Official Reports of the Action at and Surrender of Murfreesborough, Tenn., July 13, 1862: No. 1. — Reports of Major-General Don Carlos Buell, U.S. Army, commanding Army of the Ohio, including General Orders, No. 32.

No. 1.

Reports of Maj. Gen. D.C. Buell, U.S. Army, commanding Army of the Ohio, including General Orders, No. 32.

HUNTSVILLE, ALA., July 15, 1862.

My information, up to the night of the 13th, from Murfreesborough was that the Ninth Michigan had been captured, but that Colonel Lester's regiment and Hewett's battery were doing well, and felt confident of being able to hold out. Re-enforcements were being started from Nashville. It appears that before they arrived Colonel Lester surrendered, at 4 p.m. the same day. I have no particulars, and at present no remarks to make upon what appears to be a most disgraceful affair. Of course it may embarrass me considerably. I have been busy to counteract it. The worst is the interception of the Chattanooga road, which was just completed. I had taken the precaution to place some twelve regiments on that route until it should be securely established. We will go to work again.

D. C. BUELL,                       

Major-General.

General HALLECK.

_______________

HUNTSVILLE, ALA., July 19, 1862.

As nearly as I can ascertain the force captured at Murfreesborough on the 13th consisted of nine companies of the Third Minnesota, under Colonel Lester; six companies of the Ninth Michigan, four companies of the Fourth Kentucky Cavalry, three companies of the Seventh Pennsylvania Cavalry, and two sections of Hewett's Kentucky battery. All except Colonel Lester's regiment and the artillery, including Colonel Duffield and General T. T. Crittenden, seem to have been completely surprised in the town and captured without time or opportunity for resistance. The case of the rest of the command was but little better. They maintained their position until 4 o'clock and then surrendered. I had concentrated a larger force at that point to occupy McMinnville, but a considerable portion of it had been sent away a day or two before to Kentucky to meet the difficulties there. I regard the whole affair as most disgraceful and demanding prompt and vigorous treatment. It has also caused serious delay in the means of supplying the army so that it can move on the Decatur route. The difficulty has been increased by damages to bridges by swollen streams. Every effort is being made to remove these difficulties and I hope to have the Murfreesborough road repaired and in working order in a very few days. It is not my habit to plead difficulties or represent them even; but it is important that they should be somewhat understood, lest impossible expectations should be formed, and the opinion taken up that this army is idle and has nothing to do but march rapidly along the road. Our lines of supply are very long and difficult to protect; for, without ascribing hostility to the mass of the people, there is still enough of hostile and bad element to involve us in all the difficulties of operating in an enemy's country.

D.C. BUELL,            

Major - General, Commanding.

Major-General HALLECK, or

ADJUTANT-GENERAL U.S. ARMY.

_______________

GENERAL ORDERS No. 32.

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE OHIO,         

In Camp, Huntsville, Ala., July 21, 1862.

On the 13th instant the force at Murfreesborough, under command of Brig. Gen. T. T. Crittenden, late colonel of the Sixth Indiana Regiment, and consisting of six companies of the Ninth Michigan, nine companies of the Third Minnesota, two sections of Hewett's (Kentucky) battery, four companies of the Fourth Kentucky Cavalry, and three companies of the Seventh Pennsylvania Cavalry, was captured at that place by a force of the enemy's cavalry variously estimated at from 1,800 to 3,500. It appears from the best information that can be obtained that Brigadier-General Crittenden, and Colonel Duffield, of the Ninth Michigan, with the six companies of that regiment and all of the cavalry, were surprised and captured early in the morning in the houses and streets of the town or in their camp near by, with but slight resistance and without any timely warning of the presence of an enemy. The rest of the force, consisting of the Third Minnesota and the artillery, under Colonel Lester, left its camp and took another position, which it maintained with but few casualties against the feeble attacks of the enemy until about 3 o'clock, when it was surrendered and marched into captivity.

Take it in all its features, few more disgraceful examples of neglect of duty and lack of good conduct can be found in the history of wars. It fully merits the extreme penalty which the law provides for such misconduct. The force was more than sufficient to repel the attack effectually. The mortification which the army will feel at the result is poorly compensated by the exertion made by some — perhaps many — of the officers to retrieve the disgrace of the surprise. The action fit to be adopted with reference to those who are blamable, especially the officers highest in command, cannot be determined without further investigation.

In contrast to this shameful affair the general commanding takes pleasure in making honorable mention of the conduct of a detachment of 22 men of Companies I and H, Tenth Wisconsin Regiment, under the command of Sergts. W. Nelson and A. H. Makinson. The detachment was on duty guarding a bridge east of Huntsville, when it was attacked on April 28 by a force of some 200 or 300 cavalry, which it fought for two hours and repulsed in the most signal manner. Such is the conduct that duty and honor demand of every soldier; and this example is worthy of imitation by higher officers and larger commands.

By command of Major-General Buell:

JAMES B. FRY,        

Colonel and Chief of Staff.

SOURCE: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series I, Volume 16, Part 1 (Serial No. 22), p. 792-4

Official Reports of the Action at and Surrender of Murfreesborough, Tenn., July 13, 1862: No. 4. – Report of Maj. James J. Seibert, Seventh Pennsylvania Cavalry.

No. 4.

GENERAL: I respectfully submit the following as my report of the battle at Murfreesborough, Tenn., on Sunday, July 13, 1862:

I first assumed command of the cavalry attached to that command, consisting of the Third Battalion Seventh Pennsylvania Cavalry, and one squadron of the Fourth Kentucky Cavalry, on May 29, but was called to Nashville on duty on June 19, returning again on July 6.

When I first assumed command it was the custom, as well as the order, of Colonel Lester, then in command, to send out daily from the cavalry a patrol of 5 men on each of the seven pikes leading to and from the town, starting out in the morning and returning in the evening. This order was not changed while I was in command until the day before the occurrence. When you assumed command you ordered me to double the number of the patrols on the roads to Lebanon and McMinnville, which was done. When the patrols returned in the evening I received the report daily from each of the non-commissioned officers in charge, which, after committing to writing, I handed to Colonel Lester.

The attack was made at daybreak in the morning, and I first saw the enemy when charging on my camp, which was a short distance to the right of the Woodbury pike. I had not over 80 duty men in camp at the time of the attack, most of whom were captured there. We then left my camp and joined the Ninth Michigan and surrendered with them at noon. I lost 5 killed and 20 wounded.

Before closing this report I would state that a report reached me about midnight that several men were seen in the night between our pickets and the town on the Bradyville pike. I immediately mounted  12 men and went to the points named, but after examining the fields and several houses and barns on the Bradyville and Woodbury pikes and discovering no signs of the enemy I returned with the men to camp, having reached it only a little more than an hour before the attack.

I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

 JAMES J. SEIBERT,

 Major, Seventh Pa. Cav., Comdg. Cav., Twenty-third Brigade.

General T. T. CRITTENDEN,

Commanding Forces at Murfreesborough, Tenn.:

SOURCE: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series I, Volume 16, Part 1 (Serial No. 22), p. 798-9

Official Reports of the Action at and Surrender of Murfreesborough, Tenn., July 13, 1862: No. 7. – Report of Col. William W. Duffield, Ninth Michigan Infantry.

No. 7.

Report of Col. William W. Duffield, Ninth Michigan Infantry.

MURFREESBOROUGH, TENN., July 23, 1862.

COLONEL: Although I had not yet formally assumed command of the Twenty-third Brigade, yet, as Brig. Gen. Thomas T. Crittenden and the other officers of the command have been captured and forwarded to Chattanooga, permit me to submit the following report of such portion of the attack made on the 13th instant as came under my own personal observation:

I arrived here, after an absence of two months, on the afternoon of the 11th instant, coming down on the same train with Brig. Gen. Thomas T. Crittenden, the newly appointed commander of the post, and found that several material changes had been made in the location and encampment of the Twenty-third Brigade since my departure. Instead of the whole command encamping together, as it had done, it was separated into two portions and several miles apart. The brigade had never been drilled as such nor a brigade guard mounted. Each regiment furnished its quota of officers and men and watched certain roads; and, worse than all, the commanding officers of the respective regiments were on ill terms with each other, and this feeling, upon one occasion, had broken out into an open personal quarrel. The result was a great lack of discipline and a bitter feeling of jealousy between the different regiments, manifesting itself in the personal encounters of the men when they met upon the street. There was no order, no harmony. The parts of the machine did not fit well, and the commanding officers seem either not to have possessed the will or the ability to adjust them. General Crittenden and myself, immediately after our arrival, visited the several camps, discussed the impropriety of a divided command, and decided upon a concentration; but as neither of us had assumed command we deferred it until the morrow. But on the morrow the blow fell, and the danger we anticipated became a reality. General Crittenden made his headquarters in town, while I preferred camping with my own men, and therefore pitched my tent with the five companies of the Ninth Michigan Volunteers.

The force then at Murfreesborough was as follows: Five companies (A, C, G, H, and K), Ninth Michigan Volunteers, Lieutenant-Colonel Parkhurst commanding, 200 strong, together with the First Squadron Fourth Kentucky Cavalry, Capt. Levi Chilson, 81 strong, were encamped three-fourths of a mile east of the town, upon the Liberty turnpike; one company (B) Ninth Michigan Volunteers, Captain Rounds, 42 strong, occupied the court-house, the other companies of the Ninth Michigan Volunteers having been ordered to Tullahoma a month since, while nine companies of the Third Minnesota Volunteers, Colonel Lester (one company being on detached duty as train guard), 450 strong, and Hewett's First Kentucky battery, two sections, 72 strong, occupied the east bank of Stone River, at a distance of more than 3 miles from the encampment of the detachment of the Ninth Michigan Volunteers.

Orders were received from Nashville the evening of the 12th instant directing the First Squadron Fourth Kentucky Cavalry to proceed immediately to Lebanon. The total effective strength of the command at Murfreesborough on the morning of the 13th instant did not therefore exceed 814 men, including pickets.

The attack was made at daybreak on the morning of the 13th instant by the Second Cavalry Brigade, C. S. Army, Brig. Gen. N. B. Forrest, over 3,000 strong, consisting of one Texas regiment, Lieutenant-Colonel Walker; the First and Second Georgia Regiments, Colonels Lawton and Hood; one Alabama regiment, Colonel Saunders, and one Tennessee regiment, Colonel Lawton[?]. The noise of so many hoofs at full speed upon the macadamized roads was so great that the alarm was given before the head of the column reached our pickets, about 1 mile distant, so that our men were formed and ready to receive them, although they came in at full speed. The Texas and a battalion of one of the Georgia regiments, in all over 800 strong, attacked the detachment of the Ninth Michigan Volunteers. So fierce and impetuous was their attack that our men were forced nearly to the center of the camp; but they fell back steadily and in order, with their faces to the foe. But upon reaching the center of the camp their line was brought to a halt, and after twenty minutes of nearly hand-to-hand fighting the enemy broke and fled in the wildest confusion, followed in close pursuit by one company as skirmishers. A squadron of cavalry at this time launched at their heels would have utterly routed and annihilated them. Indeed so great was their panic that their officers were unable to check the fugitives for a distance of 7 miles, and Colonel Wharton,[?] commanding the Georgia regiment, was subsequently arrested by General Forrest for misconduct under the fire of the enemy.

During this attack both officers and men, with one single exception, behaved very handsomely. There was no excitement, no hurry, and no confusion. Everything was done calmly, quietly, and in obedience to orders. But it is with the deepest shame and mortification that I am compelled to report that one officer of Michigan has been guilty of gross cowardice in the face of the enemy. Capt. John A. Tanner, of Company K, Ninth Michigan Volunteers, at the first alarm left his quarters, abandoned his company, and fled from his command under the enemy's fire, and I therefore inclose you herewith charges preferred against him for violation of the Fifty-second Article of War. Capt. Charles V. De Land, Company C, Ninth Michigan Volunteers, deserves special mention for cool and gallant conduct throughout the action and the fearless mode in which he led his company as skirmishers in pursuit of the enemy when repulsed. Also First Lieut. Hiram Barrows, of Company A, same regiment, for the tenacity with which he held his ground, although sorely pressed by the enemy. The loss of the detachment of the Ninth Michigan Volunteers has been very severe for the number engaged, amounting to 1 officer and 12 men killed and 3 officers and 75 men wounded. The enemy's loss has been much more severe than our own. More than double the number of their dead were buried with ours and their wounded are found in almost every house. Among their wounded are a colonel, a major, two adjutants, and one surgeon. I inclose you herewith the surgeon's report of the killed and wounded of the Ninth Michigan Volunteers.

Not having been present at the subsequent surrender of the detachment of the Ninth Michigan Volunteers, under Lieutenant-Colonel Parkhurst, I can only state the facts as reported to me, which show that this force, isolated and reduced by killed and wounded to less than 75 men, after having held their ground from 4 a.m. to 1 p.m., were compelled to surrender or be cut to pieces by the entire force of the enemy. I am reliably informed that Company B, Ninth Michigan Volunteers, under command of First Lieut. L. J. Wright, held the court-house against an incessant attack by a greatly superior force from 4 a.m. till 7.30 a.m., and did not surrender till the enemy had possession of the lower story of the building and had started a fire, with the evident intention of burning them out.

Of the surrender of the Third Minnesota Volunteers and Hewett's First Kentucky Artillery, under command of Colonel Lester, I cannot speak from personal knowledge nor have I received any information from sources sufficiently reliable to warrant my communicating to you any details. Indeed I would much prefer not to do so. The circumstances of the case, as reported, bear painfully on the honor of a brother officer now a prisoner of war, and who is therefore unable to defend himself.

I inclose a list of killed and wounded of the Third Minnesota Volunteers, furnished me by the assistant surgeon of that regiment, amounting to 2 killed and 8 wounded,* one of whom was killed and 2 wounded in line, the remainder in camp.

In the early part of this attack I received two gunshot wounds, one passing through the right testicle, the other through the left thigh. These, although very painful and bleeding profusely, did not prevent me from remaining with my own regiment until the attack was repulsed, when, fainting from pain and loss of blood, I was carried from the field, and was therefore not a witness of what subsequently occurred. At noon the same day I was made prisoner by General Forrest, but, in my then helpless condition, was released upon my parole not to bear arms against the Confederate States until regularly exchanged.

I remain, colonel, your obedient servant,

 WM. W. DUFFIELD,

 Colonel Ninth Michigan Infantry, Comdg. Twenty-third Brigade.

Col. J. B. FRY,

Asst. Adjt. Gen., Chief of Staff, Huntsville, Ala.

[Indorsements.]

SEPTEMBER 20, 1862.

Respectfully forwarded to the Adjutant-General. It is gratifying to discover anything to mitigate the mortification of the affair at Murfreesborough. This report seems to do so as far as Colonel Duffield is concerned, but does not alter the general features of the affair.

D.C. BUELL,

Major-General.

I respectfully recommend that Capt. John A. Tanner, Company K, Ninth Michigan Volunteers, be dismissed from the service for cowardly abandoning his company at the battle of Murfreesborough.

 H. W. HALLECK,

General-in-Chief.

Approved.

EDWIN M. STANTON,

Secretary of War.

_______________

* Nominal list omitted.

SOURCE: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series I, Volume 16, Part 1 (Serial No. 22), p. 800-3