Which manual was used?

[mike_zulu]

I was not sure where to post this since I have never posted before.
My Question is which manual is the proper one to use for a Virginia infantry unit (Specifically the 9th Va) Some say Hardie's and some claim Gillium's is the correct one
any thoughts?

Thank you
Michael P. Sweeney
Pvt 9th Virginia Co C

[Tyler Underwood]

Re: Which manual was used?

Hi Michael, I moved your post to the camp of instruction folder since it is more suited to you question. I am not sure If you have tried yet or not, but I would encourage trying the search function first to see if you yield any results.

[mike_zulu]

Re: Which manual was used?

Thank you Sir!

Michael Sweeney

[4vaadjutant]

Re: Which manual was used?

Greetings, Mike!

For a number of years a conversation ensued about whether or not Gilham’s Manual was used by the Army of Northern Virginia since it was not published until January, 1861, and Hardee’s Manual was used so extensively by the U. S. Army. A researcher named Eric Mink of the 4th Virginia Infantry, Stonewall Brigade (http//:www.stonewallbrigade.org), has found evidence from several sources that supports an argument that Gilham’s was used by Virginia forces, specifically by the Stonewall Brigade. That would seem logical since Gilham was a member of the faculty at the Virginia Military Institute and at the beginning of the war graduates of VMI constituted a large percentage of the officers in Virginia’s regiments, especially in Jackson’s brigade. In a paper I found on the Internet written by James P. Rife, several arguments to support the use of Gilham’s Manual by Virginia units is presented. I recommend it as a part of your research. Best wishes,

Tom Williams
4th Virginia Infantry
Indianapolis

[mike_zulu]

Re: Which manual was used?

Dear Tom
Thank you sir for your reply, I will look into the Rife paper.

Much obliged

Pvt Michael P. Sweeney
9th Virginia Infantry Co.C

[Silas]

Re: Which manual was used?

For what period of time? What is appropriate in the first three years of the war isn't necessarily appropriate for the final two years.

[mike_zulu]

Re: Which manual was used?

Dear Silas

Some of out events such as a school program encampment does not have a time period per se, I was interested whether the Army of Northern Virginia and particularly the 9th Virginia (Armisted) Used either Gillham's or Hardies and when did they use them. Any referenced material would be appreciated

Pvt. Michael P. Sweeney
9th Virginia Infantry

[gsusat]

Re: Which manual was used?

There is more to this question - Gilham's was written later than Hardee and his infantry section is basically a copy of
Hardee's with the exception that he included a second manual of Arms. The manual of Arms from Scotts was included. So the question become which manual of Arms was used when using Gilhams. Since Hardee's was written for two band rifles and Scotts manual was written for three band smooth bore muskets there is an inclination to look toward barrel length. On the other hand Hardees was the new and improved manual. Just some food for thought

[Clsinclair]

Re: Which manual was used?

I just sold a Gilhams to an Alabama museum that was ID'ed to a Maine Regiment that belonged to a Captain of one of the companies. The hand writing in the manual was 1861 so it shows that Gilhams was also used by or studied by Northern troops.

[a_williams63]

Re: Which manual was used?

Tom, thanks for highlighting Eric Mink's article on the use of Gilham's in the Stonewall Brigade. Due to some technical difficulties, we've had to move our website, so Eric's piece is now available at http://www.stonewallbrigade.net/gilham-manual.html. The comments George made are right on the money regarding the differences between the manuals for rifle vs musket - there's a great summary of the differences between the manuals over here. I hope you find this useful for your research Michael.

[Silas]

Re: Which manual was used?

There is more to this question - Gilham's was written later than Hardee

Not necessarily. Hardee's rifle manual was initially published in 1855. I've found reprints in 1860 and 1861. Gilham was initially published in 1860 for U.S. Volunteers. He published a "Confederate" version in 1861 which was the same as the 1860 except for the cover being different. Hardee's Revised, aka Confederate Hardee's or the Goetzel version, was published in 1861. His Revised Tactics did away with the distinction between manuals for the rifle and musket. There's only one way to load : butt outside the left foot and the right foot is not advanced. See, https://archive.org/stream/rifleinfa...ge/36/mode/2up (Note : Although the Revised Tactics specifies loading on the left side, the Goetzel publication used poor copies of the illustrations from Hardee's 1855 manual.)

... and his infantry section is basically a copy of Hardee's with the exception that he included a second manual of Arms. The manual of Arms from Scotts was included.

Although an 1860 reprint of Hardee's only includes a manual for the shorter rifle - http://books.google.com/books?id=_1h...page&q&f=false - the 1861 U.S. Tactics has a manual for the rifle (http://books.google.com/books?id=3kA...=rifle&f=false) as well as the musket (http://books.google.com/books?id=3kA...=rifle&f=false).

The procedures for loading the weapon in Scott are only for the musket, but there is that pesky Sergeant's Manual which is the same as the rifle manual : http://books.google.com/books?id=x2z...page&q&f=false The linked manual is to an 1857 reprint of Scott's manual. A great thing about this 1857 reprint of Scott's is that it includes instruction for left oblique firing through the left interval. See, http://books.google.com/books?id=x2z...page&q&f=false and page forward through instruction for three ranks to the next section on firing in two ranks. Hardee's 1855 set the tone for most manuals thereafter by not stating specifically through which interval the weapon should be aimed. If firing should only be through the right interval, why is there a two year overlap? Hmmmm. Sorry for the digression.

The school of the battalion in Gilham doesn't contain all the instruction found in Hardee's 1855 U.S. Tactics of 1861 and Revised Hardee. Similarly, there are some things in Casey's 1862 which are not in Gilham, but a significant thing in Gilham but not in Casey is Forward Into Line at full distance. Casey showed some initiative by eliminating it from his manual.

So the question become which manual of Arms was used when using Gilhams. Since Hardee's was written for two band rifles and Scotts manual was written for three band smooth bore muskets there is an inclination to look toward barrel length. On the other hand Hardees was the new and improved manual. Just some food for thought

Well, depends upon the weapon used. If the impression is Confederate where the troops used Gilham and if the weapon used is the shorter rifle with the sword bayonet, then I'd have to go with the rifle manual : http://books.google.com/books?id=xmw...page&q&f=false If the impression is Confederate where the troops used Gilham and if the weapon is a musket with a triangular bayonet, I'd have to go with the musket manual : http://books.google.com/books?id=xmw...page&q&f=false

If you're really meaning is there some date certain when Confederate troops ceased using Gilham and only used Revised Hardee's, you're not going to find one. There is some date in early 1862 when Revised Hardee's became the official manual for Confederate troops, but Gilham continued to be used. For how long? Beat me. Depends upon theater, commander and date. Even then, there isn't a black and white answer. It's going to be shades of gray.

[gsusat]

Re: Which manual was used?

I think where I was heading with the comment on the manuals.

Gilham - being written later "borrowed" much from Hardee - good bad or indifferent. My recollect is that Gilham was attempting to develop a textbook on three branches of service and in that respect he was quite successful. There is a lot of good information in Gilham.
I am not sure that many people realize that Gilham has two different manual of arms for infantry and that if you do "Hardee's" manual you are in complete agreement with Gilhams.
Reenacting has placed quite an emphasis on two band vs three band - in the early days it carried a strong safety concern. I wonder if during the period, more distinction was placed on rifled vs smoothbore weapons. As you point out Hardee himself in adopting his manual for three band weapons, as he did with the goetzel edition, made only minor changes in the manual of arms - primarily dealing with the placement of the butt in loading and fixing the bayonet. He was obviously a well trained infantry officer of the period and in his mind updating to three band weapons did not mean going back to the manual used in Scotts rather just the minor changes he made. Yet today we follow the three band rule to use Scott's. I am just saying, that to me, that using the rifle or smoothbore manual seems to be where the discussion should be in the Gilham vs Hardee debate.

[john duffer]

Re: Which manual was used?

I think where I was heading with the comment on the manuals.

Gilham - being written later "borrowed" much from Hardee - good bad or indifferent. My recollect is that Gilham was attempting to develop a textbook on three branches of service and in that respect he was quite successful. There is a lot of good information in Gilham.
I am not sure that many people realize that Gilham has two different manual of arms for infantry and that if you do "Hardee's" manual you are in complete agreement with Gilhams.
Reenacting has placed quite an emphasis on two band vs three band - in the early days it carried a strong safety concern. I wonder if during the period, more distinction was placed on rifled vs smoothbore weapons. As you point out Hardee himself in adopting his manual for three band weapons, as he did with the goetzel edition, made only minor changes in the manual of arms - primarily dealing with the placement of the butt in loading and fixing the bayonet. He was obviously a well trained infantry officer of the period and in his mind updating to three band weapons did not mean going back to the manual used in Scotts rather just the minor changes he made. Yet today we follow the three band rule to use Scott's. I am just saying, that to me, that using the rifle or smoothbore manual seems to be where the discussion should be in the Gilham vs Hardee debate.

I think there was a transition going on from the line/heavy infantry and riflemen/light infantry school of thought to all purpose infantry.. Even Casey originally plans on eight line companies and two flank though it isn't adopted. Scott's 1829 ABSTRACT has light infantry move faster and use the right shoulder arm position while line uses the left and this carries forward to some extent. Try moving quickly with both and you can tell the difference. The length of weapon, rifle or musket, line or light, etc all combine to muddy the water.

[john duffer]

Re: Which manual was used?

A great thing about this 1857 reprint of Scott's is that it includes instruction for left oblique firing through the left interval. See, http://books.google.com/books?id=x2z...page&q&f=false and page forward through instruction for three ranks to the next section on firing in two ranks. Hardee's 1855 set the tone for most manuals thereafter by not stating specifically through which interval the weapon should be aimed. If firing should only be through the right interval, why is there a two year overlap? Hmmmm. .

I confess to being a bit lost here Silas, I didn't see anything on the firings that was different from the original version of SCOTTS and no mention at all of oblique firings in the fire by two rank, fire by file section. My original SCOTTS was an 1861 reprint and still the same book reprinted. The reprints I've seen are not new, updated versions though some may have inserts included. (Mr. Susat once sent me photos of an 1846 reprint which had instructions for percussion caps pasted to the covers and the fire in twelve times marked up by hand.). So I have to respectfully disagree about the "two year overlap". This is an 1857 reprint of an 1835 manual that's a translation of an 1831 manual compared to an 1855 manual that's a translation of an 1845 manual. There's no direct connection between the two. SCOTTS definitely calls for firing to the left interval, HARDEES does not but that seems to indicate change rather than omission or mistake. Just my poor opinion on the oblique but not on the connection (or lack thereof) between SCOTTS and HARDEES.

[Jim Abels]

Re: Which manual was used?

"I just sold a Gilhams to an Alabama museum that was ID'ed to a Maine Regiment that belonged to a Captain of one of the companies. The hand writing in the manual was 1861 so it shows that Gilhams was also used by or studied by Northern troops."

To add to Claude's comment, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was a fan of the manual as well. Each regiment of the Pennsylvania Reserves received a couple of copies, and when all the military property of the Commonwealth was turned over to Uncle Sam in '62, there were still over 100 copies in stock at Camp Curtin.

Jim Abels