbert, as well as Lieutenant Colonel Frick, began to experience personal and procedural differences with Colonel Cake, especially where military regulations were concerned. During the winter at Camp Northumberland, Filbert and Frick emerged as harsh critics of Cake, becoming the spokesmen of the field and staff officers who were dissatisfied with the colonel’s leadership.⁷ Filbert, like his friend Jacob Frick, scorned Cake for his disregard of military procedure and unorthodox management of the regiment. In detailed letters to his family, Filbert documented orders and directives issued by Cake that circumvented military regulations.⁸

According to Filbert, Cake’s first violation of military regulations—and a serious one—occurred at Camp Schuylkill. In September, when the 96th Pennsylvania was still in its original camp of instruction at Pottsville, Cake, in the judgment of Captain Filbert, illegally mustered understrength companies into United States service. To muster these companies, Cake temporarily transferred men from companies above minimum strength to those that required additional soldiers. This procedure violated Article LII, Section 1642 of the Revised Regulations for the Army of the United States, which stated that Officers mustering in troops will be careful that men from one company or detachment are not borrowed for the occasion to swell the ranks of others about to be mustered.⁹ Such decisions by Cake only served to erode the colonel’s credibility with his chief subordinates. Filbert’s allegation brought into question Cake’s regard for military protocol and his management of regimental affairs.

Along with problems concerning mustering, Filbert also noted deficiencies with many of the rank and file of the 96th Pennsylvania in regard to routine camp duties. The senior captain complained bitterly about the unprofessional conduct of many of his brother officers. Throughout the winter, while conducting inspection tours as officer of the day, Filbert noted that the sentries performing outpost duty often failed to challenge him as he approached their positions. In one report, written to Brigadier General Slocum, Filbert …found the guard well instructed, with the exception of the 96th Penn. Vol., in the Manual of Arms. Filbert also noted in his journal that one of the sentries was . .taken up [with] intoxicating liquors.¹⁰

In his diary and letters, the senior captain also recorded the high rate of officer absenteeism from camp, the disregard of military regulations, and the prevalent intoxication of many of the officers. On January 14, 1862, Filbert wrote in his journal Adjutant drunk in tent. Sgt. Major drunk in the tent. Major…sick in tent. In addition to expressing and documenting his dissatisfaction with Colonel Cake and lamenting the misconduct of many of the 96th Pennsylvania’s officers, Filbert was also preoccupied with a problem regarding the regimental sutler.¹¹

As the winter winds whipped through the company streets of the 96th Pennsylvania’s camp, a bitter feud developed between the sutler and the line officers. This prolonged dispute, which caused considerable unrest within the officer corps of the regiment, further polarized Captain Filbert and Colonel Cake. The sutler controversy originated during the autumn of 1861, while the regiment was still bivouacked at Camp Schuylkill. After the regiment was organized, Cake ordered the line captains to purchase caps—at what the officers deemed an inflated price—from the regimental sutler. This directive provoked a great deal of resentment toward Cake because the colonel forced them to pay for the headgear out of their limited company funds.¹² In late February, 1862, when company funds were dwindling and were needed to procure food for the soldiers, Cake again enraged his subordinates when he ordered each company commander to purchase leggings from the sutler. This time, however, the angry line officers actively opposed Cake’s mandate. In order to address the sutler problem, the line captains recommended that Colonel Cake refer the matter to the regiment’s Council of Administration. No doubt the captains believed that only the council could find a solution to the controversy embroiling the sutler and the field and staff officers of the regiment.¹³

Lt. Col. Peter A. Filbert

The Civil War sutler, according to Henry Castle, ranked a trifle higher than a corporal, [and] a fraction lower than an army mule.¹⁴ Whatever his status, he posed a peculiar dilemma for the regiment he served. Usually a civilian appointed to serve a particular regiment, the sutler sold provisions to the soldiers not furnished them by the government. In 1862, in order to prevent sutlers from charging exorbitant prices for their goods, Congress enacted legislation to regulate the business of sutling. Article XXII, Section 198, of the Revised Regulations also sought to regulate sutling by imposing a tax…[upon the sutler payable to the regimental fund] not to exceed ten cents a month for every soldier of the command.¹⁵ While he might charge excessive prices, the Civil War sutler was subject to price ceilings and was required to pay a percentage of his monthly business—in effect an operating tax—to the unit he served. To ensure that the sutler complied with the monthly assessment, Civil War regiments appointed and empowered a Council of Administration composed of the lieutenant colonel, major and senior captain to oversee the affairs of the sutler. The Council, too, disbursed money from the regimental fund to the various company funds.¹⁶ Thus, a sutler who did not contribute to the regimen-tal fund posed a serious threat to the economic stability of a Civil War regiment. Such a situation developed within the 96th Pennsylvania Volunteers during the first winter of the war.

During the winter at Camp Northumberland, the sutler, A. L. Gee, became the scourge of the line officers by refusing to pay monthly contributions to the regimental fund. Gee contended that he was exempt from the operating tax by virtue of a private agreement with Colonel Cake. Gee’s defiance of army regulations, coupled with Cake’s orders to his subordinates directing them to purchase non-regulation equipment from the sutler, posed serious financial problems for the line captains who struggled to meet their monthly expenses under adverse economic conditions. Cake further exacerbated the sutler issue by refusing to support the Council of Administration in its efforts to collect the monthly operating tax from sutler Gee.¹⁷

Before the company commanders could present their grievances to Cake, however, the grand army assembled under George Brinton McClellan began to awaken from its winter slumber. On a brisk spring morning the soldiers from Schuylkill County tramped toward the wharves at Alexandria to board trans-ports. Soon the Federals from Pennsylvania would exchange rifle fire with the Confederates charged with the defense of Richmond—the very symbol of the Confederacy—as participants in McClellan’s ill-fated Peninsula Campaign.

* * *

Seven weeks after their first encounter with Confederates at Eltham’s Landing, during the Army of the Potomac’s cautious and deliberate advance up the Virginia Peninsula to the outskirts of Richmond, the soldiers of the 96th Pennsylvania prepared themselves for what many believed would be the deci- i x sive battle of the war.¹⁸ After Confederate commander Gen. Joseph E. Johnston fell wounded at the Battle of Seven Pines (Fair Oaks) on May 31, 1862, the defense of Richmond was entrusted to Gen. Robert E. Lee. The audacious Lee moved quickly, and on June 26 assaulted Brig. Gen. Fitz-John Porter’s V Corps—the right wing of McClellan’s army—along Beaver Dam Creek outside the hamlet of Mechanicsville. After repulsing a series of mismanaged and ill-advised attacks, Porter’s Federals fell back under the cover of night to the vicinity of Gaines’ Mill, where Lee promptly struck again the following day.

Upon reaching the battlefield near Gaines’ Mill, the Schuylkill County regiment, with the rest of Bartlett’s brigade, marched to the extreme right flank of