Return Fire Colonel Irwin’s Conduct

RETURN FIRE

ANTIETAM IMAGE

Nice article in the February issue about the image of dead Union soldiers at Antietam! I decided to go and check it out for myself, and I agree with you. It seems likely those men belonged to the 20th New York.

Kevin Pawlak

Antietam Battlefield Guide

Manassas, Va.

Martin Pritchett’s “Irwin’s Brigade at Antietam” (February 2022) overlooks Colonel William H. Irwin’s serious misconduct at Antietam. When Irwin ordered Major Thomas W. Hyde’s 7th Maine Infantry to make an attack requiring at least a brigade, Hyde realized the order came “from an inspiration of John Barleycorn in our brigade commander alone.” Hyde obeyed and his regiment was ambushed and only by leadership that earned him a Medal of Honor did he save at least half his men; “I wished I had been old enough, or distinguished enough, to have dared to disobey orders.” A week after the battle, Hyde wrote home, “The Colonel who ordered us in has been severely censured and may lose his commission,” but Irwin, sobered up, and apparently talked his way out of that.

Stephen W. Sears

Norwalk, Conn.

Irwin Author Martin Pritchett replies: During my research for Brigades of Antietam I noticed there were variations to Thomas Hyde’s issues with Irwin, probably due to the passage of time eroding his memory. Given the opportunity to comment on the clash between Hyde and William Irwin, I could not throw shade on an officer’s legacy based on hearsay or innuendo. The charges against Irwin were dismissed, and he was breveted later in the war. There is no proof he drunkenly conjured up the 7th Maine’s attack, which was to support Emory Upton’s artillery that was under fire from Confederate sharpshooters. Hyde’s memoir, Following the Greek Cross, written 32 years after the battle, should be examined against his official report written two days after the battle. In that report, Hyde makes no mention of Irwin’s drinking. Hyde and the 7th deserve all the glory attributed to them, but they were one of many regiments or brigades dashed against unknown odds at Antietam.

Editor’s note: We regret misspelling author Martin Pritchett’s last name as “Prichett” in the February 2022 issue.

Marx

WHY MARX?

Of all the historical figures that have been why would you stoop so low as to point out that Karl Marx was a lover of Lincoln? Why would a man who authored the political ideology that brought about the brutal death of tens if not hundreds of millions disgrace the pages of Civil War Times? Was it because he was instrumental in the abolition of slavery or, worse, because it’s an effort on your part to present his ideology in a more favorable light? In my view you cannot help yourselves.

Rick Huff

Sykesville, Md.

Editor’s note: We objectively pointed out that Marx had an interest in the American Civil War and Lincoln, an intriguing bit of history. To claim those few sentences illustrate some sort of ideology on our part is overreach.

PATHBREAKING SURGEON

I was very surprised when reading the excellent article on Dr. Alexander Augusta in the February issue to see modern political rhetoric weave its way into the narrative. I do not deny that there has always been racism throughout the ages and that unfortunately it exists even today.

But I think that it was inappropriate for Mr. Williams to write, “similar indignities followed, all of them constant reminders of the country’s systemic racism” (italics added) in a publication like yours. That is advocating a current political thought into a historical narrative. I greatly enjoy your magazine’s articles. However, I am surprised that you allowed current racial politics onto your pages.

Steve Williams

Prescott Valley, Ariz.

Author Michael Williams responds: I’m pleased that Mr. Williams enjoyed the article, but there are subtle but critical differences in contextual interpretation when it comes to the Civil War.

The use of the term “racism” when referring to the 19th century is accurate. Like the Speed of Light, the definitions of such words are constants. Regardless of the time period, they do not change. Racism is any decision, institutional or otherwise,

USAHEC; IAANDAGNALL COMPUTING/ALAMY STOCK PHOTO LIBRARY OF CONGRESS (2); THE CIVIL WAR IN TENNESSEE COLLECTION; COURTESY OF DON TROIANI/BRIDGEMAN IMAGES

USAHEC; IAANDAGNALL COMPUTING/ALAMY STOCK PHOTO LIBRARY OF CONGRESS (2); THE CIVIL WAR IN TENNESSEE COLLECTION; COURTESY OF DON TROIANI/BRIDGEMAN IMAGES that is made based on race. This goes for White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian. In short, racism is racism in 1862 or 2022.

Under no circumstances, however, should we confuse the use of unchanging definitions like that of “racism” with the dismantling of statues, the removal of names from schools, and other attempts to erase the past. They are examples of imposing 21st-century standards on individuals who were products of a different era.

TENNESSEE COUNTY

“Three for the USCT” in the February 2022 Miscellany section incorrectly stated that the city of Franklin, Tenn., my hometown, was part of “Franklin County.” Franklin is the county seat of Williamson County.

You correctly noted that no USCT troops took part in the Battle of Franklin (November 30, 1864), but they played a prominent role two weeks later in the decisive Battle of Nashville which effectively destroyed the Confederate Army of Tennessee. Huzzah for this long overdue recognition!

Patrick Bray

Shaker Heights, Ohio

ARMAMENT THOUGHTS

In the February 2022 “Armament,” the carved Minié bullet at the lower left is described as having a “classical motif.” I humbly suggest that perhaps it is a simple, albeit incomplete, rendition of the Georgia state seal. Who knows? Perhaps the “RGA” inscribed on it is

ONLINE POLL

28.1 71.9

The Results Are In! Our recent Facebook poll asked which event was a bigger turning point in the war. The 1862 Battle of Antietam or the 1863 surrender of Vicksburg?

Respondents left no doubt that they believe the capitulation of Vicksburg to General Ulysses S. Grant was the more notable event.

Our next poll goes online February 24.

for Rome, Ga., or the initials of a Georgia soldier. Just a thought.

Stuart McClung

Hagerstown, Md.

Enjoyable reading in the December 2021 “Armament” on the genesis of flintlock muskets converted over the years for use with percussion caps. I had never really thought of the military saving the older muskets, and turning them into “state of the art” weapons.

Thank you for this well-done article to explain how this was accomplished.

In a previous “Armament,” your emphasis on the importance of the soldier’s ammo pouches was extremely motivating for me to acquire a Confederate pouch to add to my collection.

Keep up the good work ! Can’t wait till the next issue!

Dennis Church

Durham, N.C.

WORTH A MOVE

A photo of the Ellen Glasgow house in Richmond, Va., appeared in the October 2021 “Worth a Move.” While originally built in 1841 for manufacturer David Branch, the house was subsequently owned by Isaac Davenport who perished in the 1865 evacuation fire. Davenport’s nephew, also named Isaac Davenport, was the co-founder in 1863 with Charles Wortham of the investment banking firm that became Davenport & Company, LLC in Richmond. The firm has remained in continuous operation since its founding and Wortham’s great-greatnephew is the chairman of the board. I worked for the company for 17 years.

Sam Ketterman

Timonium, Md.

WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU! e-mail us at cwtletters@historynet.com or send letters to Civil War Times, 901 North Glebe Rd., 5th Floor, Arlington, VA 22203