From: tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Aiming at flagbearers.
Keywords: Flags, flagbearers
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:27:54 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <1992Sep1.170223.28740@bnlux1.bnl.gov> COWAN@ANL.GOV writes:
>I want to thank everybody for all of the informative postings to my question
>regarding the accuracy of ACW riflemen. It's good to see that at least a subset
>of the newsgroup is still interested in swapping facts rather than insults 8^).
>
>It was pointed out that often one body was hit many times. I have read various
>accounts to this effect, a soldier or officer would draw attention to himself
>in some way and get blasted. It seems to indicate they could aim pretty well
>sometimes 8^).
>

There is an article in Civil War Times Illustrated within the last 6
months about a strange post mortem phenomena which might account for so
many wounds in one dead body. Sometimes a secondary effect of a fatal
headwound was to "freeze" the body in a rigor-mortis like position, so
that a dead man appeared to be "frozen" in place. An exposed enemy who
didn't move and didn't seem to be hit would naturally draw a lot of
fire. (BTW, most of the corpses were found after the battle in "stable"
positions, leaning against a rail, on their knees, etc. A man killed at
full run would appearantly just fall over in a running position.

Sometimes one company within a regiment or battallion would be
designated unofficially as a sharpshooter outfit. They would be armed
generally with the standard rifle musket (which did have sights which
could make it accurate out to 300 m) and given orders to shoot at people
who looked like couriers, officers and flag bearers. Everybody else
blazed away at nothing in particular. Sniper fire vs. "suppression
fire"
 
>This brings me to another military-related question. Often it was the
>flagbearer that drew a disproportionate share of the enemy fire. Also, I have
>often read references to the number of flags a given unit captured, or that a
>given unit had never lost "a gun or a flag". It almost sounds like a game 
>was being played. Was there really enough military significace to a regimental
>flags (i.e. "Ralley 'round the flag, boys!") to warrant all the attention they
>were apparently given? Or was it simply a "morale thing"?
>
>
The flag was a very important thing for the regiment, at least at the
beginning of the war. Most likely they had been made by women from the
region where the unit was raised, possibly wives, daughters or
sweethearts of the soldiers and presented to the regiment by local or
state dignitaries in a ceremony. The flag was patched after each battle
and often painted with the location of the battle. All of these things
made the flag resonate with conotations of home, country and glory,
which were near and dear to the heart of many "gentlemen" of the 19th
century.

   At the beginning of the war it was considered an honor to serve as
the regiment's color sergeant. And, in one famous incident, an early war
officer, Col. Daniel Ellsworth, the man who raised the "New York Fire
Zouves", was killed by an angry innkeeper when Ellsworth tore down the
CS flag from a Maryland hotel. As the war progressed, men became
increasingly reluctant to get killed for something as trivial as a flag,
so that volunteers for flag-bearer were replaced by men who had to carry
the flag as punishment for some infraction. (MacPherson's Embattled
Courage, I believe, is where I got this info).

   Tactically the flag served as a rally and formation point for the
regiment. It also allowed the brigade and Division commander to observe
the location of the unit. Also, the flag served as a rough indicator of
how strong the units were, since the fewer troops there were in a
battalion line formation, the closer the flags would be to each other
(roughly).
   
   Conversely, enemy flags served as a way for a commander to guage the
strength of the enemy. If each regiment carried a flag, then the
commander knew roughly how many regiments he faced.

   Division and Corps HQs also had flags, which presumably allowed thier
location to be better seen by couriers and other people. These were
generally marked with the Corps insignia in late-war US armies.

   Artillery units had smaller flags, called guidons, which the battery
aligned themselves along on the firing line.

   A commander was also able to tell how badly beaten the enemy was by
how many flags his army had captured. Captured flags also helped the
morale of victorious units by proving to them how badly they had beaten
the enemy they faced.

   Part of the pride in never losing a flag or gun came from knowing
that your unit had never been badly defeated and that your unit was
presumably a really mean outfit.

Have fun, 
   Tom
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa