Worthy Descendants: The 7th Vermont and the Battle of Baton Rouge

In preparation for two previous entries, I spent a considerable time reading about and researching the battle of Baton Rouge. At the risk of exhausting both readers and reviewers alike, I submit yet another account from the August 1862 battle, which is slowly, but surely, beginning to consume much of my free time.

The controversy began with Maj. Gen. Benjamin Butler’s General Order No. 62 ½ issued on August 25, 1862, following the battle of Baton Rouge. In this circular, which Butler’s entire Department of the Gulf received, he congratulated the army for its victory over Maj. Gen. John C. Breckinridge’s Confederate forces. Not every unit received praise, however. Butler explicitly denied any battle honors or recognition of the 7th Vermont Infantry Regiment, saying:

Colonel Roberts of the Seventh Vermont Volunteers, fell mortally wounded while rallying his men. He was worthy of a better disciplined regiment and a better fate.

Glorious as it is to die for one’s country, yet his regiment gave him the inexpressible pain of seeing it break in confusion when not pressed by the enemy and refused to march to the aid of the outnumbered and almost overwhelmed Indianians.

The Seventh Vermont Regiment, by fatal mistake, had already fired into the same regiment they had refused to support, killing and wounding several.

The commanding general therefore excepts the Seventh Vermont from General Orders, No. 57, and will not permit their colors to be inscribed with a name which could bring to its officers and men no proud thought.

It is further ordered that the colors of that regiment be not borne by them until such time as they shall have earned the right to them, and the earliest opportunity will be given this regiment to show whether they are worthy descendants of those who fought beside Allen and with Starke [sic] at Bennington.[1]

This came as an insult to the men of Rutland, Vermont who joined the ranks of the army in February 1862 and since then had been part of Butler’s expedition into the South and the occupation force in Louisiana. They arrived in New Orleans in May 1862 and with the rest of Brigadier General Thomas Williams’ force participated in the initial actions at Vicksburg. There, of the eight hundred men of the regiment, more than six hundred fell ill or suffered injury during their action in Mississippi. On the morning of the battle the regiment consisted of only two hundred-fifty men deemed fit for duty. Malaria, dysentery, and the summer climate of south Louisiana shocked the Vermonters and left many of them totally debilitated in hospital wards across the city.

Outraged by Butler’s circular order, Maj. William C. Holbrook requested an official court of inquiry to investigate the actions of the regiment and remove the stain from their reputation so unjustly given to them. Not only did he write to the U.S. War Department, so, too, did his father, Vermont Governor Frederick Holbrook. The governor, in a letter to Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, demanded an “entirely impartial court of inquiry” be formed to “satisfy our people.”[2]

In October 1862, the four-man board of inquiry sent their findings to Butler and to Washington D.C.. With sworn statements and testimonials considered in their conclusion, their findings not only vindicated the regiment, but gave one of the best accountings of their action on August 5.

The report began:

It appears from the evidence that when the Seventh regiment Vermont volunteers was called upon to participate in the battle of Baton Rouge it had been very much reduced in numbers and doubtless in morale by the severities of the campaign at Vicksburg and by long confinement on board transports. On the morning of the battle the regiment had present for duty about 250 men, about 520 men sick, of whom 200 were in the hospital. About 225 men were in line early in the action. Their commanding officer of the regiment, Colonel Roberts, fell under the sharpest volley that was fired that day, and shortly after his fall the regiment fled about 100 feet to the rear and to the cover of some gullies in a disorderly manner. About 2/5 of the men present for duty did not return to the position in line of battle during the day. It appears that early in the action Lieutenant Colonel Fullam had been dispatched by his Colonel to see the fighting of a battery which was endangering the regiment; That Major Holbrook was the officer of the day. Upon the fall of the Colonel, therefore, the command of the regiment devolved temporarily upon Captain (now Major) Porter, who seems to have behaved creditably in a trying position. When the Lieutenant Colonel returned he assumed command of the regiment. The only testimony before the board discreditable to him is the following from which Lieutenant-Colonel Elliott’s deposition:

“I did see something in the conduct of officers which I thought deserving of censure. I saw Colonel Fullam, after they had fallen back, seeking protection, drawing his regiment up and a ravine. I asked him what he was doing there. He said he was getting his men into a sheltered position. I saw no other officers show a disposition to evade duty. I think the regiment was over 200 yards in the rear of their camp.”

So far as any evidence appears it would seem that the line officers behaved well during the day.

It appears the Seventh Vermont regiment, or part of it, did fire into the Twenty-First Indiana, but there is an exculpation to be found in the testimony of the commanding officer of the Indiana regiment, Captain Grimsley, to wit:

“Occupying the position they did the Seventh had no means of knowing where we were my impression is that when we received the volleys from the Seventh Vermont we ran under a fire which was already going on.”

It appears also from the testimony of various witnesses that the field was covered by dense fog and smoke so that it was quite impossible to distinguish friend from foe at the distance the two regiments were apart; and, moreover, that the position of the Indiana regiment was very frequently changed.

It does not appear that any orders were communicated to the Vermont regiment during the day which they disobeyed.

It appears that the colors of the regiment were retained by the color guard during the action, and were brought off the field by the guard when the regiment fell back.

It appears that the camp colors alleged by Captain Manning of the Fourth Massachusetts Battery, to have been brought from the camp of the Seventh Vermont by John Donaghue were two markers of the form in common use and one small United States flag, which had been used for no military purpose for a long time previously.[3]

Considering the board’s conclusion, Butler admitted his mistake and restored the regiment’s colors. He stopped short, however, of allowing “the name of the glorious battle of Baton Rouge” to be added to their banner. Further reading, and the advantage of hindsight, sheds even more light on the Vermonters at the battle of Baton Rouge and only serves to further reinforce that Butler’s initial reprimand was wholly uncalled for and underserved.[4]

After Breckinridge’s attack successfully drove the 14th Maine from Magnolia Cemetery, the Vermonters, with the 21st Indiana and the 6th Michigan Infantry, held their ground among the headstones. Confederates from Lt. Col. Thomas Shields’s 30th Louisiana Infantry slammed into the Federal line repeatedly. Shields wrote in his report, “we maintained our position until the infantry support before the overwhelming numbers of the enemy were compelled to fall back.” The fighting in the cemetery though can only be described as confusing. Heavy fog, made worse by the accumulation of clouds of smoke, cloaked the battlefield and obscured visibility. If the 7th Vermont did fire on the 21st Indiana, which in all likelihood they did, so, too, did the Confederates face their own issues with friendly fire. Shields recalled a similar confusing incident:

In this new position we were unfortunately taken for the enemy and fired upon, but luckily without casualty of any kind.[5]

Beyond mistakes caused by the confusion that reigned over the whole field, Butler’s allegation that the 7th Vermont “behaved very badly” is unwarranted.

After the controversy settled, the 7th Vermont fought on and unsurprisingly openly aired their contempt for Butler. Major Holbrook wrote to his father in November 1862 of his disdain for Butler. In part, he wrote:

Nothing but the blackest malice can actuate general Butler to give us everything less than acquittal. I am not inclined to be sanguine of the result until he actually gives us our long withheld merit. I can see now that it was only a malignant desire to crush us. If he does not give us justice, I suppose I shall be severely criticized for ever accepting a court of inquiry called by him.[6]

The war continued for Holbrook and the Vermonters. They earned a status unique among other Vermont units as the longest serving infantry regiment from the state. Their war came to an end in March 1866, and the regiment disbanded in Brattleboro, Vermont. When their color company furled the regiment’s banner for the last time, “Baton Rouge” remained absent from its battle honors.

The regiment had been at Baton Rouge, Vicksburg, Port Hudson, Pensacola, New Orleans, Mobile, Spanish Fort, Fort Blakeley, Whistler’s Station, ended the war in Texas, and spent an additional year in the Army of Observance along the border with Mexico. In their four years of service, the regiment suffered three officers and ten enlisted men killed, and another 407 officers and men suffered from disease.

Indeed, their service made them the worthy descendants of Stark.

 

[1] The U.S. War Department, War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series I, Volume 15, (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1886), 42-43 (Hereafter referred to as OR).

[2] OR, 47.

[3] OR, 48-49.

[4] OR, 50.

[5] OR, 105.

[6] “Maj. William Holbrook to Gov. Frederick Holbrook, November 11, 1862.” William C. Holbrook Papers, University of Vermont Library.