The National Park Service maintains the Civil War Soldiers and Sailors System (CWSS) which is a database of the men who served in the Union and Confederate armies during the Civil War. 

In the context of a larger project, I wondered how many soldiers served from each state so I did a geographic analysis of that database.¹  I share it here for the sake of researchers.

One or more Union regiments were organized in every state and territory of the country (north and south), including the Dakota Territory and Washington D.C.  A Union regiment was even organized in the stridently-secessionist state of South Carolina.  (The 1st South Carolina Infantry, U.S.-Colored, later became the 33rd U.S. Colored Troops).  Confederate regiments were only organized in southern or border states. 

It bears repeating that this analysis is of the records in the popular NPS database.  The Soldiers and Sailors system does not purport to be complete nor even to reflect unique soldiers.² Even with those stipulations, however, the table may offer some interesting insights.

For the sake of curiosity, this table is followed by a list of the most common individual regiments in the two armies.

Distribution by State/Territory  

The following table reflects the 20 most common state organizations in the Soldiers and Sailors database for the Union and Confederate armies.  (Click on a link to read more about that unit.)



Notes: 

1. This analysis includes only the soldiers database. Despite it being called the “Soldiers and Sailors System,” the sailors part of the NPS’ database includes (at this writing) only African-American sailors, a small percentage of the Union and Confederate navies.  Also, the sailors were mustered into service directly by the Union and Confederate governments, not by state, so a geographic analysis of this type is not possible.  A future post may analyze the sailors in the database by the state of their birth. 

2. The records of some soldiers, especially Confederate ones, are missing altogether from the Soldiers and Sailors database. Some duplication is also known to exist, especially insofar as soldiers were mustered into service with more than one regiment over the course of the war.  And by definition, the Veteran Reserve Corps, was made up of men who are also represented elsewhere on the table so it is isolated from the other counts in the table. 

3. The “Percent U/C” column represents the percent of the total for each state (Union/Confederate). So, for instance, 1.4% of Alabama soldiers were in a Union regiment while 98.6% of them were in a Confederate regiment (i.e., “1.4/98.6”). 

4. The “Rank U/C” reflects the ranked order of each state within its respective government with 1 being the most populated.  So Alabama is the state with the 37th highest number of Union soldiers and the 3rd highest number of Confederate soldiers (i.e., “37/3”). 

5. Excludes “2nd Battalion, Veteran Reserve Corps” (34,574), “Unassigned Veteran Reserve Corps” (14,675), “US Army (Regular Army)” (11,539), and “14th US Infantry (Regular Army)” (6,576). 

6. Excludes “General and Staff Officers, Non-Regimental Enlisted Men” (22,574).  

A recent post by Randy Drais in his excellent Battle of Gettysburg Buff e-newsletter (randydrais@gmail.com) mentioned that he found my transcription of the 1860 Federal Census of Gettysburg to be useful.  This blog also had two posts (here and here) in which I analyzed that census with respect to age, sex, race, occupation, place of birth, estate value, and other factors.

At about the same time that I did that project (when I apparently had a lot of free time on my hands), I created an author index to the Bachelder Papers. For those who may not be familiar with this series, it is a 3-volume set in which historian John B. Bachelder printed his correspondence back and forth with various Civil War veterans.

The full citation is “The Bachelder Papers: Gettysburg in Their Own Words”, 3 vols. (Dayton: Morningside Bookshop, 1994-95).

Many of his correspondents (mostly officers, both Union and Confederate) gave their first-hand accounts of the battle in what has been described as “perhaps the most significant publication on the battle of Gettysburg produced since the Gettysburg volumes of the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion.”

As fascinating as the series is, it suffers greatly from the lack of an index. So it is next to impossible to find a letter to or from a particular officer, even if you know it is there

My index has two parts. It is first sorted by author’s name. But then the second section (starting on Page 10) is sorted by Order of Battle. So you can easily find all of the Bachelder letters from members of a specific regiment, brigade, division or corps.

Note that my index doesn’t include every reference to every person that is mentioned in the letters – only the authors of those letters.  I leave the larger project to someone with even more free time on their hands.

You can download my “Author Index to the Bachelder Papers” here.

Andersonville Prison today. (Credit: NPS)

Of the 5369 Union soldiers that were reported “missing or captured” at the Battle of Gettysburg[1],  most of the captured were processed through Libby Prison in Richmond and then Belle Island on the James River.  At least 303 of them eventually found themselves at the notorious Andersonville Prison in Georgia.  The Andersonville records are incomplete, however, so that number may be higher.[2]

Those 303 soldiers were of ages ranging from 17 to 42 and represented 68 different regiments from 12 States: IL (6), IN (7), MA (19), MD (1), ME (3), MI (24), NH (8), NY (107), OH (25), PA (50), VT (8), and WI (45).

There were 243 Privates, 30 Corporals, 23 Sergeants, 3 Musicians, 1 Farrier, 1 Teamster, 1 Wagoner, and 1 First Lieutenant.

Most (202) had been captured on the first day at Gettysburg, while 69 were captured on July 2nd, 25 on July 3rd, and 7 on July 4th.

Those 303 soldiers are listed below for the sake of researchers.

Special thanks to Kevin Frye, Andersonville Historian, for help with these records.  Kevin may have more information about a soldier that you find listed here so I encourage researchers to contact him on his Andersonville Facebook Page or at andersonvillehistorian@gmail.com.

Sources:
[1] John W. Busey and David G. Martin, “Regimental Strengths & Losses at Gettysburg,” 4th Edition (Highstown, NJ: Longstreet House, 2005).
[2] Kevin Frye, Anderson Historian, Andersonville Facebook Page or andersonvillehistorian@gmail.com

The newest additions to my collection.

The Confederate prison camp at Andersonville, Georgia, also known as Camp Sumter, was designed to hold a maximum of 10,000 Union prisoners.  At its peak, it held more than three times that number under horrific conditions.  During its 14 months of existence, Andersonville Prison held more than 45,000 Union soldiers, of whom 12,920 died, mostly of starvation and disease.[1]

On 29 April 1914, nearly 50 years after the prison’s liberation, survivors from New York State assembled on the grounds of the original prison to dedicate a monument to the roughly-2500 of their fellow soldiers from that State who had been imprisoned there.

The 144 aging veterans who made the trip were awarded this medal (left) by the State. They were made by Whitehead & Hoag Company of New York City and are engraved on the reverse: “Presented to (soldier’s name) by the State of New York in Recognition of his Heroism, Sacrifice, and Patriotism.”  (The engraving on the one in this photo does not include a soldier’s name.)  As you might guess, very few of these medals still exist, especially in this pristine condition.

The second medal – or badge – was issued to the guests of the Andersonville Monument Dedication Commission at that monument dedication. This badge is even more rare. In fact, I’ve never before seen one intact, much less in near-mint condition.  It was made by J. F. Neuman in New York City.

As mentioned in this post, 5369 Union soldiers were reported “missing or captured” at the Battle of Gettysburg and at least 303 were incarcerated at Andersonville.  107 of them served in a New York regiment but only two lived until 1914 and attended the monument dedication there.[2]  They were:

• – Private John Sears, Co. F, 119^th New York Inf.
• – Private Robert J. Woodward, Co. C, 154^th New York Inf.

The Guest badge is something of a mystery.  Its design and manufacture is mentioned in the Commission Report but, unlike the veteran badge, there is no depiction of it there.  And, while the report describes the ceremony in which veterans were awarded their medals, there’s conspicuously no mention of when or under what conditions the Guest badges were distributed.  

The report says, “The veterans having been assembled in military order within the prison stockade, the services of decorating them with the medals now occurred.”  The Chairman of the Commission is then quoted as saying, “Each comrade, when his name is called, will march to the front and receive his medal.”

This panoramic photograph in the report depicts the “Line Up at Andersonville for Presentation of New York State’s Commemorative Dedication Medal.” That photograph does not appear to include the wives and daughters of the veterans who were among the guests.  In the reception line at the center of the photograph are the Commissioners, the few female presenters, and a handful of other guests.  Some of them are wearing one type of badge or another but most are not. So the timing of the distribution of the Guest badges remains a mystery.

So how many of these medals were made?  According to the New York State Archives, no invoices or other records of the manufacture or engraving of the medals still exist. So we’ll have to make some guesstimates.

The Commission originally identified about 400 former New York soldiers who had survived Andersonville and were still living in the State at that time.  They were all were invited to attend the ceremonies at Andersonville at the Commission’s expense.  Each veteran was responsible for getting himself to New York City, however, where a special train would take them to and from Andersonville.  The veterans were also permitted to bring family and friends at their own expense, estimated by the Commission as $60 per person.

Of the 400 or so veterans that were invited, 248 expressed an intention to go.  As the date approached, however, that number twindled regularly due to the illness or death of some of the veterans.  By the time that the train left Pennsylvania Station, the passengers numbered just 222, according to the Commission’s report[3], including veterans and guests.  The latter group consisted of twelve Commission members (half of whom were veterans), two clerks, a stenographer, a nurse, a photographer, a few politicians and dignitaries, and “a goodly number” of wives and children. (But the final published list of attendees included 144 veterans and 79 guests for a total of 223.)

Contemporary newspaper accounts vary, however.  One newspaper reported that there were “262 in the party”[4] and another said that there were “162 survivors”[5] in the group.  These seem oddly specific, given that they conflict with the official report.

One veteran, Jacob D. Perkins, Private, 85th New York Infantry, reported that he received an engraved medal in the mail even though he did not attend the ceremony at Andersonville.  This suggests that he was among those who originally expressed an intention to go to the dedication but later bowed out.[6]

The Survivors medals would presumably have been ordered as soon as the original list of recipients was compiled (248), would have included a few extras, but would certainly not have exceeded the total number of eligible veterans (400).  So I estimate that between 300 and 400 were manufactured, with at least 248 being inscribed with the name and regiment of a specific veteran.

The order for the Guest medals would have been placed at the same time.  In the end, 79 guests attended the ceremony but there is no record of how many had originally expressed an interest to go.  That number is unlikely to be more than 105, however, accounting for a spouse for each veteran who had bowed out.  So even accounting for spares, it is unlikely that more than 150 of the Guest medals were manufactured.

Sources:
[1] Andersonville National Historic Site, https://www.nps.gov/ande/index.htm
[2] Kevin Frye, Andersonville Historian; Andersonville Facebook Page or at andersonvillehistorian@gmail.com.
[3] “A Pilgrimage To The Shrines of Patriotism: The Report of the Commission to Dedicate the Monument Erected by the State of New York in Andersonville, Georgia” (Albany, NY: State of New York & Andersonville Monument Dedication Commission, Printer: J. B. Lyon Company, 1916)
[4] Col. Samuel C. Pierce, Commander, Dept, of N. Y., G. A. R., Rochester, N. Y. in The Buffalo Enquirer, 11 May 1914.
[5] The Brooklyn Daily Eagle (Brooklyn, NY), 10 May 1914.
[6] Star Gazette (Elmira, NY), 28 Jul 1914

People ask me all the time what a “Third Cousin Twice Removed” (aka 3C2R) is, for instance.  The internet is full of “cousin charts” but I really don’t understand the point of them and I discourage their use. The rules to navigate the chart are more complicated than the rules to just calculate the relationship yourself! (And Step 1 is the same for both).

Spend 5 minutes to understand this chart that I made for a friend and you’ll never have to rely on this or any other chart again.

Right click and save to your computer. Then you can size it to your taste.

And, by the way, cousin relationships are reciprocal.  On my chart, for instance, John’s relationship to George is the same as George’s relationship to John (1C2R).  So don’t worry about whether your line goes on the left or right side.  And no, it doesn’t matter whether the two lines of ascent go through male ancestors, female ancestors, or both, to get to the common ancestor.  That doesn’t affect the cousin relationship. Finally, the two people only need to be descended from ONE common ancestor* and it doesn’t matter whether it is a male or female.

Now, it’s true that, unlike those “other” charts, mine doesn’t explain what a great-great-grandfather is.  And, among other things, it doesn’t explain what an uncle and a nephew is. But:

1. What adult doesn’t know this already??  Besides, you have to understand what a great-great-grandfather is already in order to use those other charts!
2. Unlike cousins, those other relationships are gender specific and not reciprocal. (i.e., uncle/aunt vs nephew/niece and g-g-grandfather/mother vs g-g-grandson/daughter). And there doesn’t seem to be any consensus on whether it is GREAT-uncle or GRAND-uncle, for instance.
3. Is it really worth making it soooo much harder to learn what a 1C2R is by having the chart get bogged down defining terms that most people already know?

Finally, if you know what a great-grandFATHER is and you know what an uncle is, then you should know what a great-grandUNCLE is.  If you don’t, then I can’t help you.

(Sorry, it’s 4am and I’m getting punchy…)

* Full disclosure: there are claims in some circles that a “cousin” requires a PAIR of common ancestors and that if there is only one, then they are “half-cousins.”  It is a tedious debate so I will merely quote the Oxford English Dictionary, the universally-accepted authority on the English language, and readers can judge for themselves:

“Cousin: (1) a collateral relative more distant than a brother or sister, (2) The son or daughter of one’s uncle or aunt, (3) first, second cousin, etc.; expressing the relationship between persons descended the same number of steps in distinct lines from A COMMON ANCESTOR.” (emphasis added)

Yesterday we had the honor of hosting Congressman Chris Stewart (R-UT) and his staff for a Segway tour of the Gettysburg battlefield. It was a beautiful day for a great group of folks to enjoy a fun and educational experience on the park! Thanks for coming!

The 46th Annual Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association Civil War Artifact and Collectibles Show in Gettysburg yesterday was the setting for a unique reunion.  For probably the first time in 81 years, the three known surviving examples of the Commissioner’s badge for the 1938 Gettysburg reunion were in the same room.

On the left is the badge worn by Pennsylvania Governor George H. Earle III (1890-1964). It is from the collection of the author, Bob Velke.

On the middle/bottom is the badge worn by Secretary of War Harry Hines Woodring (1887-1967).  It is from the collection of Kevin Himber.

On the right is the badge of Representative Harry Luther Haines (1880-1947) from Pennsylvania.  It is from Mickey McIntire’s collection. 

The gold and silver badges were made by Bailey, Banks & Biddle Co. in Philadelphia and each is engraved with the name of the recipient on the reverse.  The top bar of Representative Haines’ badge (on the right) is original while those of the other two are reproductions.  Apparently, over the years, the bar was easily detached and lost.

The collectors suppose that there were perhaps 15 or 16 of these badges originally.  They were presented to the 9 members of the Pennsylvania Commission, the 5 members of the Federal Commission, the Governor of Pennsylvania, and perhaps the Executive Secretary of the Commission, Rob. L. Roy.

What a beautiful sight!

While there are some wonderful free web sites (notably FamilySearch.org) from which you can access many online records, Ancestry.com and Fold3.com offer a wide variety of records that are not available anywhere else.  In fact, if you go to the National Archives in Washington D.C. to access the original microfilms for those records, you’ll be directed to Ancestry.com and Fold3.com instead. In order to access most of the records at Ancestry.com or Fold3.com from your home computer or laptop, however, you’d need to pay a subscription fee.  But there are many ways to access them for FREE.

• Many medium-sized and large public libraries have subscriptions to these services and you can access them from the computers in their research rooms.  Contact your public library or college/university library and you might be surprised!
• The National Archives in D.C. and more than a dozen of their branch offices around the country are equipped with research rooms and public-use computers with full access to Ancestry.com and Fold3.com.  To search for the closest National Archives Branch Office to your area, access this web site and then click on “Research Facilities”.
• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (aka the LDS Church) operates hundreds of “Family History Centers” around the U.S. and the world. You do not have to be a member of the church to make use of these excellent facilities.  The church also partners with a variety of “FamilySearch Affiliate Libraries.”  Not only do they have subscriptions to Ancestry.com and Fold3.com but they are staffed by very knowledgeable volunteers who can help you with almost any research problem.  Check this web site to find a LDS research facility in your area.
• The web sites in question sometimes offer “Free Access Weekends.”  Keep an eye on a genealogy newsletter or on the Facebook pages of Ancestry.com and Fold3.com for announcements.  You’ll need to register for a free basic membership to take advantage of these special offers.
• Both web sites periodically offer free trials.  The free trial for Ancestry.com is for 14 days while the one for Fold3.com is for 7 days. In each case, you’ll need to create a membership account and provide a credit card which will be charged if you neglect to cancel at least two days before the end of your trial period.

Finally, if you do a lot of research, then you may find that a subscription to these web sites is well worth the money.  At this writing (December, 2018):

• A “U.S. Discovery” Membership to Ancestry.com costs $19.95/month or $189/year.  Membership to Ancestry.com includes the option for $30 off an annual Premium Membership to Fold3.com.
• The standard price for a Premium Membership to Fold3.com is $7.95/month or $79.95/year.

The records that are available at Ancestry.com and Fold3.com are just too good to miss.

Photo from the author’s collection. Inset is the Kearny Medal.

Capt. Solomon T. Lyon of the 5th Michigan Infantry has been described as a recipient of the Kearny Medal and there is a photo that seems to prove it.  The trouble is that, not only was Capt. Lyon not on the official list of recipients, but he apparently didn’t qualify to receive the medal.  So what’s going on here?

The Kearny Medal was conceived and designed by the officers of the 1st Division, 3rd Corps, Army of the Potomac.  At a meeting on 29 November 1862, a committee of those officers set down the qualifications to receive it; to wit:

Resolved, That all officers, and soldiers who may be promoted
to the grade of commissioned officer previous to January 1st,
1863, and who have honorably served in battle under
Maj.-Gen. Kearny in his Division, and whose military record
is without stain, shall alone be permitted to wear
the “Kearny Medal.”

The trouble is that Capt. Lyon wasn’t even in the army in January, 1863 – much less as an officer serving under Gen. Kearny.  According to his Compiled Service Record (and as supported by his pension application and other documents), he mustered in as a 2nd Lieutenant of Co. E, 5th Michigan Infantry on 24 April 1864 – more than 15 months after the qualification period ended. He was promoted to 1st Lt. in July and to Captain in November of the same year.

There is evidence that a few other officers (and one woman) who were not on the official list of recipients were later awarded the medal. But they proved to meet the qualifications or they were awarded with some fanfare as a gift by the commanding officer, Gen. Birney, or (in the case of the woman) by a group of high-ranking officers.  No such evidence has been found regarding Capt. Lyon.  Furthermore, in stark contrast to most other recipients, there is no reference to the medal in his pension application, published biographies, contemporary newspapers, or his obituary.

As mentioned previously, a committee of officers designed the Kearny Medal and documented a list of the officers who were qualified to receive it.  But there is no evidence of a benefactor, sponsor, or fund that was developed to pay for its manufacture.  Rather, the evidence indicates that (with a few special exceptions), each qualifying officer was required to purchase his own medal.*  So perhaps Capt. Lyon simply purchased one?

It would seem not.  The committee of officers that designed the medal were specifically instructed to “take bonds from the manufacturers of the medal, sufficient to prevent them from disposing of the same to persons not entitled to wear it.”  In fact, even some officers who were qualified to receive the medal had difficulty in proving that they were entitled to it.  For instance, Lt. Robert McWade (40th New York) was required to provide a testimonial from his commanding officer before being allowed to purchase his medal because his name was written as “McQuade” on the list of qualified recipients.  So it seems unlikely that Capt. Lyon could have surreptitiously received one.

There are several known cases where an officer received more than one copy of the medal. Some were lost/stolen and replaced and one officer is actually listed twice on the qualifying list.  Perhaps Capt. Lyon received a duplicate medal from one of his fellow officers?

There are even some 19th-century companies that were known to offer forgeries of the Kearny Medal – but what self-respecting officer of that stature would subject himself to a charge of “stolen valor” from his peers?

Perhaps the medal on his chest in the photo isn’t a Kearny Medal after all?  The inset is provided for your examination.

I don’t have the answer.  Previous posts to this blog and to my Facebook page about the medal have inspired some living descendants and fellow researchers to contact me with details or photographs of a recipient.  Maybe this post will have the same effect.  Please contact me or comment below if you have evidence or even a theory that would explain this mystery.

-Bob Velke

*There was reportedly nothing to prevent an officer from paying more money to have gems inset into his medal or to customize the length of the ribbon, etc.  Presumably, an officer with lesser means might likewise forego the ribbon and top bar, for instance, in order to pay less money for his medal.  It is not uncommon, therefore, to see photos of the drop or planchet of the medal being worn as a pin – as in the photo above.

Annie Etheridge is one of at least four women who are known to have received the Kearny Cross.  And, although she never actually enlisted in the army (serving as a volunteer field nurse or “vivandiere”), she is frequently described as one of the very few female private citizens who received a pension for her service to the army. Until now, however, no strong evidence had been produced that she actually received such a pension.

Photo credit: Military Images Magazine

Much has been written about Annie Etheridge (née Blair), whose husband, James Etheridge, enlisted with the 2nd Michigan Infantry during the Civil War.  Annie followed the regiment (and subsequently the 3rd and 5th Michigan Infantries) throughout their service, tending to the wounded in the field and often being exposed to live fire.  She was wounded at least once, reportedly had two horses shot out from under her, and her dress was often described as being “riddled with bullets.” And yet “Gentle Annie,” as she was known by the many men in her Division who loved and respected her, never received any compensation for her service.

As evidence of the attempts to obtain a pension for Annie Etheridge (who by 1870 had divorced James Etheridge and married Charles E. Hooks), researchers often cite newspaper articles or quote from reports of the Committee on Pensions in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives where her fate was debated*.  But proof that the pension was actually granted has proved more elusive.

Here, in what is believed to be the first publication outside of the Congressional Record, is a copy of the Special Act of Congress that was passed on 19 February 1887 and signed by President Grover Cleveland, granting a pension of $25 per month to Anna Etheridge Hooks**:

Photo credit: FindaGrave.com

In the 1886 discussion in the House of Representatives, Annie is described as “poor and needy,” having “never recovered from the results of her long and arduous service.”  While she originally requested a pension of $50 per month, the final award of $25 per month (about $663 in today’s money) no doubt came as some relief to her in the last quarter century of her life.

Annie died on 23 Jan 1913 at the age of 73.  She is buried with her husband, Corporal Charles E. Hooks, in Arlington National Cemetery (Section 15, Lot 701).

UPDATE, 5 AUG 2019: Good news!  I found her full pension file (Cert #352510) at the National Archives in D.C.!  It is only 10 pages but includes a statement by Charles E. Hooks that the two were married by a Rev. Dr. Butler in Washington D.C. on 1 Mar 1870.  Dated 4 Jun 1898, the statement further asserts that he was not previously married and the couple had no living children.  Most notably, it confirms that Annie really did receive the money that was promised to her, the last payment to her being made on 4 Dec 1912.

Notes:

* The U. S. Senate report of the Committee on Pensions, 49th Congress, First Session, Report #1544, 22 July 1886.

   The U. S. Senate report of the Committee on Pensions (revised), 49th Congress, First Session, Report #1599, 30 July 1886.

   The U. S. House of Representatives report of the Committee on Pensions, 49th Congress, Second Session, Report #3763, 26 January 1887.

** “An Act Granting a Pension to Mrs. Anna Etheridge Hooks”, Ch. 155, 24 Stat., 903 (1887).