The Confederate Roll of Honor: No Publisher’s note: Last month Steve Davis reported on a Confederate Medal of Honor recently bestowed upon Col. Hume R. Feild of Tennessee. The Medal was created by the Sons of Confederate Veterans in 1968. To offer historical background, Dr. Davis has contributed this piece.
If you mention “Medal of Honor” to Civil War enthusiasts, they will immediately think of th “Congressional” Medal of Honor created during the war by the U.S. government to honor Union soldiers for conspicuous bravery. The United States Medal of Honor, a five-pointed bronze star suspended by a ribbon of red and white, was first bestowed upon Pvt. Jacob Parrott of the 33rd Ohio Infantry in March 1863 for his role in the Andrews railroad raid of April 1862.1 But did the Confederate government during the Civil War have a medal of honor for its cou rageous soldiers? No, it didn’t, but this was not because the administration of Jefferson Davis did not at least try to create on In the end, unable to manufacture actual medals or badges of honor, the Confederate War Department created and publicized in the las half of the war a “Confederate Roll of Honor.” Its story is less familiar than that of its Norther counterpart. The idea for some kind of award for Southern soldiers’ distinguished bravery came from a Confederate congressman, Rep. Charles Conrad of Louisiana in the spring of 1862.2 On April 10, as telegraphic reports of Beauregard’s “complete victory” at Shiloh reached the capital at Richmond, Conrad introduced into the House a resolution under the title of “Badges of Merit,” authorizing the president “to bestow on the officers and soldiers of the army, and officer and soldiers [sic] of the navy, a a reward of gallantry, some badge or token of military distinction. The measure readily passed.3 Word spread of the congressio nal resolution, to the point that ex-Confederate infantryman (recently discharged from service), one Francis La Barre, submitted to the War Department designs for “medals of honor.” (Michael Musick of the National Archives has counted fifteen medal designs eventually received by the Confederate War Department.) Secretary of War George W. Randolph thanked La Barre, but speculated that the shortage of bronze in the Southern States would impede actual production of any such medal. Still,
e a medal or a badge, but… Randolph liked the idea of emblems for heroes. As he wrote the president in mid-August 1862, “I think that medals conferred as reward for good conduct in the field cultivate the spirit which distinguishes the patriot soldier from the mercenary.” Within a week or two, further bills calling for “medals as a reward for courage and good conduct on the field of battle” were introduced both houses of the Confederate Congress. After making its slow way through committee, a bill “to grant medals and badges for distinguished services on the bat tlefield” passed the House and Senate on October 13, 1862. President Davis signed it that very day.4 Five weeks later Adjutant and Inspector General of the Confederate Army Samue Cooper issued from his office in Richmond a general order containing the text of the law. It h several provisions. Officers who were “conspicuous for courage and good conduct on the field of battle” could be recommended by superiors and could be awarded “medals, with proper devices.” But the heart of the measure addressed those of lesser rank. Aft a “signal victory,” each participating company could vote for one private or non-commissioned officer “best entitled to receive such distinction.” Company officers would communicate the honorees’ names through channels to the president, who would see that “a badge of distinction” be given to the designated soldie (or to his widow). Word of the Confederate “badge of distinction” spread quickly through the Southern forces. The Army of Tennessee was quite eager to submit honorees. After the battle of Murfreesboro, even though it did not quite qualify for the South a a “signal victory,” companies in 44 infantry and cavalry regiments from ten states voted and submitted names of comrades to be honored (although some units declined to participate). All told, impressive 502 soldiers’ names were submitted for courage displayed in the Tennessee battle of December 1862-January ‘63.5 Fredericksburg much more certainly qualified as a “signal victory,” but there is evidence that afterward General Lee did not promote the idea of his men voting for heroic comrades, and the eventual Roll lists no names from Fredericksburg. Indeed, Lee seems to have opposed the entire award process. When one of his officers a month after the battle proposed that a “battalion of
honor” be formed in the Army of Northern Virginia, Lee batted th idea down. “The fact is, general he wrote Brig. Gen. Joseph B. Kershaw, “we have now an army of brave men.” Lee explained his belief that “the formation of a battalion of honor would reward a few and leave many, equally brave and equally faithful, unno ticed,” and might even create il feeling among the troops. Even though Congress had passed a law creating the medal of honor and General Cooper had publicized it, Lee issued no genera order for his troops to participate in the process of submitting comrades’ name to the War Department.6
Lee had a point. How were companies to choose only one soldier among themselves, when all did their courageous duty on the battlefield? A few weeks after Chancellorsville, when Lee’s troops were abiding by General Cooper’s order and were voting for their honorees, Company F, 12th Alabama, hit a snag: the men cast twelve votes each for two comrades. They resolved the tie with a drawing of lots. By this serendipity was Pvt. P. Chapell was chosen to be awarded the “Badge of Honor.” The process worked better in other units; participating companies and regiments sent almost 300 names from Chancellorsville to General Lee for forwarding to th government. Still, not every soldier liked program. After Chancellorsville, the 3rd Alabama chose five honorees, but half of the regime declined to participate in the voting. As Brig. Gen. Cullen Battle later wrote, “where every man did his duty there should be no discrimination.” The Third Alabama never submitted another name.7 The main problem, though, was that there were still no “Badges
of Honor” to be bestowed. General Lee himself complained about this in a letter to Secret of War Seddon on August 17, 1863. He had dutifully complied with the law and had sent in the names of his soldiers so selecte “but nothing has yet been heard from them.” “I know there will be some difficulty about procuring the necessary badges,” he acknowledged, but some of his men had begun to feel neglected. He offered a temporary expedient: “might not their names be published at once, and the badges sent as soon as they can be procured?”8 Lee’s idea made sense. A few months earlier Rep. Joseph B. Heiskell of Tennessee, aware tha procurement or production of badges or medals was stalled, of fered a resolution suggesting th at least “certificates of title” given to the honorees, which the could present to the authorities when the badges had finally been made. At least the soldiers woul have something, Heiskell reasoned. But even this resolution went nowhere. As late as May 1864, Representative Heiskell was introducing motions into the House asking the body’s Military Committee to report on any progress in the making of medals. He offered to submit more bills if necessary. None was needed; the
process had reached a standstil The secretary of war was in a bind. After Lee asked him in August ’63 where the badges were, Seddon requested Maj. William S. Barton to look into the matter. Barton turned immediately to a Richmond stamp engraver, one Julius Baumgarten. Baumgarten had already done some government work and had offered his services to help pr duce the soldiers’ medals. Bart assured him that the job was his and on September 1 Seddon authorized travel funds for Baumgarten to go to Europe, plu 2,000 English pounds to buy the stock and presses that he would need to manufacture the hopedfor “Medals of Honor and Badges of Distinction.” Baumgarten traveled from Richmond to Wilmington, boarded a blockade runner to Bermuda and from there made his way across the ocean to Liverpool. In apparently some apprantely shady doings, Baumgarten ran through his money without buying the medal-making materials, and his mission was revoked by Secretary Seddon. The whole failed operation came to the at tention of the Richmond Whig, which in early May 1864 indirectly accused Baumgarten of embezzlement and blamed the War Department for entrusting
Maj. William S. Barton. such an important operation to a “Israelitish engraver.” The pape could only hope that the government “will bestir itself to carr into effect the act of Congress” and provide some manner of recognition to the deserving soldie who had been “choused out of their well-won order of valor.”1 At least by then the War Department had begun publicizing lists of soldiers who had been voted to receive the non-existen medals and badges. On October 3, 1863, Adjutant General Cooper issued general orders which frankly admitted the “difficulti in procuring the medals and badges of distinction.” Until the government could provide the kinds of emblems called for by Congress, Cooper ordered that the names of the soldiers voted to receive them should be “inscribed on a Roll of Honor, t be preserved in the office of th Adjutant and Inspector General.” Cooper instructed that the Roll, “so far as now made up,” was to be distributed to Confederate forces “and read at the head of every regiment in the service of the Confederate States at the fi dress parade, after its receipt, and be published in at least one newspaper in each State.” That Roll of Honor, “as now made up,” consisted of those soldiers voted for heroism in the battles Murfreesboro, Chancellorsville,
(Library of Cong and even Gettysburg (for which at the time had come only ten names, reminding everyone that the battle had not been a “signa victory”). The execution of Cooper’s order must have led to some very long dress parades, as fully 802 names would have been read aloud to the regiments standing at attention.11 As it turned out, the War Department published Confederate Roll of Honor just three times during the war: Oct. 3, 1863 (with those 802 names), Aug. 10, 1864, and Dec. 10, 1864 John C. Stiles, a Southern veter an, became an early historian of the Confederate Roll of Honor, and meticulously went through the three published lists. After subtracting duplicate names, he concluded that 2,017 men had been placed on the Adjutant General’s list. Chickamauga was first among battles, with 703 names; then came Murfreesboro, Chancellorsville, and Gettysburg Stiles counted 329 honorees killed in battle. Most of the so diers on the Roll had been elect ed by their respective companies as prescribed by law; the 2nd Mississippi topped the list with sixty-seven soldiers; the 8 Alabama was second. Moreover, it was evident that some regiments went back through their past battles to co up with names of comrades
from earlier fights in the war. I the list of August 1864 are seven soldiers who distinguished themselves at Fraser’s Farm during the Seven Days. In some cases superior officers vouched for enlisted men. Gen. Johnson Hagood recommended his orderly, Pvt. J.D. Stoney of the 27th South Carolina, for service near Petersburg. Gen. Roswell Ripley, commanding at Charleston, submitted the name of Pvt. Edward H. Martin and four other soldiers who in July 1863 served as flag signalmen standing atop the parapet of Battery Gregg while enemy shells exploded all around; “the station has suffered the enemy’s fire and is full of holes,” wrote an officer. Men in the lower ranks were clearly favored: 1,233 privates, 204 corporals, and 370 sergeants were listed, as opposed to a mere ten colonels. Every state in the Confederacy was represented, from Alabama (352 names) down to Texas with 50. From Virginia regiments came 103 honorees. “As it was said that no one ever saw a dead man with spurs on,” Stiles noted, “the cavalry did we to come second.” But it was a dis tant second: after 1,894 infantry men were only 69 cavalrymen on the Roll. Color-bearers are often cited for their coura twenty-six of these were chosen for honors. Stiles noted mounted riflemen, sharpshooters, even a sutler on the lists. In fact, “ ery branch of the service is represented,” he quipped, “except chaplains, who were superfluous, as the Confederate soldier was good enough without him.” Also without mention on the Roll were paymasters, surgeons and officers in the commissary department (“which had nothing to issue”).12 Colonel Stiles, of course, is the only Southerner to have gone through the Confederate Roll of Honor. But because the three Confederate War Department lists were not assembled for prin ing in the Official Records, differences abound among the various versions in print. The Unite Daughters of the Confederacy published 2,053 names in several issues of its monthly magazine back in 1966. A more recent and authoritative listing appears in Gregg S. Clemmer’s Valor in Gray (1996), in which I have counted 2,047 soldiers’ names. Mere numbers, though, miss the point. Second Manassas can be considered Robert E. Lee’s most complete victory, yet it yielded only thirteen soldiers named for bravery, a third of the number of Missourians voted for heroism in Arkansas during the spring of 1864. By my count, 739 honorees were voted for heroism
in the engagements of the Army of Northern Virginia; that’s about 37% of the total number of names on the Roll. In contrast, 59% of the names are from battles of the Army of Tennessee, in which theater “signal victories” for the South were very few and far between. The Confederate Roll of Honor is thus not only out of balance, it is incomplete. A week after the battle of Franklin, Gen. John B. Hood issued a field order asking for “the names of officers and soldiers who passed over the enemy’s interior line of works at Franklin,” so he could send them to the War Department in Richmond and there be added to the army’s Roll of Honor. There is no evidence that he received any such nominees for the Roll, although tales of Confederate courage on November 30, 1864, are legendary.13 *** Back in the spring of 1864, Chaplain Charles T. Quintard saw to the building in Atlanta of a little chapel dignified by the name of St. Luke’s Episcopal Church. Lumber and nails were donated, and Southern soldiers helped in the work. There arose a frame structure looking more like a schoolhouse than a cathedral. d Chaplain Quintard accordingly termed the building “somewhat ‘Confederate’ in style.”14 My point is that after the U.S. government had created and begun dispensing its famous Medals of Honor to its Union heroes, the C.S. government could only issue newspaper rosters—“Confederate in style”—instead of similar medals. Nevertheless, the goal of the South’s Roll of Honor was the same as the North’s: to reward soldiers “for courage and good conduct on the field of battle.”
Notes 1. Russell S. Bonds, Stealing the General (Westholme, PA, 2007), 309, 320. 2. Gregg S. Clemmer, Valor in Gray The Recipients of the Confedera Medal of Honor (Staunton, VA, 1996), xiii-xiv. 3. J. Cutler Andrews, The South Reports the Civil War (Princeto 1970), 143; “Proceedings of the First Congress,” Southern Historical Society Papers, vol. (May 1925), 112-13. 4. Clemmer, Valor in Gray, xiv-xv; Michael P. Musick, “The Mystery of the Missing Confederate Meda of Honor,” Military Collector & Historian, vol. 23, no. 3 (Fall 75; “Proceedings,” SHSP, vol. 4 212 (Rep. William Porcher Miles bill); SHSP, vol. 46, 1-2 (Sen. William E. Simms’ bill); SHSP, 47, 108, 111 (passage).
John C. Stiles, “The Roll of Honor C.S.A.,” Confederate Veteran, vol. 30, no. 4 (April 1922), 138 (501 names from Murfreesboro); Clemmer, Valor in Gray, 447-474 passim. (listing 502 names). Lee to Kershaw, Jan. 31, 1863, OR, vol. 25, pt. 2, 600-601. “War Diary of Capt. Robert Emory Park,” SHSP, vol. 26 (1898), 10; Clemmer, Valor in Gray, xv; “Confederate Roll of Honor at Chancellorsville,” OR, vol. 25, pt. 1, 1052-55; Brandon H. Beck, ed., Third Alabama! The Civil War Memoir of Brigadier General Cullen Andrews Battle, C S A (Tuscaloosa, AL. 2002), 75. Lee to Seddon, Aug. 17, 1863, OR, vol. 25, pt. 1, 1051-52. Clemmer, Valor in Gray, xvi; “Provisions of the Seco Confederate Congress,” SHSP, vol. 51, 95-96. Clemmer, Valor in Gray, xvi-xix; Seddon endorsement, OR, vol. 25, pt. 2, 1052; “Seals, Stamps and Currency for the Confederate State Made by Julius B. Baumgarten,” SHSP, vol. 33 (1905), 188-90. Gen. Orders No. 131, Richmond, Oct. 3, 1863, and “Battle of Murfreesborough,” OR, vol. 20, pt. 1, 972-79. John C. Stiles, “The Roll of Honor C.S.A.,” Confederate Veteran, vol. 30, no. 4 (April 1922), 138; Stiles, “The Victoria Cross the Confederacy,” Confederate Veteran, vol. 23, no. 7 (July 1915 304; Gordon L. Jones, Confederate Odyssey: The George W. Wray Jr. Civil War Collection at the Atlant History Center (Athens, GA, 2014), 399 (on Martin). Nell Stephens Murfre “Confederate Roll of Honor,” United Daughters of Confederacy Magazine, vol. 29, no. 8 (August 1966), 6-7, 44; vol. 29, no. 9 (September 1966), 103942; vol. 29, no. 10 (October 1966) 13, 33-47 passim.; vol. 29, no. 11 (November 1966), 9, 41-65 passim.; Hood’s Gen. Field Orders No. 39, Dec. 6, 1864, OR, vol. 45, pt. 654. Stephen Davis, What the Yankees Did to Us: Sherman’s Bombardment and Wrecking of Atlanta (Macon, GA, 2012), 74.
hen Davis is contributor of regular “Critic’s Corner” colvalue for Steve. He still has silk-and-metal pendant he won n eleventh-grader at Atlanta’s hside High School for his y submitted in the compeon sponsored by the Atlanta ter, United Daughters of the ederacy. The competition topas Matthew Fontaine Maury. e remembers driving to the y University library for sourcand that a student had to show how to turn on his carrel light.