SOPO EDITOR’S NOTE: This review covers the second volume in a two-volume unit history of the 85th Pennsylvania.  While the first volume will be briefly discussed, the main focus of the review is on the second volume due to its relevance to the Richmond-Petersburg Campaign.

Clendaniel, Dan. Such Hard and Severe Service: The 85th Pennsylvania in the Civil War, Volume II, 1864-1865. (Monongahela Books, 2021). 220 pages, maps, notes, appendices, index. ISBN: 978-1-7330060-4-0 $30.00 (Paperback).

Unit histories of famous regiments abound.  But what of the men who often toiled in relative obscurity?  With Such Hard and Severe Service: The 85th Pennsylvania in the Civil War, Volume II, 1864-1865, and its companion Volume I, first time author Dan Clendaniel has done an admirable job telling the stories of the 85th Pennsylvania.  Utilizing a wide array of primary sources, over 50 from the men of the regiment alone but also many others, the author has produced a set anyone interested in Civil War unit histories will want to own.  He nicely fills in the gaps with his own history of the regiment, taking readers from their organization in southwestern Pennsylvania in October 1861 to the end of the war, with a large portion of the book dedicated to the Richmond-Petersburg Campaign.  Though the 85th Pennsylvania fought in few of the most famous battles of the war, their story is nonetheless an interesting and often times exciting one. Their efforts certainly helped the Union win the war, and they fully redeemed themselves after being unfairly maligned at Seven Pines.

Author Dan Clendaniel is a direct descendant of John Clendaniel, a member of the 85th Pennsylvania.  He first became interested in the 85th Pennsylvania in 2009 after reading ten family letters written by John and Stephen Clendaniel during the Civil War.  He has written a two-volume history of the 85th Pennsylvania, the second of which is the subject of this review.  Clendaniel blogs about the regiment at 85th Pennsylvania in the Civil War. The author “is a retired public school teacher from Prince William County, Va. He taught American history and American government in Virginia for 34 years.” The author is available for speaking engagements about the 85th Pennsylvania for interested parties as well.

In the first volume of this two-volume set, Such Hard and Severe Service: The 85th Pennsylvania in the Civil War, Volume I: 1861-1863, the author covers the 85th Pennsylvania’s formation and service in the early years of the war.  After forming in Uniontown, PA in the Fall of 1861, the 85th moved to Washington, D. C. and worked on the fortifications surrounding the city for over four months.  They were primarily stationed to the east of D.C. in Maryland.  The regiment was part of Wessell’s Brigade, Casey’s Division, Fourth Corps when they moved to the Virginia Peninsula in the Spring of 1862. They arrived later than the initial Union forces, and so missed the Siege of Yorktown.  They saw their first action in the dying moments of the Battle of Williamsburg on May 5, 1862, and moved forward towards Richmond in the following days.  It was at Seven Pines where the regiment saw its greatest losses, and greatest controversy. Silas Casey’s Division, including the 85th Pennsylvania, were left in an exposed position closest to the Confederate forces defending the Confederate capital.  The Confederates tried to take advantage at the Battle of Seven Pines/Fair Oaks, where on May 31, 1862, they struck Casey’s men and drove them back.  Union reinforcements eventually arrived and stabilized the situation after more fighting on June 1. Author Dan Clendaniel makes a sturdy case for why Casey’s Division should have been applauded for buying the Union army time, rather than scapegoated by George McClellan.  Casey’s Division was used very sparingly during the Seven Days battles in late June to early July 1862, and found themselves removed from the Army of the Potomac entirely in August and stationed in relative backwater theaters for nearly the next two years..  The 85th Pennsylvania found themselves stationed at Suffolk, Virginia in the Fall of 1863, and they participated in some skirmishes at the Blackwater River. In December of 1862 the regiment participated in an expedition to capture Goldsboro, NC, and fought in several small battles along the way, though they did not take the city. The last fighting covered in Volume 1 saw the 85th Pennsylvania moved to the siege of Charleston, SC in the summer of 1863.  There they fought alongside the famous 54th Massachusetts, and though they didn’t charge in two failed assaults on Battery Wagner, they did lead subsequent siege operations which led to its capture.

Volume II picks up where Volume I left off.  The 85th Pennsylvania was moved to Hilton Head in late 1863 and recuperated there for several months. In February 1864 they went on a small recon mission to Whitemarsh Island outside of Savannah, GA, but the Confederates there were ready for them and captured some of the Pennsylvanians in an abortive mission.  From there, the 85th Pennsylvania finally again saw service in the main Eastern Theater fighting, and they would stay there until the end at Appomattox.  In late April 1864 the unit moved to Virginia and participated in Benjamin Butler’s Bermuda Hundred Campaign in May 1864.  They were now part of the Tenth Corps, Army of the James, an attachment they would maintain until the muster out of the original veterans in November 1864.  The 85th was tasked with removing torpedoes from the James River and then saw fighting at Ware Bottom Church on May 20, 1864.

The unit continued to be stationed in the Bermuda Hundred lines at the start of the Richmond-Petersburg Campaign, seeing more fighting at Ware Bottom Church on June 16 and June 17, 1864 as the Second Battle of Petersburg raged to the south. The 85th and its brigade stayed in the lines at Bermuda Hundred until mid-August 1864. At that point they participated in the Battle of Second Deep Bottom, skirmishing on August 14-15 and then seeing major fighting at Fussell’s Mill on August 16, 1864.  Here they suffered their worse loss percentage-wise during the entire war.  September 1864 saw the 85th Pennsylvania at Fort Morton, east of Petersburg itself.  During this time their former Colonel Joshua B. Howell, now their brigade commander, perished when his horse fell on him in a tragic accident.  On September 29, 1864, the regiment was in the area of the Battle of Chaffin’s Farm north of the James River southeast of Richmond.  However, they did no real fighting. They were out on the far right flank of the Union line, and their brigade came closer to Richmond on a reconnaissance than any other Union unit did until the city’s capture the following year. A few weeks later, the 85th Pennsylvania was supposed to join a doomed attack at the October 13, 1864 Battle of Darbytown Road, but they were pulled out of the line at the last minute by their brigade commander and saved.  Their enlistments should have expired around this time, but a controversy kept them in the service. In any event, they were removed from the front lines in mid-October and sent to Portsmouth, VA to serve out the remainder of their time, a little over a month.

The original members of the regiment whose time was up left in late November 1864. Some of these men participated in a massive prisoner exchange in Georgia and South Carolina without being paid, and made it home about a month after their comrades in time for Christmas 1864. The men with time left to serve formed what was called the “Detachment, 85th Pennsylvania,” and they were attached to the 199th Pennsylvania in mid-October.  The 199th was a brand-new regiment that had been assigned to the 85th’s old brigade, so it made sense for the detachment to remain amongst friends.  Members of the 85th in this detachment would go on to serve as officers in the 199th, including Robert Hughes, who became that regiment’s Lieutenant Colonel. In this “attached” capacity, the former men of the 85th Pennsylvania participated in the Third Battle of Petersburg on April 2, 1865, and were involved in the capture of Fort Gregg west of Petersburg. They participated in the Appomattox Campaign and witnessed the surrender of Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia on April 9. These men were eventually transferred to the 188th Pennsylvania in June 1865 before being mustered out later that year.

Author Dan Clendaniel has put together two very nice volumes on the 85th Pennsylvania.  Both books are filled with first-person accounts from the men of the regiment, allowing them to speak for themselves.  At the same time, he bridges the gaps between first person accounts with the history of the regiment, showing good knowledge of the Civil War sometimes lacking in independently published unit histories. The book is filled with relevant illustrations, including events, maps of the major actions of the 85th Pennsylvania, and images of many of the men discussed in the book.

Unlike many regimental histories, this book does NOT gloss over the Richmond-Petersburg Campaign.  Good descriptions are provided of the fighting on Bermuda Hundred for June 16-18, 1864, Second Deep Bottom, Darbytown Road, and Fort Gregg. In addition, the author provides a lot of detail on the “down times” of the Siege, particularly the regiment’s time spent at Fort Morton in September 1864.  One major topic in the book which did not involve the Siege of Petersburg was the prisoner exchange of late 1864.  Roughly fifty of the men of the regiment were involved, and Clendaniel found an impressive array of sources for what was a rather obscure event. The author is one of the lucky chroniclers of Civil War regiments in that he had an original unit history to fall back on commissioned by the veterans.  That said, Clendaniel did not rely on that source too heavily, to his credit. There were quite a few typos in this volume, more than in the first volume, but I was reviewing an advance copy, and Mr. Clendaniel assures me much of this will be fixed in the final version of the book.  One other minor quibble involves his failure to clearly delineate the end of the Bermuda Hundred Campaign of May 1864 and the beginning of the Richmond-Petersburg Campaign, which began on approximately June 12, 1864 with Grant’s movement away from the Cold Harbor battlefield.  Butler’s Tenth corps was in the same location, the Bermuda Hundred lines, but the campaigns to which the fighting belonged were different.  This is only a minor quibble, however.

As mentioned earlier, Dan Clendaniel found and utilized a variety of letters, diaries and other sources to fill out his unit history and add to the historical record of this regiment.  One major source was the Captain Richard Dawson diary.  It was such a good source the author dedicated an entire chapter of the book to its contents.  That decision seemed a little odd at first. Though it caused some chronological issues, it ultimately worked in my opinion.  Dawson seems to have disliked and/or had little respect for the two longest-serving commanders of the regiment, Colonel Joshua B. Howell and Lieutenant Colonel Edward C. Campbell.  Though many disagreed with him regarding Howell, the disdain for Lieutenant Colonel Campbell seems to have been nearly universal.  Sadly, Dawson was mortally wounded at Second Fort Fisher in January 1865 and didn’t survive the war. In addition to members of the regiment, Clendaniel dug deeper and found many quality accounts from the other regiments in the 85th’s brigade, 1/1/X/AotJ.  Homer Plimpton’s reminiscences from the 39th Illinois are particularly high quality and fairly well-known amongst those who read regularly about the Siege of Petersburg. Plimpton was the tip of a rather large iceberg.

The appendices were numerous in this book and provided a lot of useful and interesting additional information.  They were a nice surprise bonus after the main text.  Appendix A gives a nice timeline of the regiment throughout the war. Appendix B lists the men from the 85th Pennsylvania whose letters, diaries and other reminiscences were used in the book.  It also lists the men from their brigade as well as all other Union and Confederate individuals whose accounts appear.  Strangely, to me, the actual type and sources are not listed at all here, and there is no bibliography, but more on that last in a minute. Appendix C gives the original company nicknames and officers for each of the ten companies in the 85th Pennsylvania.  Appendix D contains a chronological list of war deaths in the 8th, including the names and companies of those killed, along with the cause and location of death. Appendix E provides a postwar list of deaths for those men who came home after the war.  The first man died in June 1863, while the last, William Mahaney of Company C, lived to be 99 years old before passing away on April 4, 1944.  Appendix F contains a list of men who left the regiment before the expiration of their enlistment, along with the date and the reason for leaving.  Appendix G gives the names and companies of the original members of the 85th who mustered out in November 1864 after three plus years of service. Appendix H provides the names of the fifty-five officers and men who participated in the great prisoner exchange of late 1864.Appendix I lists the officers and men who reenlisted or joined after 1861 and mustered out in 1865. Last but not least, Appendix J delineates the dates and locations of every postwar reunion held by the members of the regiment, along with useful notes on each.

Although reading the book will intuitively provide you this information, a glance through the endnotes shows a wide variety of sources were used, from letters and diaries to the Official Records to period newspaper accounts and modern secondary accounts to even archival sources, the last a rarity for independently published books. The author certainly spent a LOT of time finding sources to help build on the foundation of the old unit history from the early 20th Century.  The notes are doubly important in this book, however, because it does not appear to contain a traditional bibliography, an odd omission. I double checked Volume I, and there is no bibliography there either.

The maps in a unit history are always tough to do well.  There are only a few choices: finding public domain maps (fairly easy but not generally the best quality), paying someone to create good maps (expensive and time-consuming), or attempting to create the maps yourself (time-consuming and hard to get right for units outside of your own).  Clendaniel relied heavily on the first but also utilized a few good modern maps from others, particularly Hal Jespersen’s maps of several campaigns as well as several really good maps of Bermuda Hundred by Scott Williams.  The result is a bit of a mixed bag.  You do not often see exactly where the 85th Pennsylvania was located in a given fight.  That said, this is almost always an area where I’m left wanting more in a unit history. The author appears to have made a good faith effort to provide maps of the actions in which the 85th Pennsylvania was involved, something many authors dismiss or ignore altogether.

Dan Clendaniel’s two volume history of the 85th Pennsylvania, including the second volume Such Hard and Severe Service: The 85th Pennsylvania in the Civil War, Volume II, 1864-1865, is a welcome new addition to the ranks of modern unit histories.  Clendaniel has done his ancestor’s unit a great service in bringing these men’s stories to a whole new generation of readers.  The large array of primary sources as well as the commentary in between made for an enjoyable and informative account of a regiment which saw several major battles, but mostly served in lesser-known campaigns of the Civil War. Those interested in the Peninsula Campaign and some of the more obscure operations along the Eastern Seaboard will want to own Volume I.  Those with ancestors in the regiment or an interest in its story will definitely want to own these books.  And finally, anyone interested in the Richmond-Petersburg Campaign will find plenty of detailed information in Volume II.  This was a rather well-done effort, especially given the relative obscurity of this regiment.  Unit histories on regiments from the Army of the James are AWAYS welcome, as that army has been unfairly relegated to the dustbin of history.  I’d encourage readers to buy both volumes together if you can.  They could have fit together in one giant book, but the size would have been rather unwieldy for a paperback.  The approach of splitting the effort into two volumes seems to be the correct decision.  Interested readers can find both volumes available at Lulu.com, and don’t forget to check out Dan’s blog at 85th Pennsylvania in the Civil War. If you’re still on the fence, see my permanent page for this series on the 85th Pennsylvania for more information.

An advance proof copy of this book was provided gratis for the purposes of this review.

SOPO Editor’s Note: Brigadier General Thomas L. Clingman wrote a lengthy letter covering nearly two full newspaper columns to The Daily Confederate in Raleigh, NC discussing the actions and movements of his brigade (Clingman/Hoke/DNCSV) on June 17, 1864 at the Second Battle of Petersburg. This letter is a response to a note from Colonel John T. Goode of Wise’s Brigade asking Clingman about how he had treated the soldiers and officers of that brigade.  Clingman answered these charges, and then called out Goode for having published a letter in a Richmond paper which did not give Clingman’s Brigade any credit for the defense of Petersburg on June 17. Goode had been temporarily in charge of Wise’s Brigade on June 17-18, 1864.

HEADQUARTERS, CLINGMAN’S BRIGADE
In The Trenches, June 30, 1864

COLONEL [John T. Goode]¹:-I avail myself of the first leisure moments I have, to answer your note of enquiry of yesterday’s date [June 29, 1864]. You refer to a statement of Captain Ramsey, that “General Clingman threatened even to bayonet the officers, if they would not go back and endeavor to retake the ground they had so disgracefully abandoned.[”]  You ask if this statement has “any truth” in it, and also desire me to state what I “observed during the 17th inst. [June 17, 1864], in connection with Captain [Samuel D.] Preston, of the 34th Virginia, and the officers and men of your brigade, who remained in the works.[”]²

In compliance with your request, I proceed to state succinctly the facts necessary to a proper explanation of the occurrences of that evening [of June 17, 1864], bearing on the subject of your enquiries. In doing this, however, it is necessary that I should make the statement full enough to do justice to the several parties as far as they are mentioned:

My brigade [Clingman/Hoke/DNCSV] formed the right wing of Maj[or]. Gen[eral]. [Robert F.] Hoke’s division, and immediately on my right was placed [Brigadier] Gen[eral]. [Henry A.] Wise’s brigade. I had during the day passed into a portion of its line contiguous to my own. During the afternoon one of its regiments (the 34th [Virginia], as I understand it,) passed from my left up to my right, and I believe took the position of the regiment nearest me, the latter moving further to the right. During the day, there had been several feeble demonstrations of the enemy, which had been repulsed at once; but about 6 ½ o’clock [PM] the enemy advanced in great force, partly in my front and also directly in front of the line of Gen. Wise’s brigade.—The pickets were driven in and the line began to fire, but in less than five minutes, as I think, I heard the exclamation, “our men are giving way on the right;” and on looking in that direction, I saw with the greatest astonishment, the troops running from the line of Gen. Wise’s brigade back to the rear. I could see plainly the regiments next me, and probably a portion of the second one of the [Wise’s] brigade. By the time, however, the men had run about 100 yards to the rear, I saw an officer run up, with what I took to be about one company following him, and from the trench wave his hand, seemingly calling back the fugitives. This officer I have reason to believe was Capt[ain]. Preston, who advanced up to the line somewhat, and made the effort to rally the regiment. A number did return towar[d]s the trenches; but just as they were about entering them, the enemy appeared advancing from the front, and were, I think, within a hundred yards, or rather less. I could see one of their flags and what appeared to be about one regiment coming up towards the works. Those who were getting back to the trenches, immediately fled again to the rear, while Captain Preston soon after joined my right with his company, and, as I am informed, some others, whom he induced to stand with him. These occurrences took place just before sunset. I moved my brigade somewhat to the right along the trenches, and ordered Lieut[enant]. Col[onel]. [William S.] Devane, of the 61st [North Carolina] regiment of my brigade, to take four companies to the right and rear of my line, to check if possible the movement of the enemy. They had by this time not only filled the abandoned trenches of Gen. Wise’s brigade, but had also advanced a heavy force beyond them towards the city, for a short distance. Colonel Devane subsequently informed me that Captain Preston reported to him, and after expressing his regrets for the conduct of his regiment, desired to act with the men under his command wherever he could be most serviceable. Colonel Devane assured me that he behaved with great gallantry during the entire engagement.³

I immediately afterwards carried from my left wing, half of the 51st [North Carolina] Reg[imen]’t under command of its Col[onel]. [Hector] McKethan, up to the right. They swept around from the rear, and driving back the enemy entered the trenches to the right of the line held by Col. Devane, with the assistance of Capt. Preston. This occurred a little before dark, and from that time the enemy were kept out of the trenches entirely, as far up as our line of fire extended. Col. McKethan being wounded, the command of the extreme right remained with Capt. [James W.] Lippitt, of his regiment. The enemy for a period of two hours made repeated advances in heavy force against my entire front, but especially against the right. They did not however at any time approach nearer than twenty yards of the right, commanded by Capt. Lippitt, but were always driven back by his fire in front, but chiefly by the oblique enfilading fire of my entire brigade, which could reach them as soon as they came up the hill into the field, and cut them to pieces so, that after two or three volleys they invariably broke and ran to the rear. These movements, with attacks occasionally along my whole front, were kept up until nearly 10 o’clock, when they ceased, the enemy keeping themselves back where they could be sheltered by the hill in front of the right. About the time I was able to send back a report to Maj. Gen. Hoke that the line on my right was entirely clear of the enemy, a body of men came up the trenches from my left. The officer in their front, on being hailed, told me that he had a portion of the 34th V[irgini]a., which had been rallied in the rear, and he was bringing them up to aid me. I am not sure that I remember the name he announced to me, but you, Colonel, can, if you do not already know, easily ascertain which officer it was. Being rejoiced at the arrival of the first reinforcements, and fearing that the enemy might renew their attacks, I told him he would find the trenches open on my right, and ordered him to move up at once into them. This occurred, I think, about 10 o’clock. After a portion of this regiment passed, it stopped in the trenches. It did not advance even its front to my right, but stopped one or two hundred yards short of the right of my line, and filled up the trenches so as to cause complaints from my officers. While passing up and down the rear of my line several times, I urged them to get out of the trench and move in that way to the right, assuring them that there was then little danger as I had constantly been moving myself to the rear of the trench. I induced at one time probably a dozen of the privates to get out of the ditch and move up towards the right, but the body of the detachment continued to rest in the trench so as to crowd the men of my brigade already there, in spite of all my efforts to remove them. It was then stated to me that “the men of Capt. —–‘s company were urging him t move forward, but that he would not go.” (I do not mention his name because possibly there may have been a mistake as to his conduct.) I at once said, “go and tell Capt. —–, that if he does not move on as his men desire, I will have him bayonetted in the trenches.” Soon after I was informed that the officer in charge of the regiment, though previously repeatedly urged to go forward, was still down in the ditch. I sent an officer to him with orders to say that if, in defiance of the frequent orders given or sent to him, he did not move in some direction, I would have him reported and endeavor to procure his dismissal from the service. He made however no move, but soon after this, the 24th N[orth]. C[arolina]. regiment of [Brigadier] Gen[eral]. [Matt W.] Ransom’s brigade, came up likewise from my left, and on my informing the officer in command⁴ that I wished him to move up to the right and occupy a portion of the vacant trenches, he complied at once, and with his entire command moved rapidly by the 34th V[irgini]a., and also my brigade, and took position in the trenches on my right. Having ascertained that the entire line of the trenches were filled by our troops again, I, in passing by the officer in command of the 34th V[irgini]a., stated the fact to him. Soon afterwards I was requested by a messenger from him to give him twenty-five yards space on my right to get in his men, and afterwards asked for seventy-five yards for that purpose. I sent him word that I had given orders to my regiments and companies to return to their former positions at the beginning of the action, and that whatever space might be left on my right could be occupied by his men. This occurred about midnight when all the firing had ceased.

It is proper that I should state that the expressions I frequently used during the evening were intended to stimulate the officers and men. For this purpose I used both exhortation and denunciation at times. Knowing that the safety of Petersburg and of a large part of our army depended on the enemy’s being held back, I wished to get every man in position as soon as possible. I may have been somewhat irritated at the time, too, by reports made to me that officers as well as men of the fleeing troops had endeavored to make my companies stationed to the right, retreat, by telling them that a large force of the enemy had passed to our rear, and also by reports brought from Petersburg during the progress of the battle, that Wise’s brigade had fled through the town and across it beyond the [Appomattox] river and spread consternation throughout the city. It is scarcely necessary for me to say that I have as high an appreciation of the conduct of the officers and men of Virginia generally, during this war, as of those of any other State, and that I know that good troops are sometimes seized with unaccountable panics. It should also be stated that the officers and men of Gen. Wise’s brigade that evening assured me that a regiment of South Carolinians on their right gave way before they did⁵; and others that an entire brigade gave way. I am satisfied that there was a large space vacant on the right of their position during the fight, but how it had been occupied I do not know. I was also informed by an officer of General Ransom’s brigade, that when they advanced on the works to retake them, a South Carolina regiment, the 22nd, charged with them.

I regret that, to do justice to all mentioned, I have been compelled to make so long a statement.

And now, Colonel [John T. Goode of the 34th Virginia, who had commanded Wise’s Brigade on the evening in question], having answered your enquiries, you must allow me to say, that I read with great astonishment a communication over your name in the Richmond Enquirer, dated June 29th [1864], in which, utterly ignoring the presence of my brigade, you claim for your own and Ransom’s, all the credit of the repulse of the enemy on that day, and the holding of the works. As your brigade left the works before sunset, and as Gen. Ransom’s did not advance up to them until about 11 o’clock, did it not occur to you that some troops wee engaged during these four hours? The crash of the musketry was so heavy that everybody in Petersburg seems to have been aware that an engagement of a serious character was going on. It was stated even in the newspapers of the next morning, that “Hoke’s division stood like a wall of adamant,” &C., to protect the city.—But it should be stated that my brigade was the only portion of Gen. Hoke’s division engaged that evening. [Brigadier] Gen[eral]. [James G.] Martin states, that his brigade, the next to mine, was not engaged, while the other brigades were still farther from the battle. That resistance which for four long hours held back what is, I think, ascertained to have been two army corps of the enemy, was made alone by my brigade, aided by Capt. Preston’s small command. The frequent shouts to cause the enemy to believe reinforcements were coming in, and the rapid and well aimed volleys which repulsed their repeated attacks, kept the space on my right vacant. They might have passed farther to the right beyond the reach of our fire, but seem to have been afraid to leave an obstinate force in their rear.

I have thus Colonel, while in the trench of my brigade, under the enemy’s fire, written a hurried, but I hope accurate statement of the facts within my knowledge, necessary to a proper response to your enquiries. As I have used a pencil to write with, I must send this to the rear to have a legible copy made.

Very respectfully, yours, &c.,

T[homas] L. Clingman, Brig[adier]. Gen[eral].

Col[onel]. J[ohn]. T. Goode, Comm[an]d’[in]g. Wise’s Brigade.⁶

SOPO Editor’s Note: This article was transcribed by Brett Schulte.

If you are interested in helping us transcribe newspaper articles like the one above, please CONTACT US.

Article Image

Source/Notes:

OR XL P1 (Broadfoot Sup.) #43: Letter of Brigadier General Thomas L. Clingman, commanding Clingman/Hoke/DNCSV, June 17, 1864¹

SOPO Editor’s Note: The Broadfoot Supplement to the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies is rare and not sold in single volumes.  As a courtesy to researchers, I’m making available summaries of the reports contained in this set relevant to the Siege of Petersburg.

Summary: Brigadier General Thomas L. Clingman wrote a lengthy letter covering nearly two full newspaper columns to The Daily Confederate in Raleigh, NC discussing the actions and movements of his brigade (Clingman/Hoke/DNCSV) on June 17, 1864 at the Second Battle of Petersburg. This five-page letter is a response to a note from Colonel John T. Goode of Wise’s Brigade asking Clingman about how he had treated the soldiers and officers of that brigade.  Clingman answered these charges, and then called out Goode for having published a letter in a Richmond paper which did not give Clingman’s Brigade any credit for the defense of Petersburg on June 17.

Source: July 18, 1864 The Daily Confederate (Raleigh, NC), page 2, columns 3-4

Available Online?: Yes. This article is published on my site.

Source:

OR XL P1 (Broadfoot Sup.) #42: Report of Major General Robert F. Hoke, commanding Hoke/DNCSV, July 30, 1864¹

SOPO Editor’s Note: The Broadfoot Supplement to the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies is rare and not sold in single volumes.  As a courtesy to researchers, I’m making available summaries of the reports contained in this set relevant to the Siege of Petersburg.

Summary: Major General Robert F. Hoke, commanding a division in the Department of North Carolina and Southern Virginia, gives his one-page report on the July 30, 1864 Battle of the Crater.  Hoke’s Division was holding the far left of the Confederate lines around Petersburg.  The Crater explosion happened to his right on the lines of Bushrod Johnson’s Division.

Source: Copy in possession of Janet B. Hewett, Wilmington, North Carolina. If you know Ms. Hewett, or the current owner of this report, please CONTACT US.  We would like to publish it in its entirety here.

Available Online?: No.

Source:

Unit: 85th Pennsylvania

Unit Affiliation: (1), 1, X

Titles:

• Such Hard and Severe Service: The 85th Pennsylvania in the Civil War, Volume 1: 1861-1863
• Such Hard and Severe Service: The 85th Pennsylvania in the Civil War, Volume 2: 1864-1865

Author: Dan Clendaniel

SOPO’s Take: This is one of the more unique book pages I’ve done here.  Author Dan Clendaniel has produced a really nice two volume look at the 85th Pennsylvania.  While the first volume contains no Petersburg material, I wanted to highlight both books as a set for those interested in this regiment.

I’ve always had a certain sympathy for those unfortunate Union regiments which found themselves in Silas Casey’s Division during the Peninsula Campaign.  George McClellan hung them out to dry at Seven Pines on the last day of May 1862, and then scapegoated them in the aftermath.  From that point forward, they were persona non grata, and McClellan kept them far away from any important fighting during the Seven Days.  Following this campaign, they were purged from the Army of the Potomac entirely.

The 85th Pennsylvania was one such regiment. It was formed in late 1861 in Uniontown, PA.  The men hailed from the southwestern corner of the state.  After building forts on the east side of Washington, D.C. for several months, they found themselves in the aforementioned Casey’s Division, headed for the Virginia, Peninsula.  The 85th PA was in the rear at Yorktown, and only just came up as the fighting was ending at Williamsburg.  They saw their first real combat at the Battle of Seven Pines and it was a devastating blow.  Author Dan Clendaniel offers up a compelling defense of the men and Casey’s larger organization.  They were also involved in the Seven Days and the retreat to Harrison’s landing.  Here their war took a hard left turn when compared to most of the regiments involved in the Peninsula Campaign.  As has been said, McClellan scapegoated Casey’s Division, and they were removed from the AotP and sent to North Carolina for the remainder of 1862, where they were involved in the Kingston Expedition.  They moved to the Charleston area and participated in the Siege of Charleston on Morris Island for most of 1863.  Here the Pennsylvanians were held in readiness to assault Fort Wagner not once but twice, though ultimately they were not sent in after the initial assaults failed. In December 1863, they were then moved to Hilton Head, SC and stayed there until April 1864.

Now we get to the portion of the story we enjoy most on this site: Bermuda Hundred and Petersburg. The 85th Pennsylvania was part of the 10th Corps, Army of the James during these campaigns until mustering out in November 1864. Although not a part of the Army of the Potomac, which they had left in August 1862, they fought alongside that famous unit in these final battles against the Army of Northern Virginia.  The 85th Pennsylvania was at Port Walthal Junction and in the Battle of Ware Bottom Church during the Bermuda Hundred Campaign.  They saw major action at Second Deep Bottom, Chaffin’s Farm, and Darbytown Road during the Richmond-Petersburg Campaign. Members of the regiment whose time had not yet expired when the organization’s veterans mustered out went on to serve at Fort Gregg and in the Appomattox Campaign.

Dan Clendaniel has produced a really well done two volume set, independently published and chock full of first person accounts.  The author seems to know the Civil War well, unlike some other independently published authors I’ve encountered in the past.  And this unit features in some really interesting smaller campaigns of the war.  The maps are not new, being recycled from materials the author was able to find.  But he does sometimes indicate where the 85th Pennsylvania was located, and some of the maps he was able to obtain permission to use are really very good. Ware Bottom Church is an especially good example of the latter.

Book Summary/Review:

• Book Review: Such Hard and Severe Service: The 85th Pennsylvania in the Civil War, Volume II, 1864-1865 by Dan Clendaniel

SOPO Siege of Petersburg Book Notes:

Publisher: Monongahela Books

Publisher Info:

Vol. 1: The story of the 85th Pennsylvania Volunteers during the Civil War began with being shamed at Seven Pines to ultimately playing a key role in Lee’s surrender at Appomattox. In between, there was disease, adventure in North Carolina, bombardment around Charleston, and missed opportunities between Richmond and Petersburg. This work, filled with primary source quotations from the participants, chronicles the will and determination of a Union regiment that hailed from the area of southwestern Pennsylvania made famous two generations earlier by the Whiskey Rebellion, a challenge to federal authority seventy years before Fort Sumter.

This, the first of three projected volumes, covers the years 1861 to 1863. Volume Two will cover 1864 to 1865, and Volume Three will contain biographies of both officers and soldiers.

Extensively illustrated throughout with period photographs and drawings, as well as eighteen maps, timeline, and detailed footnotes.

Vol. 2: Volume I of this history of the 85th Pennsylvania Infantry ended with the regiment recovering from their arduous duties in South Carolina on Morris Island during the siege of Charleston and Fort Sumter in 1863. The 85th PA had fought at Seven Pines, Virginia and during the Goldsboro Expedition in North Carolina in 1862. By the time Volume II begins in early 1864, 177 soldiers had died from battlefield wounds or diseases; another 337 men had been dismissed from the regiment, mostly for medical reasons. Colonel Joshua B. Howell is recovering from a severe concussion and Lt. Colonel Henry A. Purviance has been killed.

~~~ Volume II begins with the regiment enjoying a brief break from their strenuous duties. The regiment conducted a one-day operation to Whitemarsh Island near Savannah in early 1864. They are soon stationed in the Bermuda Hundred peninsula of Virginia where they fought two battles before being sent across the James River towards Richmond to fight the Battle of Second Deep Bottom. Most of the regiment went home in late 1864 but about 150 stayed for epic confrontations at Fort Gregg near Petersburg and then played a vital role in Lee’s surrender at Appomattox. Volume II also explores the diary of Captain Richard Dawson, and follows several dozen men from the regiment who performed guard duty on a large-scale prisoner exchange. The final chapter recounts the decades after the war in which the regiment held over 50 annual reunions throughout southwestern Pennsylvania.

Publication Date: 2019 (Vol. 1) and 2021 (Vol. 2)

ISBN-13: 978-1-73300-604-0 (Vol. 1) and 978-1-73300-604-0 (Vol. 2)

Links to Read/Buy:

1. Such Hard and Severe Service: The 85th Pennsylvania in the Civil War, Volume 1: 1861-1863 (Lulu.com)
2. Such Hard and Severe Service: The 85th Pennsylvania in the Civil War, Volume 2: 1864-1865 (Lulu.com)

OR XL P1 (Broadfoot Sup.) #41: Report of Major Jackson L. Bost, 37th NC, June 22, 1864¹

SOPO Editor’s Note: The Broadfoot Supplement to the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies is rare and not sold in single volumes.  As a courtesy to researchers, I’m making available summaries of the reports contained in this set relevant to the Siege of Petersburg.

Summary: In this brief less than one-page report Major Jackson L. Bost of the 37th North Carolina covers his regiment’s movements and actions at the June 22, 1864 Battle of Jerusalem Plank Road.  Bost also gives a list of his few casualties incurred during the battle.

Source: James Henry Lane Papers, Auburn University

Available Online?: Yes.  Available both on my site as an unpublished report as well as at the James Henry Lane Papers.

Source:

OR XL P1 (Broadfoot Sup.) #40: Report of Captain William J. Callais, 33rd NC, July 28, 1864¹

SOPO Editor’s Note: The Broadfoot Supplement to the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies is rare and not sold in single volumes.  As a courtesy to researchers, I’m making available summaries of the reports contained in this set relevant to the Siege of Petersburg.

Summary: In this slightly more than one-page report, Captain William J. Callais of the 33rd North Carolina blames the 28th North Carolina and 37th North Carolina for failing to defend his right flank during the July 28, 1864 First Battle of Deep Bottom.  The 33rd North Carolina was part of Lane’s Brigade, Wilcox’s Division, Third Corps, Army of Northern Virginia.

Source: James Henry Lane Papers, Auburn University

Available Online?: Yes.  Available both on my site as an unpublished report as well as at the James Henry Lane Papers.

Source:

Many regular readers will recall the name Nigel Lambert.  Nigel, a biochemist by day, and has grown increasingly fascinated by the Battle of Hatcher’s Run, February 5-7, 1865, at the Siege of Petersburg.   He created a fascinating five part series here at the Siege of Petersburg Online last year which looked at exactly which Confederate units were involved in the battle:

Nigel Lambert’s Hatcher’s Run Series:

• Rebel Units and their Commanders at the Battle of Hatcher’s Run: February 5-7, 1865
• Rebel Units and Commanders at the Battle of Hatcher’s Run: Confederate Second Corps
• Rebel Units and Commanders at the Battle of Hatcher’s Run: Confederate Third Corps
• Rebel Units and Commanders at the Battle of Hatcher’s Run: Confederate Cavalry
• Rebel Units and Commanders at the Battle of Hatcher’s Run: Epilogue and Order of Battle

The best part?  He hasn’t stopped there.  I’d like to point readers to the latest issue of North & South Magazine (Series II, Volume 2, No. 5).  Nigel has written a new article covering the Battle of Hatcher’s Run from conception to battle to results.  The last article I can recall of this nature was written by the late, great Art Bergeron quite some time ago.  The Battle of Hatcher’s Run is mostly understood from the Federal perspective, because almost all of the existing official documents come from that side.  To get at the Confederate perspective is much more difficult. The battle contains a lot of first person accounts with conflicting narratives of what happened on the Confederate side, and Nigel covers many of these in the actual article.  Dr. Lambert’s in depth and thorough research has allowed a more accurate outline of exactly what happened at the battle to emerge. Even more importantly, it is a concise recounting of events, of the what, how, and why things happened the way they did over three days of battle.

I spoke with Nigel about the key points of his article, and he wanted to share the following:

1) Highlights conflicts and contradictions in modern accounts of the battle and attempts to address them.
2) Highlights the mystery surrounding the actions of the Rebel Cavalry
3) Highlights the problems surrounding the movements of Pegram and his brigade on the 2nd day and proposes a solution.
4) A revised Order of Battle
5) 5 new colorful maps to illustrate the action

The article appears on pp. 35-46.

Nigel has a thread up at Civil War Talk Civil War forums.  Go get the issue, read the article, and give him your feedback! Or leave a question in the comments below and I’ll make sure Nigel sees it.

OR XL P1 (Broadfoot Sup.) #39: Report of Major Jackson L. Bost, 37th NC, July 28, 1864¹

SOPO Editor’s Note: The Broadfoot Supplement to the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies is rare and not sold in single volumes.  As a courtesy to researchers, I’m making available summaries of the reports contained in this set relevant to the Siege of Petersburg.

Summary: In this exceedingly frank and honest one-and-a-half-page report, Major Jackson L. Bost of the 37th North Carolina goes over what seems like a lot of confusion in his regiment during the July 28, 1864 First Battle of Deep Bottom.  Bost explains why he believes the regiment had such a tough time and he also reports his casualties in the engagement.  The 37th North Carolina was part of Lane’s Brigade, Wilcox’s Division, Third Corps, Army of Northern Virginia.

Source: James Henry Lane Papers, Auburn University

Available Online?: Yes.  Available both on my site as an unpublished report as well as at the James Henry Lane Papers.

Source: