A drill question...not the basics

[Spongebucket]

Fellows,
I ask this question in all seriousness and hope to get good educated answers and not just the "I agree" or such trivial comments just so you can add to your post total.
Is there a copy of the "Revised Hardee's" (aka Goetzels, etc.) that is printed with the adaptations for the musket. The copy that I have (and it is a photocopy of a Goetzel printing) has the changes for stacking arms (aka Kentucky swing) and other small notations of bringing the musket to the left side fr fixing/unfixing bayonet, etc. is all hand written and not part of the actual printed manual.
I attended an event with the Gen . Miles Marching and Chowder Society last week and had the chance to read the 1867 Uptons and the 1873. Granted the drill is for the trapdoor, we have used this refernce to state the position of "right shoulder shift". In the 1867, the stacking of arms and fixing/unfixing bayonet are all the same.
The question now is "Where would Emory Upton have learned this CS drill?", especially when his manuevers of the men are almost right out of Cook's cavalry manual. Could it be the copy of Hardee's with the handwritten corrections is like other FMs or TMs where a soldier would write in the new proceedures and that this said copy is just a post war change for volunteers/militia or possibly early regulars?
I know this may seem a complex question, but was something that has been chewing at me and thought I'd throw it out to others.
my 2 pennies
Joe Blunt

[Charles Heath]

Re: A drill question...not the basics

Joe,

The "who" would be one Elmer Ellsworth.

[Spongebucket]

Re: A drill question...not the basics

Charles,
Is that in some Ellsworth zouave drill manual? I'm not sounding sarcastic...just sometimes when you find things, you want to put them all together. So that would mean that there were possible changes in the manual (possibly even for the regulars?) based on the exibition drill manual that carried from the time of the zouave shows and his death in 1861, to a handwritten "correction" in an 1861 printed Hardee's, that was then used in 1867. Still, I'm looking to see if there is a printed manual of "Revised Hardee's". I know that most of the ANV folks stick to Gilham's. For over 12 yrs, in the Deep South, we've practiced this modified rifle drill based on the alterations.
Hence, is there an existant copy of the new drill? If what Charles says is true, were the CS troops also using the zouave drill on an Army level? Is it really incorrect to use this drill for AoT troops?
Will the real answers be out there...maybe, but the fun is in the hunt.
Cheers,
Joe Blunt

[Charles Heath]

Re: A drill question...not the basics

Joe,

When this question is asked every six months or so, and the usual flailing about takes place the typical route from the Tennesse Swing, Arkansas Swing, Kentucky Swing, Militia Swing, and Zouave Swing ends up on Ellsworth's doorstep. A couple of the articles about stacking arms cover this rather well, and they should still be online from the last cycle.

Like you, the headscratching over the change from Scott's is there from time to time.

[Spongebucket]

Re: A drill question...not the basics

Charles,
Sorry if I brought this up again. I don't spend a whole lot of time on the computer, but thought to throw this out. As for the nickname of "Kentucky Swing", we got it because Geoff Walden (from the Bluegrass State) was the fellow to introduce these changes. It was not so much the question of did they do it, but was there published descriptions. I understand that Ken Mink did a copy of Hardee's for the 3-banded weapon, that includes all of this.
You're right, why change from Scott's? Had worked for nearly 30 years (following Smythe's evolution in 1811). Guess folks just like having their name associated with something.
Now has the question of whether one is Eastern or Western specific? or do we know? Like I say, hate to beat a dead horse, but I just made it from the back of the column.
Thanks folks
Joe Blunt

[Andy Ackeret]

Re: A drill question...not the basics

Joe,

I've never seen an original Hardee's revised, but the reprint version I own of Hardee's Revised (Red leather cover, I believe it was part of the run by Ken Mink) has the "swing" stack in type set, not hand-written notes. It also has the loading and fixing on the left, in type set, not hand-written notes. The original publication information says S.H. Goetzel & Co., 1861.

For reference, the paragraph numbers and wording correspond to what is shown on The Drill Network paragraphs 410-412.

Home page of Hardee's Revised:

http://home.att.net/~MrsMajor/1862.htm

Paragraphs 410-412 of Hardee's Revised:

http://home.att.net/~MrsMajor/1862SotS.htm#P3L5

I am assuming here, of course, that the reprints haven't been modified from the original.

[Silas]

Re: A drill question...not the basics

Here's a link to the article about the Ellsworth / Hardee swing : http://6ovi.homestead.com/Kentucky_Swing.doc

There isn't a scanned version of Volume I of Hardee's manual as printed by Goetzel. I have located a scanned copy of volume two (School of the Battalion) online and have included on my links page.

[Spongebucket]

Re: A drill question...not the basics

Andy and Silas,
Thanks for the additions. Though most of the research presented is what I thought, but there are times when something catches your eye and causes to to rethink things.
Thank you again for your replies.
Joe Blunt

[gsusat]

Re: A drill question...not the basics

Fellows
The basic question has been answered but I wanted to throw in some nuances. I know of 8 eiditions of Hardee's printed by Goetzel in Mobile. The first edition was printed without the revisions and was a larger size. There is a example of this edition in a public collection that has the revisions hand written in the book by the soldier. I believe that the soldier was in the Army of Tenn. Copies of this example have been circulated in the reenacting community for years. From the second edition on the book had the revisions included in the printed test along with a notice from Hardee commenting on revising the manual of arms to reflect the arms in the hands of the Confederate troops. The second edition is still the larger size with smaller size plates bound in the book and with the third edition they were reduced in size to the typical manual size. There is a reproduction out there of the two volume set. I bought a set at Nashville a few years ago though I do not know who carries them now.

I should also note, that more than the stacking was modified. The basic position where you place the butt for loading, fixing bayonet and in place rest changed as well as the inspection arms.

As to their use I tend to think them universal, though that is just my opinion. I know a division of the Army of Miss ordered them in mass for every officer in the division and then back charged them to the officers. I have seen originals id'd to soldiers both in the east and the west including set id'd to "John S. McWhorter Comdg Co A 1st Bat. SC Reserves Walhalla SC Oct 17th 1864" a volume I id'd to "Thomas Ferguson" Enlisted in Co. B 11th Battln GA Inf Transferred to Co. B 47th Ga in 1862 and another volume I id'd to a Mississippi soldier at Port Hudson.

Hardee did promote the revised work as the only true, complete and correct work. It was also the only copywrited work that he collected royalties for. Interesting it held the first Confederate copywrite.

Another interesting point to me is Gilham's manual. It is a copy of Hardee's along with cavalry and artillery drill and excerpts from the army regulations. In addition to the Hardees manual of arms (Rifle) it also has the old manual of arms from Scott's (musket) . It is interesting to me how many modern units adopted the Scott's manual (musket) of arms from Gilhams.

George Susat
Confederate Guard