TM: Nice to be here.
Let’s start with a really tough question. What in the heck happened to the Red Sox during the playoffs?
TM: I can't believe the Red Sox tanked so quickly. I am still in denial.
I won't press you any more on that one, so we'll move on to a question I think everybody likes hearing the answer to. Where did your interest in the Civil War come from?
TM: Well I have always had a deep interest in History. I think growing up near Boston during the Bicentennial had a lot to do with it, and my earliest interest was the American Revolution. Then when I was eight I visited Gettysburg for the first time, and that visit really stuck with me. And of course the late eighties and early nineties saw a new wave of Civil War popularity, which rekindled my fascination with that period. But beneath it all there is something intangible that draws me to that period, something I can’t really explain. But it’s an irresistible force, kind of strange in a way.
You grew up in Massachusetts and I lived in New England for a number of years. Is my perception that New Englanders have basically forgotten the Civil War a fair one?
TM: I wouldn’t say that they have forgotten the war, but I think New Englanders, and much of the North for that matter, view that war in a very different way. It’s much easier for New Englanders to compartmentalize the war, both today and even back then. The war was a service performed to preserve the Union. Men went off, did their time, and the majority returned home and resumed life as it was. People on the home front supported the war in a number of ways, but the war did not consume society. For Southerners, however, the war came to them, there was no way to avoid it. The war left deeper scars that I think the South is still struggling with in many ways.
Does the average Bay Stater know, for example, who Senator Charles Sumner, or Generals Benjamin Butler and Nathaniel Banks, or Gov. John Andrew were? These were, after all, pretty influential people for the time.
TM: That’s a difficult question to answer, but I can tell you this; I used to live around the corner from Nathaniel Banks’s home. It has been converted into an insurance office. But there are a number of Civil War sites that have been preserved and are highly popular; Fort Warren in Boston Harbor and the St.-Gaudens Memorial to the 54th Massachusetts immediately come to mind. And almost every town square is adorned with a Civil War monument or cannon, along with the names of men who served or died. The Civil War is definitely an integral part of New England’s rich history.
Let’s talk about the book, "Shepherdstown, Last Clash of the Antietam Campaign." There are lots of topics you could have chosen to research and write about. What drew you to Shepherdstown?
TM: It began out of simple curiosity, really. I came across the site while hiking and read the War Department tablets at the intersection of Trough Rd. The whole area has an almost haunting allure about it with the towering cliffs, the abandoned mill ruins, and the old canal bed. I wanted to learn more about what happened there and was surprised at how little had been written about it.
My initial idea for a writing project was actually far less ambitious. I was planning on writing a magazine article about Joshua Chamberlain, the 20th Maine, and their “baptism of fire” at Shepherdstown. As I began researching though I came to realize that they were just a small part of a much bigger picture.
How much time did you spend first researching and then writing the book?
TM: I actually began researching the battle around 1998 or so. Much of the initial research entailed trying to track down first hand accounts from the participants. I would comb through catalog descriptions of some of the major repositories around the country and then request copies from selected diaries and letters. It was really hit and miss. Sometimes I would come up empty, for example the soldier was ill during the campaign or there were missing entries. But other times it was like hitting the lottery. Some left rich descriptions of their experiences, often times while they were still on the battlefield. I also traveled quite a bit, to places like the US Army Military History Institute in Carlisle, PA, The Civil War Library and Museum in Philadelphia, The Massachusetts Historical Society, and Antietam National Battlefield to name a few.
It was a lot of fun trying to put these pieces together, and once the bigger picture began to come into focus it was really exciting. I guess you could say there was a point where I became a bit “obsessed” with the battle, not quite Richard Dreyfus Close Encounters of the Third Kind obsessed, but definitely preoccupied. And it was during this time, between research and writing the manuscript, that I saw the “For Sale” signs go up on the battlefield. But that’s a whole other story.
Did you have a specific audience in mind when you planned out the book? I mean, was it written specifically for the Civil War crowd, or did you have the general public in mind also?
TM: I can’t say that I had a specific audience in mind, but I did have two criteria I tried to adhere to. First I wanted to try to tell a good story, one that would keep the reader’s interest. Second, I wanted to ground everything with factual evidence. Dr. Tom Clemens, a history professor at Hagerstown Community College and President of Save Historic Antietam Foundation, was generous enough to read the entire manuscript, and he made some valuable suggestions. I am extremely grateful for his efforts with the book. I was also very fortunate to find a publisher who saw the value of this story. Patrick Schroeder, the owner and publisher of Schroeder Publications attended Shepherd University, so he was very familiar with the battle and the battlefield. He and his wife Maria did a fantastic job on the publishing end. I couldn’t be happier.
Most people are under the assumption that McClellan simply let Lee slip across the Potomac unmolested following the battle of Antietam, that there was no battle at Shepherdstown. You’ve tried to rectify that with your book, which can rightfully be called the definitive book on the battle. Why was Shepherdstown virtually ignored by historians?
TM: This is THE question isn’t it? My simple answer is, “I have no idea.” Possibly the fact that the events at Sharpsburg on the seventeenth were so horrific might have something to do with it. What also surprised me was how harrowing the story of the people of Shepherdstown was. They were caught squarely in the wake of this campaign. This little town was literally overwhelmed with the wounded of Sharpsburg, and for days it was a Hell on earth. I think this story needs to be explored in more depth, and hopefully some historian will do so. These people were nothing short of heroic.
What was the best available source of information on the battle prior to your book?
TM: By far the best published sources were the History of the 118th Pennsylvania and Inside the Army of the Potomac. The latter is comprised of the wartime letters of Capt. Francis Donaldson of the 118th Pennsylvania. Donaldson was not afraid to speak his mind, and he wrote with such great detail. The book was edited by J. Gregory Acken who did an outstanding job.
A good account of the controversies surrounding the evening of September 19th can be found in Hal Bridges’s book "Lee’s Maverick General: Daniel Harvey Hill."
There were two phases to the battle, one action that occurred on September 19th and the main battle on the 20th. Essentially what happened on the 19th?
TM: The morning of September 19th began with the discovery by Union pickets that Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia had withdrawn from its line of battle around Sharpsburg. Union cavalry were pushed out in several directions and eventually found the last of the Confederate troops crossing at Blackford’s (Boteler’s) Ford. Union troops of the Fifth Corps were rushed to the front along with the batteries of the Artillery Reserve.
Positioned along the bluffs of the Virginia (now West Virginia) shore were 33 guns and two infantry brigades under the command of William Nelson Pendleton, who was assigned the task of guarding the ford against a crossing by the enemy.
Throughout the day Union pressure built up, and at dusk two regiments, the 1st U.S. Sharpshooters and the 4th Michigan, charged through the river and captured 4 cannon and a number of prisoners. That evening the Federal troops returned to the Maryland side.
What’s your impression of how well William Nelson Pendleton, as chief of Confederate artillery, performed on the 19th and did his performance dictate the events of the following day?
TM: That’s funny you asked that because when I went back and read my first draft I couldn’t believe how hard I was on him. So I revised that entire section of the manuscript and tried to render a more objective depiction. And when I let the evidence speak for itself he does not come off very well. There were several complaints from other Confederate officers, but the most damning evidence in my view came from his own pen. On two occasions in the immediate aftermath of the battle he reported that Yankee cavalry had crossed the river and captured his guns. Now the nearest Yankee cavalry that evening was probably 5 or 6 miles to the rear, and they certainly did not cross the river. This tells me that Pendleton had clearly lost touch with what was happening under his command. I believe he left the scene of battle far too early for a commander.
As to the second part of your question, yes his actions almost entirely dictated the events of the 20th. But it wasn’t so much his performance at the river; it was what he did next. As he began his frantic search for Lee that evening he told several officers that the entire Artilllery Reserve, all 44 guns, had been taken by the enemy. In those dark woods news like that had a chilling effect. As a result three Confederate divisions would be put on the march back to Shepherdstown. It was these men that would run into a lone Union brigade of Regulars and initiate the battle and bloodshed of the 20th.
Can you set up the battle on the 20th for us, contrasting and comparing both the Union and Confederate perspective?
TM: On the morning of the 20th two brigades of the Fifth Corps under Fitz John Porter, were directed by McClellan to cross in to Virginia on a reconnaissance-in-force. A brigade of Regulars crossed first and proceeded up the Charlestown (now Trough) Road. A second brigade of volunteers under Col. James Barnes crossed about an hour later. Barnes’s assignment was to march up River Road into the town of Shepherdstown. The whole purpose of the mission was to scout the area and report back any information regarding the location of the Army of Northern Virginia.
Did Union soldiers cross the Potomac expecting a fight?
TM: No, in fact many of the soldiers remarked on the carefree mood of the men as they waded through the river. Those feelings would quickly dissipate once shots rang out. Contact with the enemy was a complete surprise that morning.
Why do you think James Barnes’ First Brigade from the First Division of the Fifth Corps was selected as the infantry’s main reconnaissance force?
TM: I think they were chosen because they were close at and they were fresh. They had been held in reserve during the Battle of Antietam. It was a simple assignment really. And they were only one half of the reconnaissance force. The first to cross was the Second Brigade of Sykes’s Second Division, made up entirely of Regulars under Maj. Charles Lovell, who had a far more precarious task of marching out into the countryside. Their job was made even more difficult by the absence of cavalry. It was the Regulars that bumped into A.P. Hill’s entire division about a mile from the river and safety. It’s interesting to think what would have happened had these two brigades been reversed. Lovell’s skillful leadership avoided what could have been a complete disaster for his men.
The seven regiments in the First Brigade under Barnes’ command had one completely untested Regiment, the 118th Pennsylvania, and another, the 18th Massachusetts, that had fired their weapons only once in combat, twenty days earlier at Second Bull Run. Didn’t this place the Union forces at a distinct disadvantage in the event they were attacked?
TM: At this point in the war the Army of the Potomac had a number of new regiments, a result of that summer’s massive recruitment campaign. The advantage of brigading these new regiments with seasoned ones was that it allowed them to gain experience surrounded by veterans. But, yes, the flip side of this scenario was that they often proved to be the weak link in the chain.
In the case of Barnes’s brigade at Shepherdstown, however, I think the 18th Massachusetts performed remarkably well under difficult conditions. I high think it highly probable, based on the evidence, that during the hasty retreat the 18th Massachusetts took up a second position in the ravine to cover the withdrawal of the rest of the brigade. They suffered 14 casualties, including 5 dead in the process.
The inexperience of the 118th Pennsylvania’s high command did prove to be costly, but the bulk of the regiment did not just break and run. I think this fact in many ways is testament to the general character of the Union volunteer as a whole. But again, no one was expecting a battle that morning at Shepherdstown. It was a chance meeting. This brigade just happened to get caught in a bad place.
Did this really make any difference in the outcome of the battle, particularly when they ultimately came up against battle-hardened Confederate brigades and regiments?
TM: I don’t think it made that much difference due to the way the battle unfolded. Yes, Dorsey Pender’s men were hardened veterans, but when they made initial contact Barnes’s brigade outnumbered them more than 2 to 1. The 18th Massachusetts put pressure on their right while the 13th & 25th New York suddenly appeared on their far left. Pender was so concerned he sent back for support. It was only after the majority of Barnes’s brigade withdrew and Archer’s three brigades advanced that the odds shifted in the Confederates’ favor.
What sort of Union presence did A.P. Hill expect to find opposing him? After all he had a whole division at his disposal.
TM: I’m not sure any of the Confederate high command knew what to expect. There was no clear information coming back from the front, only that “something” had happened at Shepherdstown. I know Jackson perceived that a real threat to the army’s rear existed. And he was prepared to resolve the matter with blunt force.
Would someone be wrong in thinking the battle lasted about five minutes and was little more than a skirmish?
TM: Yes, in fact Captain Joseph Collingwood of the 18th Massachusetts reported that his men stood their ground for a half hour and expended 50 rounds of ammunition. Also, once the Federal troops withdrew to the Maryland shore the shelling of the Confederate line lasted the entire day.
If there remains any doubt, just take a look at the regimental battle flags and monuments of some of the regiments that fought there. You will see the name “Shepherdstown.” They didn’t do that without reason. In short, it was the largest and bloodiest battle fought in West Virginia.
When it was apparent the odds were against them, James Barnes gave the order for his entire command to withdraw? Every regiment complied, save the 118th Pennsylvania who stood their ground. This incident is steeped in controversy. What’s your best take on why the 118th didn’t withdraw?
TM: I think it was a combination of factors including terrain, confusion, and inexperience. And of course there is the “fog of war,” an expression that aptly describes the difference between reacting to the moment and analyzing events with the luxury of hindsight. The 118th PA’s colonel, Charles Prevost, received the order to withdraw from a lieutenant of his own regiment who had heard it from one of Barnes’s aides. I think Prevost was concerned with the reputation of his regiment had they prematurely retreated their first time under fire. To me this explanation makes sense when considering the situation at the time.
Everything that could have gone wrong for the 118th Pennsylvania seemingly did, starting with defective Enfield muskets. How in the heck did they get their hands on them and why didn’t their officers know beforehand they were defective?
TM: In the early part of the war the Federal government had trouble supplying the huge numbers of recruits with weapons. U.S. manufacturers simply could not produce enough rifles for the entire army and so the War Department looked to Europe. The Confederacy, however, had beaten them to the punch and already contracted for large numbers of rifles. As a result European manufacturers were hard-pressed to keep up with the demand, and a number of rifles were sub par. The problem was compounded for the men of the 118th by the fact that they did not realize their British-made Enfields were defective until they were under fire. They had been in the army for less than a month and not yet shot their rifles.
What shape were the 118th in when they finally did begin withdrawing? Could they have effected a safer retreat or were they overmatched and outmaneuvered?
TM: The main problem that befell the 118th was that once the rest of the brigade withdrew, their flanks were unprotected, “in the air” as they say. Pender’s North Carolinians simply drove in on them in three directions and there was nowhere to go but back.
Did the 118th retreat in good order or did panic set in?
TM: Once Pender’s Brigade charged it was every man for himself. I think panic and self-preservation went hand in hand. What made the retreat so difficult were not only the cliffs to the rear, but the fact that both ravines were subject to crossfire from above. Archer’s, Lane’s, and Brockenbrough’s men had lined the top of the ravine where the 13th and 25th New York had been. Also, during the artillery bombardment a tree had been knocked down, further hampering the retreat. It was really a nightmare scenario.
Is it true that large numbers of the 118th were killed by friendly fire?
TM: There were at least three men killed instantly and one mortally wounded when a shell exploded in one of the lime kilns. It is pretty powerful to visit that site today and know that three men left this world in that exact spot and in such a gruesome and tragic manner.
Confederate eyewitness accounts said the Potomac ran red and the bodies of blue coated men filled the river. Are those accounts accurate regarding the Union retreat?
TM: A.P. Hill wrote a highly exaggerated account of the “slaughter” that took place in the river. That being said, a number of men were killed during the crossing. I think what made the sight all the more striking was that these deaths were highly visible, almost as if in a sports arena. Thousands of men witnessed the frantic retreat, and many left accounts of what they saw. It is obvious that the pure spectacle of that day left vivid impressions in the minds of those that were there.
Why, when they could see what was happening to the 118th Pennsylvania weren’t Union troops ordered forward to assist? I know this may be second guessing, and I’m certainly not a military tactician, but why couldn’t artillery have been used to effectively cover an advance?
TM: Events were unfolding so quickly, and by the time the 118th Pennsylvania were retreating it was too late to send infantry support across. Confederates lined the opposite bluffs and completely commanded the ford.
Despite some incidents of “friendly fire” the Federal artillery did an excellent job of covering the Union retreat. Their efforts undoubtedly saved hundreds of men from becoming casualties that day.
Speaking of Union artillery fire, A.P. Hill wrote in his battle report that Union cannon fire at Shepherdstown was the heaviest and most effective he had experienced to that point in the war? Was that a valid assessment on his part, or pure puffery?
TM: In this case A.P. Hill did not exaggerate. One of the things that really struck me during my research was the number of accounts that made reference to the Federal artillery fire of September 20th, so much so that I included them in an appendix to the book. The shelling of the Confederates that day was relentless. Stonewall Jackson, one not easily impressed, even made reference to it in his report.
Describing and making sense of a battle has to be a daunting task, particularly because descriptions from individual combatants are so myopic, i.e. their own sense of what happened was based on what they saw directly in front of them. How were you able to pull the battle of Shepherdstown together so that it made sense not only to yourself, but to your reader as well?
TM: One of the advantages I had when trying to piece this battle together 140 years later is that it was, and is, such a rigidly defined battlefield. There were several distinct landmarks such as the mill, the dam, and the Charlestown Rd, that provided specific reference points in the action reports and accounts. Within these parameters the fact that the men’s accounts were so narrowly focused actually worked to my advantage, illuminating certain parts of the battle during certain phases of the action. Once the pieces start to click with one another, the bigger picture began to come into focus.
Did any of the Union or Confederate regiments wrap themselves in glory at Shepherdstown?
TM: Honestly, I can’t think of one regiment that didn’t do their duty. Of course there are always individuals who shirk or cower under fire, but on the whole the majority of these men were veterans and acted as such. Even the 118th Pennsylvania performed remarkably well until it was too late.
I believe one of the great “forgotten charges” was executed by A.P. Hill’s men across those open fields, under the constant barrage of incoming artillery fire. I think it is safe to say that most, if not almost all of the Confederate casualties of the 20th were inflicted by artillery. And the eyewitness accounts speak to the sheer bravery of these men.
In conducting your research was there any story about Shepherdstown that you found especially poignant?
TM: Yes. Colonel James Lane related a story that occurred on the afternoon of the 20th. After the Union soldiers had withdrawn Lane came across a North Carolinian who had taken a bullet in the back. The young man pleaded with Lane to tell his family he had not been a coward. He shortly thereafter died from the wound. I think this story speaks to the grisly aspect of battle, stripped of all delusions of glory and romance. What struck me was that Lane recalled this story years after the fact, yet another example of how Shepherdstown resonated with the men who fought there.
There seem to be amazing similarities between Shepherdstown, Balls Bluff, and Drewery’s Bluff. Your thoughts on this.
TM: Well Donald, as you and I know from the personal experience of wading through the Potomac, water obstacles can raise hell when trying to conduct military operations, which is why they provided such a great barrier for Civil War armies.
You’ve developed close ties to the Shepherdstown Battlefield Preservation Association. What’s that fight all about anyway?
TM: A few years ago a real estate developer purchased 122 acres of part of the core of the Battle of Shepherdstown. The ground is the site of the Osborn Farm whose Civil War buildings still stand today. He hopes to build 152 houses on the property, which would just obliterate a large key chunk of this pristine battlefield. The SBPA has been challenging the developer in the hopes of making the site a historic battlefield park, possibly even part of the Antietam National Battlefield. They have managed to save 84 acres of battlefield land so far, which is a tremendous accomplishment. But the loss of this ground would be heartbreaking.
So, what would you personally say to the developer to get him to change his mind about building houses on the battlefield?
TM: Honestly I don’t know. Unfortunately there are some people that don’t appreciate our nation’s past. Just look at the recent decision to build a Wal-Mart on the Wilderness battlefield. I just hope that this story has a happy ending. Hopefully some higher powers are at work here to see that this all works out.
A lawyer for the developer reacted to efforts to preserve the Shepherdstown battlefield by saying, and I’ll paraphrase, just because some soldiers marched across a piece of land doesn’t mean we should save it. I’m curious as to your reaction.
TM: Well, since this is a family-friendly blog I won’t tell you my initial reaction. But, I think this statement is the absolute epitome of ignorance. I would like to show this individual the handwritten letter that Mrs. Ziba Martin received in October 1862 describing her husband’s death; “I saw him shot alongside of myself, that is a few feet from me. He was dead almost immediately. Musket ball through his head entering the forehead and passing out the back of the ear. Second day after the battle we recrossed the river and buried him just where he fell.” I would like to ask him if he would feel the same way if that had been his family member, not to mention the 160-plus other men that lost their lives on that ground.
Do you have a particular favorite among Civil War battlefields and what makes it so?
TM: My family has a camper at Gettysburg, so we visit there quite often (We call it our second home.) Every time I go there it feels like the first time, and I never fail to see or learn something new. And over the past few years the Park Service has done an incredible job of restoring the battlefield to its 1863 appearance with tree cuttings, fence building, and other changes. It’s just a beautiful place. I also love Antietam, which is probably one of the best -preserved Civil War battlefields in the country. I would love to see some of the battlefields out west someday. I have heard that Shiloh is amazing.
What are you currently reading?
TM: Well right now I am actually studying for my comprehensive exams, so I am reading so many books I’m embarrassed to say.
Excluding your book, is there a single Civil War title that you’d make mandatory reading for Civil War buffs?
TM: That’s a really difficult question to answer because the historiography is so diverse. For the political side Eric Foner’s Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men is excellent, as well as Herbert Donald’s Lincoln and Paul Escott’s After Secession. For campaign studies I would recommend Edwin Coddington’s The Gettysburg Campaign and Joseph Harsh’s Taken at the Flood. And for soldier life nothing beats John Billings’s Hardtack & Coffee. But again this is a tough one because there is just so much great stuff out there dealing with this era. Ask me tomorrow and I’d probably have a whole other set of responses!
What can we expect from Tom McGrath next?
TM: I have been considering doing a study of the town of Concord, Massachusetts during the Civil War.
What makes Concord special?
TM: Well, much like Gettysburg, there is a palpable historical presence there. Not only was it where the American Revolution began, but it was a really significant spot during the nineteenth century too, a place of radical thinkers, writers, abolitionists, as well as ordinary Americans. I am curious to see what this historic town was like during the Civil War.
Any closing thoughts, beside people should buy and read your book?
TM: I encourage everyone reading this to get involved with the efforts of the Shepherdstown Battlefield Preservation Association. Visit their website battleofshepherdstown.org, write your congressman, make your voice heard before it’s too late. We owe it to those that gave everything on those beautiful and, for now, pristine fields.
Thanks for your time Tom, I really appreciate it. One more thing before we close that I want to say to our audience. Buy Tom's book. It's that good.
TM: And thank you!
Posted by Donald at 04:00:00. Filed under: Books and Publications
Comments
Add Comment