How Artillerists Rated Pelham
Many of us have read the numerous compliments about John Pelham made by Robert E. Lee, J.E.B. Stuart, W. W. Blackford, and John Esten Cooke, among others. As eminent as these men were, they were not artillerists. How did Pelham's comrades in the "long arm" view him?
The artillerists of the Army of Northern Virginia were an individualistic, ambitious group of men; they were talented, proficient and knowledgeable of their deadly craft. Proud of their reputations, they were eager to make their mark in the war. How did John Pelham measure up?
Edward Porter Alexander was probably Lee's most renowned artillerist. Technically proficient and boldly experimental, he essentially was Lee's Chief of Artillery (although William N. Pendleton retained the title). At one time, Pelham was considered for Alexander's job. The two men had met at West Point, where Alexander was for a time Pelham's mathematics instructor. Personally fond of Pelham, Alexander nevertheless had harsh words for his performance at Evelington Heights. Following the battle of Malvern Hill, McClellan's army was encamped in the vicinity of Berkeley and Westover plantations. On the night of July 2, 1862, Pelham and a few others were sent to scout the area. PeIham discovered that night a ridge called Evelington Heights to unoccupied by the Federals. A commanding ridge, the Confederates could do much to destroy McClellan's army if they possessed it. The next day, however, Pelham was ordered by Stuart to open up fire with one howitzer on the Yankees below before reinforcements could come up. The firing alerted the Federals to the existence of the hill and they easily threw Stuart off. Alexander criticizes Pelham for this, yet most critics rightly feel that Stuart should bear the blame. If Pelham protested this order to Stuart or not is a matter for conjecture.
William T. Poague of the Rockbridge Artillery in his memoirs mentions his first meeting with Pelham. It was at the battle of First Manassas and the Confederate artillery had been forced to withdraw from ridge to ridge. Finally a young lieutenant wheeled his guns into battery and exclaimed, "I'll be dogged if I'm going any further back." It was Pelham. At Antietam, when Pelham had been ordered to see if McClellan's right flank could be turned, he deliberately exposed his guns -- one which belonged to Poague -- to a devestating fire. One can sense the barely concealed sarcasm in Poague's official report: "Along with six or eight other guns, under the direction of Major Pelham, an attempt was made to dislodge the enemy's batteries, but failed completely, being silenced in fifteen or twenty minutes by a most terrific fire from a number of the enemy's batteries." Pelham obviously did not confide into Poague or anyone else the object of his mission that day. Later in his memoirs, Poague admits he judged Pelham too harshly and added, "I suppose Pelham knew what he was sent there for." As for Poague, Pelham greatly admired him and his men. He came up to watch Poague's counter fire late in the day during the Battle of Fredericksburg, and he was so impressed to say, "Well, you men stand killing better than any I ever saw!" A compliment, however dubious, indeed.
Of great interest are the words of Pelham's own subordinates in the horse artillery. P.P. Johnston, the last commander of Pelham's old battery in 1864, wrote a letter full of praise for Pelham to Edwin P. Cox in 1898. Pelham, he 'said, was "the intimate" of Lee and Jackson, whom avidly sought and followed his advice in battle.'
H. H. Matthews served both under Pelham and Breathed, and in a letter to Colonel A. Berkley on April 10, 1908, makes a surprising comparison between Pelham and Breathed: "As you say in your letter, 'No one ever tires of praising Pelham' and I add Breathed. They were both fearless and courageous to a very high degree. Pelham was dashing and, at the same time, cautious. Breathed was reckless and not at all cautious -- would take his battery in places that would make your hair stand on end, depending on the bull dog fighting qualities of his men to bring him out safely .. Breathed was a military genius in the handling of Horse Artillery -- as was also Pelham." Statements like this make it obvious that we do not know enough about James Breathed.
Pelham's greatest feat which brought him fame at the Battle of Fredericksburg was due in no small part to his old West Point classmate, Matthias Winston Henry. It was Henry's section he took with him at the intersection of the Richmond and Massaponax Roads that day. Pelham later told John Cheves Haskell that it was only Henry's tenacity that led him to stay out so long in such an exposed position. It is obvious that Pelham's subordinates had much to do with success and his vice-versa.
Perhaps the most damning criticism of John Pelham comes from a South Carolina artillerist, John Cheves Haskell. Haskell's comments are worthy of some lengthy examination:
"He [Pelham] early distinguished himself by fighting close and hard, but he was not a good organizer and disciplinarian, and seldom had his command in good condition. If he had been confined for his supply of horses to those drawn through the quartermaster's department, he would have been scarcely ever able to transport half his guns. But moving constantly with the cavalry and always at the front, his command picked up fresh horses and equipment, which never passed through the hands of the department.
"Even with his extra supply, he was often unable to move all his guns when he wanted, but his rule was to go ahead when fighting was to be done and to wait for no stragglers ... "
If true, these are very serious shortcomings. Haskell is the only person to say that Pelham was not a good disciplinarian, which contradicts everything Mercer and Milham says.
Was he a poor organizer? The mammoth undertaking of organizing the horse artillery in 1861 seems to refute this; however, it does appear that the organization of the horse artillery was weak. On paper, Pelham commanded five batteries, yet seldom do we read of them all together on one field. However, this may be a result of the organization of the artillery in 1862. It was the custom in the army for each brigade to have its own artillery and in battle a battery was really just an appendage to the infantry arm. To ask any battery to fight with some other unit was considered to be an insult to both battery and unit. There was reserve artillery, but this defect in organization obviously made it virtually impossible to employ artillery en masse. Lee and Pendleton recognized this defect and in late 1862 reorganized the artillery into battalions which fought with corps. The fruits of this reorganization were to be noticed and acclaimed at Chancellorsville. It is interesting to note that Pelham's horse artillery seems to have had the same experience as the other artillery. Thus, a careful study would show that Hart's South Carolina battery (while technically under Pelham) most frequently fought with Wade Hampton's brigade. No wonder, it was originally part of Hampton's Legion. Chew's battery seems to have more often than not accompanied Fitz Lee's brigade. I would argue that the apparent weakness in organization of the horse artillery was one shared by all the artillery.
Administratively speaking, Pelham does seem to have been rather weak. There are few of his reports in the Official Records, for example, and these reports do not satisfy -- they are poorly written and are not very informative. However, Jeb Stuart himself often got behind in his paperwork -- the report on the "Ten Days" battles fought in October and November 1862 wasn't written until 1864. Active campaigning may have been an excuse, but perhaps Pelham detested paperwork. In this he surely was not alone.
Haskell's last point that Pelham picked up horses from Stuart's many raids, and didn't send them through the quartermaster, barely conceals his envy. Horse artillery by its very nature used up horses to an alarming degree and, of course, Pelham had every right to commandeer horses as he moved with the cavalry. How else was he to keep up? For all his criticism of Pelham, even Haskell has to admit that Pelham "was the first who ever demonstrated that artillery could and should be fought on the musketry line of battle;" and the men trained by him were aggressive, "dashing and effective fighters."
Unfortunately, I have never read any comments about Pelham from William J. Pegram. "Willie" Pegram next to Pelham is the darling of the romantics. He appears to have been different from Pelham in many respects. Pelham was dashing; Pegram was awkward. Pelham was a natural and graceful horseman; Pegram could barely stay in the saddle, let alone identify his horse. Pelham was a West Pointer; Pegram had only a brief stint in the local militia before the war. Yet both were great fighters, and both died young.
Doubtless many of Pelham's peers had occasion to envy him and rue his successes. This was only natural among such competitive spirits. Had Pelham been egotistical or if his modesty was false, doubtless his critics would have given vent to such feelings. But Pelham's skill and winning personality made his comrades, from commanding general to lowly private, remember him with affection and respect. "Under his eyes," wrote P. P. Johnston, "with his example, men who had merely been good soldiers became great heroes equal to the highest achievement..."
Certainly in the Army of Northern Virginia, there were many artillerists as skillful and competent as Pelham. Many had their moment of glory, too. Tactically, it is easy to place limits on what Pelham achieved; however, as Jennings C. Wise wrote, "it is impossible to define the extent of his moral ascendancy." Influence, effectiveness and competence -- is that not leadership?
This article first appeared in Volume 4, No. 4 of The Cannoneer.
Sources:
Letter of P.P. Johnston to Edwin P. Cox, December 2, 1898, Virginia Historical
Society.
Letter of H.H. Matthews to Col. A. Berkley, April 10, 1905, Ibid.
E.P. Alexander, Memoirs of a Confederate.
Jennings C. Wise, The Long Arm of Lee, Vol. I.
Gilbert E. Govan and James W. Livingood, eds., The Haskell Memoirs,
G.P. Putnam's Sons, N.Y., 1960, pp. 82-83.
Douglas Southall Freeman, Lee's Lieutenants, Vol. II.
William T. Poague, Gunner with Stonewall.
