The Battle of Pea Ridge

Date of Battle: March 6-8, 1862

Names of the Battle

Union: Battle of Pea Ridge
Confederate: Elkhorn Tavern

In the middle of February, 1862, Major General Samuel R. Curtis, commander of the newly organized Army of the Southwest, brought the troops under his command into the area of Springfield, Missouri.

The area had been previously occupied by a portion of the Confederate Army commanded by Major General Sterling Price.

Both armies had engaged in small skirmishes along the march, but when the Confederate forces withdrew to the protection of the Boston Mountains, General Curtis withdrew in order to try to draw an attack on ground of his own choosing.

His forces were divided into four divisions and occupied Cooper’s Farm (1^st and 2^nd Divisions), Sugar Creek (3^rd Division), and Cross Timber (4^th Division). In mid afternoon on March 5^th, 1862, a large portion of Confederate forces advanced towards Union lines.

On the morning of March 6^th, General Curtis began the process of restructuring and fortifying positions of the Union forces. During this time, a small detachment under command of General Sigel was attacked by Confederate forces. Curtis sent his 1^st and 2^nd Divisions to Sigel’s aid. As the larger Union force came into line, the Confederates fell back, allowing the Federals to take position along Sugar Creek.

Van Dorn realized his opponent had deliberately chosen this terrain, he moved his forces to the Union right in order to make an attempt to outflank them. The Union forces had already prepared for such an action and had spent the day felling trees and creating entanglements to slow or stop an outflanking maneuver. This delay gave Union General Curtis the opportunity to move his forces and advance a small attacking force. The Union forces began an attack on the Confederate center and was able to break their line. The Confederates then launched a counterattack and the Union attack withdrew. Shortly afterwards, Union General Curtis sent additional forces to aid in the center attack. Both armies poured reinforcements into the center of their lines and ferocious fighting ensued for hour upon hour until darkness signaled an end to the day’s engagement.

Each side maneuvered forces during the night and when the sun rose on March 7^th, the fighting resumed. Confederate artillery had been placed in such a way as to wreak havoc on the Union right. To avoid disaster, the Union right fell back, using the geography to protect their positions. The Union then responded with their artillery batteries thus causing the Confederate forces to fall back. The resulting formation of the Union forces was then a semi-circle within which Confederate forces were becoming trapped in deadly crossfire.

By noon, the Confederate forces disengaged from the battle and made an attempt to escape. The Union forces made chase, but they were unable to contain the Confederate army.

Union Casualties:  203 killed, 980 wounded and 201 captured or missing.
Confederate Casualties: Not tabulated, but estimated to be much higher than Union losses.

 Some of the Field Correspondence

SUGAR CREEK HOLLOW ARK.
March 6, 1862.

CAPTAIN: Van Born, Price, and McCulloch are moving down on us. Have ordered all my detachments to concentrate here, and I am locat- ing my force to repel an attack. The enemy is reported at from 20000 to 30,000 fighting men. They burned the Seminole College, in Fayetteville, night before last, and last night their advance camp was at Elm Springs, about 21 miles from here. Sigel last night was 4 1/2 miles southwest from Bentonville, 14 miles from here, but he was to march at 2 this morning, and must be near by. A detachment under Colonel Vandever entered and took Huntsville last night,~ taking 2 prisoners. That detachment will also be in before the enemy can reach me. We will give them the best show we can. The weather is very cold and snowing.

SAML. B. CURTIS,
Brigadier-General

Capt. N. H. MCLEAN,
Assistant Adjutant-General.

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF SOUTHWEST,
Pea Ridge, Ark., March 9, 1862.

SIR: On Thursday, the 6th instant, enemy commenced the attack on my right, assailing and following the rear guard of the detachment under General Sigel to my main lines on Sugar Creek Hollow, but on that occasion ceased firing when he met my re-enforcements about 4 p. m. During the night I became convinced he had moved on so as to attack my right or rear. Therefore, early on the 7th, I ordered a change of front to the right on my right, my right thus becoming my left, still resting on Sugar Creek Hollow. This brought my line crossing Pea Ridge, my new right resting on the head of Cross Timber Hollow, which is the head of Big Sugar Creek. I also ordered an immediate advance of cavalry and light artillery – Colonel Osterhaus’ – with orders to attack and break what I supposed would be a re-enforced line of the enemy. This movement was in progress when the enemy, at 11 a. commenced an attack on my right. The fight continued mainly at these points during the day, the enemy having gained my position so hardly contested by Colonel Carr at the Cross Timber Hollow, but being entirely repulsed, with the loss of the commander, General McCulloch, in the center, commanded by Colonel Davis.

The plan of attack on the center was gallantly carried forward by Colonel Osterhaus, who was immediately sustained and superseded by Colonel Davis entire division, supported also by General Sigel’s command, which remained till near the close of the day on the left. Colonel Carrs division held the right nuder a galling, continuous fire all day. In the evening, the firing having entirely ceased in the center and there having been none on the left, I re-enforced the right by a portion of the Second Division, under General Asboth. Before the day closed I was convinced the enemy had concentrated his main effort on my right. I therefore commenced another change of my front, so as to face the enemy where he had deployed on my right flank in strong position. The change was only partially effective, but fully in progress, when at sunrise on the 8th my right and center renewed the firing, which was immediately answered by the enemy with renewed energy and extended line. My left, nuder General Sigel, moved close to the hills occupied by the enemy, driving him from heights and advancing steadily toward the head of the hollows. I immediately ordered the center and right wing forward, the right turning the left of the enemy and cross-firing on his center. This final position inclosed the enemy in an arc of a circle. A charge of infantry extending throughout the whole line completely routed the whole rebel force, which retired in great confusion, but rather safely, through the deep, impassable defiles of Cross Timber.

Our loss is heavy. The enemy’s can never be ascertained, for the dead are scattered over a large field, and their wounded too may many of them be lost and perish. The foe is scattered in all directions, but I think his main force has returned to Boston Mountains. General Sigel follows towards Keetsville, while my cavalry is pursuing him toward the mountains, scouring the country, bringing in prisoners, and trying to find the rebel Major-General Van Dorn, who had command of the entire force of the enemy at this battle of Pea Ridge. I have not as yet the statements of the dead and wounded so as to justify a report, but I will refer you to dispatch I will forward very soon. The officers and soldiers in this command have displayed such unusual gallantry I hardly dare to make distinctions. I must, however, name all my commanders of divisions: General Sigel, who gallantly carried the heights and drove back the left wing of the enemy; Brigadier-General Asboth, who is wounded in the arm, in his gallant effort to re-enforce the right; Colonel and Acting Brigadier-General Davis, who commands the center where McCulloch fell on the 7th, and pressed forward the center on the 8th; Col. and Acting Brig. Gen. E. A. Carr, who is also wounded in the arm, and was under continuous fire of the enemy during the two hardest days struggling, where the scattered dead of friends and foe attest the hardest of the struggling. Commanders of brigades Colonels Dodge, Osterhaus, Vandever, White, Schaefer, Pattison, and Greusel, distinguished; but for their gallantry and that of others I must refer to reports of division commanders. I must also tender my thanks to my staff officers, C apt. T. I. McKenny, acting assistant adjutant-general; Capt. W. II. Stark; Capt. John Ahlfeldt, and Lients. J. M. Adams and R. A. Stitt, all acting aides, and Lieut. A. Hoeppner, my only engineer officer. All the staff officers did gallant service in conveying orders and aiding in their prompt execution. Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Ohio, and Missouri very proudly share the honor of victory which their gallant heroes won over the combined forces of Van Porn, Price, and McCulloch at Pea Ridge, in the Ozark Mountains of Arkansas. I have the honor to be, captain, your obedient servant,

SAML. R. CURTIS,
Brigadier- General.

Capt. J. C. KELTON,
Assistant Adjutant- General.

HEADQUARTERS TRANS.MISSISSIPPl DISTRICT,
March 9, 1862.

To the COMMANDING OFFICER Of the U. S. Troops on Sugar Greek, Arkansas: SIR: In accordance with the usages of war I have the honor to re- quest that you will permit the burial party whom I send from this army with a flag of truce to atten(l to the duty of collecting and interring the bodies of the officers and men who fell during the engagements of the 7th and 8th instant.

Very respectfully, sir, your obedient servant,

EARL VAN DORN,
Major-General, Confederate Army.

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE SOUTHWEST,
Pea Ridge, Ark., March 9, 1862.

EARL VAN DORN, Commanding Confederate Forces:
SIR: The general commanding is in receipt of yours of the 9th, saying that in accordance with the usages of war you send a party to collect and bury the dead. I am directed to say all possible facilities will be given for burying the dead, many of which have already been interred. Quite a number of your surgeons have fallen into our hands and are permitted to act under parole, and nuder a general order from Major-General Halleck further liberty will be allowed them if such accommodations be reciprocated by you. The general regrets that we find on the battle-field, contrary to civilized warfare, many of the Federal dead who were tomahawked, scalped, and their bodies shamefully mangled, and expresses a hope that this important struggle may not degenerate to a savage warfare.

By order of Brig. Gen. S. R. Curtis:

T. 1. McKENNY,
Acting Assistant Adjutant- General

Report of Major General Henry W. Halleck, U. S. Army.
HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE MISSOURI,
Saint Louis, March 10, 1862.
The Army of the Southwest, under General Curtis, after three days hard fighting near Sugar Creek, Arkansas, has gained a most glorious victory over the combined forces of Van Born, McCulloch, Price, and McIntosh. Our loss in killed and wounded estimated at 1,000; that of the enemy still larger. Guns, flags, provisions, & c., captured in large quantities. Our cavalry in pursuit of the flying enemy.

H. W. HALLECK,
Major- General

Major-General McCLELLAN, Washington.

Map of the Battle

Pea Ridge - March, 1862

Mexico Captures the Alamo

On March 6, 1836, Mexican forces under the command of General General Antonio Lòpez de Santa Anna captured the Alamo after a thirteen day siege and a final, brutal assault. Although it is recorded that none of the defenders of the Alamo survived the attack, some the surviving women and children (families of the defenders) were allowed to leave.

The Alamo remains as a standing memorial to the struggles for Texas independence and for those who gave their lives to achieve it.

There is a danger in walking backwards

As many of my faithful readers know, my web host has been experiencing a great deal of troubles lately. The malfunction of their services did cause me to move one of my other blogs to a new home, but I did not have time to devote to the moving of all of my blogs. The ends result has been that some of them, Uncommon History included, have sat idle since almost October of 2011.

I regret that I have lost some of my valued readers and my subscription rate did decline, but I have become somewhat thankful for the downtime that affected this site. What the lull in activity eventually caused within me was an introspective look at what I was really doing here and where I was heading with Uncommon History.

As I looked back over the past year of posts, I realized that I was doing something fundamentally wrong in regards to my love for history. Rather than looking back at history with an objective lens and reporting on what I found, what I was actually doing, in essence, was walking backwards.

Walking backwards, in real life, can be potentially hazardous, not only to the person engaged in the activity, but also to innocent bystanders. When you are looking at where you have been instead of where you are going, it is inevitable that somewhere along the line you are either going to trip and hurt yourself or you are going to run into someone else, thereby causing them injury.

It really is no different in what I was beginning to do with this site and what many others are doing in ever growing numbers. Rather than forging a new road forward, those of us who were “walking backwards” were digging up traces of trail markers from the past and declaring those to be the only acceptable paths forward. The only word that comes to my mind now in thinking about that kind of behavior is; archaic.

Is it wrong to look backwards? Certainly not! We should always consider looking behind us to see where we came from, but the error is thinking that just because we came from this place or that, that we should continue to make the same decisions with the same criteria. There is, in my opinion, an inherent danger in looking at how people did things in the past and saying to ourselves. “Hey, that’s how they did it, so should we.”

To be more specific, as a Christian myself, I have seen the battles over faith in the past few years as dangerous. I am not alone in this observation and many people have taken up the charge to try to engage in this battle. The problem is that it seems that many of these people are utilizing the very same tactics that are being used against them.

The interpretation of history can be a very tricky business and historians should be very wary of peeling off a layer here and a layer there in order to create their own “Photoshop” version of history. While it is rarely possible to completely remove personal bias from any such scholarly work, every effort should be made to minimize it.

Case in point: The faith of our forefathers

Can we, with all information available to us today, be able to reconstruct with 100% certainty the very thoughts of those who founded this nation? I am sure we can come close, but to take a letter here and a letter there, compile them together and then declare with absolute knowledge that our findings are the infallible truth? I do not think so.

Can we instead draw a conclusion that this person or that person was or was not a Christian, an atheist or a believer in some other faith? I think we can do so, and it is acceptable to make those efforts.

The danger that I see facing us today is (and I have been as guilty about it as anyone else) is that we are saying things like “George Washington was a devout Christian and so we as a nation must live as Christians did in his time.” I don’t think for one minute that President Washington was sending that kind of message to his future countrymen.

Yes, I believe our nation has entered a critical time in which we have been losing our identity and wandering down some dangerous paths. That said, I don’t think we should strike forward by facing our backs to the future. We should be engaged in the study of history, but not for the sake of dredging up ritual and dogma.

The men and women of our past were not supernatural, infallible beings. Those people were borne of courage and fortitude, determined to strike a NEW way forward. The people who braved death at the end of a rope sought to free themselves from the very things many historians are trying to impose upon us today. Fear of the future should never be an excuse to lynch a nation by the ropes of the past. No, I say we look within ourselves and work together to forge a new pathway forward. We can still look toward the past with admiration and reverence, but to use small portions of the past as ammunition to fight our supposed enemies will only result in continued chaos.

We need leaders who can stand on moral principles, but lead us forward out of the rubble and ashes of a contentious past. Christian leaders, too, should refrain from idolizing the heroes of our past, but should instead realize that these people were looking for forward-thinking ideas. They were heroes because they unleashed themselves from the past way of thinking in order to create something completely new and different. Let us not now get stuck in the mire that they died to free us from.

Uncommon History is still here!

I know many of you have been wondering what has happened to this blog and I can assure you at certain points in the last two months I have been asking myself the same question.

Apparently I garnered the attention of someone with genuine hacking skills that for whatever reason doesn’t like my sites. I have been combating attacks against all of my blogs since August. Past attacks were a nuisance, but the attacker shifted his strategy in this latest round and did quite a number on all my blogs. So much so that Google had classified all of my sites to be malicious attack sites and blocked them.

The amount of time I have for blogging the last few weeks has been spent defending the site, cleaning up malicious code and making efforts to tighten security. I don’t know if all that I have done will be enough to keep this anonymous coward away from me again, but for now things are back to normal.

Is treason protected as freedom of speech?

“I can say whatever I want, it’s a free country!”

I remember saying and hearing this so many times when I was a child. Surprisingly, or perhaps not so much, I continue to hear this same verbiage from adults today. The fact is, it simply is not so. “Free” may be the root word in freedom, but Americans and those found within our borders are not free to do whatever whenever to whoever. We are not a lawless country which is what that childish statement would seem to construe. In fact, we have a very clear set of laws that are based upon our constitution. Some laws may be harder to understand than others, but when one breaks a law, it becomes clear they have done so when they are caught in the act.

Excerpt from US Constitution Online
The Constitution does protect the freedom of speech of every citizen, and even of non-citizens — but only from restriction by the Congress (and, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, by state legislatures, too). There are plenty of other places where you could speak but where speech can and is suppressed. For example, freedom of speech can be and often is restricted in a work place, for example: employers can restrict your right to speak in the work place about politics, about religion, about legal issues, even about Desperate Housewives. The same restrictions that apply to the government do not apply to private persons, employers, or establishments. For another example, the government could not prohibit the sale of any newspaper lest it breech the freedom of the press. No newsstand, however, must carry every paper against its owners’ wishes.”

This issue is not one that is easily resolved, yet there continue to be discussions that skirt real and true threats. While it is understood that yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire is not protected speech, what is understood when someone publicly claims they are out to destroy America?

Where is the understanding of national security and national sovereignty when the very lives of American citizens and the laws that govern them are threatened within American borders. Is this kind of diatribe protected as free speech?

I delineate a difference between someone in America saying that they hate America and someone else saying that they are going to destroy America. One is an opinion and the other is a threat. There is a greatly stark difference between the two. What are our laws for if not to defend us against real and dangerous threats?

The First Amendment, adopted on December 15, 1791:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Treason as defined by the US Code, TITLE 18 | PART I | CHAPTER 115 | Section 2381

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Much has been said in recent days, months and years about the “threat” of Islam. Responses delve into a fight between religious factions, specifically Christianity vs. Islam. But I do not see the threats of Shariah Law as specifically called for by many Muslims as simply a threat against freedom of religion.

The United States of America is a country governed by a set of laws that are established by the United States Constitution. It is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND and no other law supersedes it. If some of the people within and without or borders get their way, the Constitution will be publicly burned and replaced with a set of laws that completely erase the freedoms and liberties we currently enjoy.

I believe it is way past time for Americans to wake up to a reality that their very way of life is being threatened, not by a religion, but by a foreign set of laws that seeks to overturn the very pillars of order and justice we understand and respect in America. This is NOT a battle of freedom of religion! This is a matter of free speech, government overthrow and national security.

Muslims are free and right to practice their religion within our borders and I have nothing against allowing and respecting that right. But threats against our legal code and our government are credible threats and should not be protected as freedom of speech.