|
Post by markland on May 8, 2006 6:43:09 GMT -6
I had this printed out to keep track of how the reorganization of 1866 and 1869 broke up and then re-consolidated various regiments and thought someone else might appreciate the information. From NARA publication M665, p. 15-16: "The increase to 45 infantry regiments in 1866 and the decrease to 25 regiments in 1869 were the result of reorganizations rather than acts of creating new or abolishing old regiments. War Department General Order No. 92, November 23, 1866, provided for the expansion of the number of regiments from 19 to 45 in the following manner: The first, second, and third battalions of Regiments 11-19 were to become Regiments 11-19, 20-28, and 29-37, respectively. New Regiments 38-41 were to be composed of colored men, and new Regiments 42-45 were to be known as Veteran Reserve Corps regiments, which were to be officered by wounded officers and soldiers of the Volunteer Service and the Regular Army. War Department General Order No. 17, March 15, 1869, provided for the reduction of the number of regiments from 45 to 25 according to the following combinations: Regiment | Composition | Regiment | Composition | 1 | 1 and 43 | 14 | 14 and 45 | 2 | 2 and 16 | 15 | 15 and 35 | 3 | 3 and 37 (half) | 16 | 11 and 34 | 4 | 4 and 30 | 17 | 17 and 44 | 5 | 5 and 37 (half) | 18 | 18 and 25 | 6 | 6 and 42 | 19 | 19 and 28 | 7 | 7 and 36 | 20 | No Change | 8 | 8 and 33 | 21 | 21 and 32 | 9 | 9 and 27 | 22 | 22 and 31 | 10 | 10 and 26 | 23 | No Change | 11 | 24 and 29 | 24 | 38 and 41 | 12 | No Change | 25 | 39 and 40 | 13 | No Change |
|
|
|
Post by markland on Aug 6, 2006 9:01:19 GMT -6
This has been mentioned in the past on a couple of other threads so here is the definitive answer after the Army reorganization of the July 28, 1866 Act of Congress per the 1866 Army Register (p. 150-d).
A "Troop of Cavalry" consisted of:
01-Captain 01-First Lieutenant 01-Second Lieutenant 01-First Sergeant 01-Company Quartermaster Sergeant 05-Sergeants 08-Corporals 02-Trumpeters 02-Farriers and Blacksmiths 01-Saddlers 01-Wagoners 78-Privates
Total maximum aggregate strength is 102 men.
Note, this is for the ten cavalry regiment organization. The six calvary organization is slightly different-but since they went with ten, we will use this. The only difference at the troop/company-level is that with the six regiment structure, a Company Commissary Sergeant was included.
Also note that the Register calls them "troops" instead of "companies," yet uses the term Company Quartermaster Sergeant!
Each regiment of cavalry consisted of:
01-Colonel 01-Lt. Colonel 03-Majors 01-Adjutant 01-Regimental Quartermaster 01-Regimental Commissary 12-Captains 12-First Lieutenants 12-Second Lieutenants 01-Chaplain (only in the black regiments, i.e., 9th & 10th Cav.) 01-Veternarian Surgeon (only allowed to the 7-10 regiments) 01-Sergeant Major 01-Quartermaster Sergeant 01-Comissary Sergeant 01-Saddler Sergeant 01-Chief Trumpeter 01-Regimental Hospital Steward 12-First Sergeants 12-Company Quartermaster Sergeants 60-Sergeants 96-Corporals 24-Trumpeters 24-Farriers and Blacksmiths 12-Saddlers 12-Wagoners 936-Privates
The maximum authorized aggregate regimental strength is 1,240.
GAC, at the time this was printed was a Captain in the 5th Cav. On the lineal rank of Captains in the cavalry, he was 55th in seniority, junior to Eugene Baker, Wesley Merritt, John Baker, Theo. Rodenbough, Ira Chaffin and many others.
His pay at that time was $70. per month with the following Subsistence, Servant and Fodder allowance:
4 rations per day-Monthly aggregate at .30 per ration=$36.00 1 servant paid at the rate of a private soldier. 2 forage rations for horses.
Total monthly pay was $137.50.
As a Lt. Colonel his pay was $95.00 per month with the following:
5 rations per day-Monthly aggregate at .30 per ration=$45.00 2 servants paid at the rate of a private soldier. 2 forage rations for horses.
Total monthly pay $203.00.
I will get the entire thing scanned as well as copy the 1869 and 1870 Registers.
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Aug 6, 2006 11:23:40 GMT -6
Great information, Billy. So I guess there's no room for an aide-de-camp ... so what was TWC doing with HQ on the LBH campaign? Like everything else in Custeriana, there is no easy answer, darn.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 6, 2006 12:25:39 GMT -6
But don't those pay figures underline what a favour he was doing for Boston, with $100 a month pay as a guide?
Did TWC go with Custer on the Little Missouri River scout, incidentally? I can't remember. That might be a clue, since his company didn't ...
|
|
|
Post by markland on Aug 7, 2006 6:34:36 GMT -6
Great information, Billy. So I guess there's no room for an aide-de-camp ... so what was TWC doing with HQ on the LBH campaign? Like everything else in Custeriana, there is no easy answer, darn. The only official aide-de-camps in the 1866 Army Register are for general officers. Elisabeth, the pittance that Boston received is nothing compared to the windfall Michael Sheridan received by being appointed aide-de-camp to Lt. General Sheridan August 1, 1870. I don't have the 1870 figures but the 1866 figures states that the ADC for a Lt. Gen. is entitled to the pay and amoulments of a Lt. Col. Looking at Heitman, it does show him as a Lt. Col. & ADC from 08/01/1870-04/09/1878; Lt. Col., ADC, and Military Secretary from 04/09/1878-06/01/1888 and then Col. & ADC 06/01/1888-08/05/1888. He was promoted to Major, Assistant Adjutant General 06/07/1883 & received a promotion to Lt. Col. 07/09/1892. He received the pay and rations, etc. of a Lt. Col. for 13 years while being nominally a Capt. To compute that in 1866 dollars, see my original entry regarding GAC's pay as Lt. Col. And for the period he was gone in the late 1860's? The ADC to a Maj. General received an addtional $24 per month in addition to his base pay. And the returns do show him on detached service to Maj. General Sheridan's headquarters I now expect DC to chime in on his favorite subject. Be good, Billy
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 8, 2006 7:12:29 GMT -6
Heavens, yes, Billy. Nice work if you can get it. According to Men With Custer, he was appointed ADC to Major General Sheridan on July 1st 1867 -- so he'd only had to serve just under a year on a mere captain's pay before starting to make extra money.
On the other hand, I suppose he'd miss out on the extra $10 allowance he'd have got for commanding a company (Barnitz mentions that figure on p. 159 of Life in Custer's Cavalry), which makes him only $14 better off. Still, that's more than an enlisted man's entire pay, so not to be sneezed at ...
Surprising in a way, when Custer finagles such nice lucrative jobs for his father, Boston, and Autie Reed, that he lets Tom bumble along as a lieutenant for so long. I realise promotions were hard to come by, but plenty of captains left the service, or were kicked out, in the early years of the 7th; you'd think he could have wangled something for Tom if he'd wanted. Perhaps he genuinely felt that the boy wasn't up to it? Or perhaps he was making more than a captain's pay already through all the card-games and crooked schemes that Benteen describes!
|
|
|
Post by markland on Aug 8, 2006 8:15:16 GMT -6
"On the other hand, I suppose he'd miss out on the extra $10 allowance he'd have got for commanding a company (Barnitz mentions that figure on p. 159 of Life in Custer's Cavalry), which makes him only $14 better off. Still, that's more than an enlisted man's entire pay, so not to be sneezed at ..."
LOL...according to the 1866 Register, "The officer in command of a company is allowed $10 per month for the responsibility of clothing, arms, and accoutrements-Act March 2, 1827, Sec. 2."
Another perk is that the Regimental Adjutant, Quartermaster and Commissary officers received an additonal $10 per month beyond their Lieutenant's pay.
A couple of questions to pursue further...whether the appointed company commander got the $10 or the acting company commander being one question. And the other being whether an officer serving as both Regimental QM and Commissary was entitled to only $10 or the full $20?
Be good,
Billy
|
|
|
Post by markland on Aug 8, 2006 8:23:14 GMT -6
Also, looking further into the notes, I see this.
"Every commissioned officer below the rank of Brigadier General receives one additional ration per diem for every five years of service."
As well as, "The ration is increased to fifty cents for all officers below the rank of Brigadier General who are not furnished with quarters in kind or who do not receive commutation for fuel and quarters. This increase to continue until July 28, 1867."
The ration was valued at $.30 per ration.
Billy
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 8, 2006 8:33:17 GMT -6
Nice questions! Just guessing, I'd think it would be the acting company commander ... as the context of Barnitz's comment is that Keogh has just been appointed Acting Assistant Inspector General on Sully's staff. Barnitz remarks that he'll thus lose the $10 allowance. His substitute in command of Co. I was a Captain Cox ("I don't know where they found him, but he didn't amount to much", one trooper later recalled), but Keogh must have remained the appointed commander -- as Garlington's Chronological Sketch of Co. I shows no break in his command of the company throughout the ten years, and doesn't mention Cox at all.
Don't have a clue about QM and Commissary, though ...
|
|
|
Post by markland on Aug 9, 2006 0:11:19 GMT -6
Nice questions! Just guessing, I'd think it would be the acting company commander ... as the context of Barnitz's comment is that Keogh has just been appointed Acting Assistant Inspector General on Sully's staff. Barnitz remarks that he'll thus lose the $10 allowance. His substitute in command of Co. I was a Captain Cox ("I don't know where they found him, but he didn't amount to much", one trooper later recalled), but Keogh must have remained the appointed commander -- as Garlington's Chronological Sketch of Co. I shows no break in his command of the company throughout the ten years, and doesn't mention Cox at all. Don't have a clue about QM and Commissary, though ... Good catch! I have that book, but, well, LBH comes second-fiddle to the 1864-1866 wars for me....which means I am reading Nye's book at this time. Be good, Billy
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 9, 2006 0:34:03 GMT -6
Fun book, Barnitz, isn't it. But I must read Nye one of these days ...
|
|
|
Post by markland on Aug 15, 2006 5:34:21 GMT -6
Great information, Billy. So I guess there's no room for an aide-de-camp ... so what was TWC doing with HQ on the LBH campaign? Like everything else in Custeriana, there is no easy answer, darn. The 1875 Army Register does not have any ADCs in the organizational structure beyond those of general officers. Billy
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Aug 16, 2006 1:50:39 GMT -6
Billy: You are a font of information, and I mean that seriously. On the subject of ADCs and Adjutants - is there anything you have come across regarding adjutants for a battalion? The question here is referencing Benny Hodgson as Reno's Adjutant.
Elisabeth: Whether or not TWC was with Armstrong's HQ on 25 June is not a matter of official standing, although it is a matter of doubt. He would not have had official standing as an ADC in any event, as per Billy's post.
Mike Sheridan wasn't the only Captan of the 7th to be absent from duty while acting as an ADC, only the most blatant case of nepotism [which was an accepted practice in the Army of the day]. Charles Ilsley, nominally in command of Company E was acting as ADC to General Pope. John Tourtellotte, who had G, was ADC to General Sherman. Some of these guys wouldn't have recognized anybody in their companies if they had been ordered back to fill out the combat strength of the regiment.
It's positively amazing to me that the 7th was allowed to go on the campaign with the officer shortage they had, never mind the understrength situation in the ORs. They were short one Colonel, two Majors, four Captains and so many Lieutenants I've almost lost count.
And horses too!! I hardly ever see it mentioned that the regiment was short so many horses that about a hundred men had to walk to the Powder River [Jine the Cavalry and walk to glory, boys]. That's why there were hardly any new recruits at the Little Horn, despite what most believe.
Billy: Somewhere in my notes I have a cavalry regiment organizational chart which is somewhat different than yours. I don't have it in front of me, but I'm pretty sure it was based on something post 1866. I'm not even sure I know where I got it - I used to make notes without jotting down the source. Even when I did, I sometimes couldn't read the source name, or even the notes for that matter. I once spent 3 days in the NA, and had to go back a year later to redo all my work, because of sloppiness. This goes back to my early days, before there were such things as PCs and laptops. The first computer I saw was an IBM 1400, which took up half a fair-sized room and was about a tenth as powerful as my desktop.
Have you got into the 70s yet? When I dig out the chart, I'll see if it has an attribution, and if it has any interesting differences from yours above, I'll post it.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 16, 2006 2:30:23 GMT -6
Was the 7th notably worse off than the other regiments in the field at the time? Or was it a fairly common situation?
|
|
|
Post by markland on Aug 16, 2006 9:26:33 GMT -6
"Billy: Somewhere in my notes I have a cavalry regiment organizational chart which is somewhat different than yours. I don't have it in front of me, but I'm pretty sure it was based on something post 1866. I'm not even sure I know where I got it - I used to make notes without jotting down the source. Even when I did, I sometimes couldn't read the source name, or even the notes for that matter. I once spent 3 days in the NA, and had to go back a year later to redo all my work, because of sloppiness. This goes back to my early days, before there were such things as PCs and laptops. The first computer I saw was an IBM 1400, which took up half a fair-sized room and was about a tenth as powerful as my desktop."
HK, this is scary! I was thinking when I sat down at the PC that I needed to get the 1875 organizational info posted and then voila!, your post.
I will dig it out and get it posted sometime today.
Billy
|
|