Michael J. Forsyth - The Camden Expedition of 1864 and the Opportunity Lost by the Confederacy to Change the Civil War

Also by MICHAEL J. FORSYTH

The Red River Campaign of 1864 and the Loss by the Confederacy of the Civil War (McFarland, 2002)

McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers
Jefferson, North Carolina, and London

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGUING DATA ARE AVAILABLE

BRITISH LIBRARY CATALOGUING DATA ARE AVAILABLE

e-ISBN: 978-1-4766-0804-4

2003 Michael J. Forsyth. All rights reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying or recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Cover photograph: Union Major General Frederick Steele, commander of the Federal Department of Arkansas and the VII Corps (Massachusetts Commandery Military Order of the Loyal Legion and the U.S. Army Military History Institute)

McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers
Box 611, Jefferson, North Carolina 28640
www.mcfarlandpub.com

For Nana

In writing this book I became indebted to a great number of people who provided me with assistance and encouragement. I would like to express my gratitude to the folks who did so much to enable my success.

First, I must thank God for blessing my life far beyond reasonable expectations. I would also like to thank my wife, Maryellen, and our children, Andrew and Ashley. I spent many long hours working away at completing my work and my family, as always, supported my work in spite of the inevitable papers and books I routinely left strewn around the house. They have always provided me with the foundation and steadiness I need to keep plugging away. For this and everything that you all do for me, I thank you.

Next, I want to express my thanks to Dr. Karl Roider of Louisiana State University. I first met Doc. R five years ago as I began work on a masters degree at the university. Since then Dr. Roider has never hesitated to provide advice and suggestions to improve my writing. In spite of a heavy schedule, Dr. Roider graciously agreed to read the manuscript. His insight helped immensely in my formulation of the thesis and supporting ideas. Once again, thank you Dr. Roider for your support.

Ms. Sheila Duckworth is the librarian of the United States Field Artillery Schools Morris Swett Technical Library. I met her while I was teaching at the school. As I began to work on this project, Ms. Duckworth enthusiastically found numerous sources for me, making my work infinitely easier. I cannot express how much I appreciate her selfless assistance in words, but I hope she will accept my heartfelt thanks. Without her the book would certainly have lacking.

Finally, I must thank my parents Jack and Edith Forsyth and grandmother, Jean Alviti. They provided me with the enduring tools to survive in a tough world and because of them I am a better person. Thank you.

In 1864, a cornered and struggling Union force in Louisiana was saved from extinction by a federal offensive that has come to be known as the Camden Expedition. Though little remembered today, this expedition overcame the forces of the Souths Red River Campaign and, in so doing, prevented the Rebels from turning the war in their favor.

The Camden Expedition even more than the Red River Campaign is a forgotten chapter of American Civil War historiography since it occurred in a region considered a backwater to both sides during the war: Arkansas. By 1864 Arkansas was cut off from the eastern Confederacy after the fall of Vicksburg and seemingly unimportant in the larger scheme for winning the war. Yet, a complicated turn of events thrust this unknown Federal offensive onto center stage in determining the eventual outcome of the war. The Camden Expedition is a story of personal conflicts, arduous marches, desperate battles, and the strength of the human spirit. Because of the efforts of a small Union army in Arkansas, a larger one in Louisiana escaped danger and eventually exerted great influence in momentous battles in the East later that year. As a result of the sacrifices of the men in this tiny army, they enabledalbeit indirectlythe Union to win the war and sealed the fate of the Confederacy.

Camden is an intriguing study because of the influence it had on the war and the might-have-beens had the key characters made some different decisions. Since the Camden Expedition is such an obscure episode in the record of the Civil War, I would like to set the stage with a brief introduction. It will provide a quick snapshot of the situation in 1864 and the role Camden would play in winning the Civil War, particularly with respect to the national election. In addition, this introduction will provide a glimpse of the intriguing personalities of the opposing commanders who decided the fate of the expedition and the now quiet Arkansas fields where the armies collided.

Optimism ran high in the North as the war entered its fourth year. For the Confederacy, 1863 had been a disaster as their armies met with resounding defeats at Gettysburg, Vicksburg, and Chattanooga. Rebeldom was suffering ever-increasing hardships as the Federal armies pressed in closer to the southern heartland and the blockade choked off trade with her ports. Now with a new general-in-chief, Ulysses S. Grant, at the helm it seemed only a matter of time before the Confederacy would collapse. This proved a hasty assumption as the tenacious Rebel commanders had other ideas.

Upon assuming command of all the Union armies, General Grant brought a war-winning strategy to the office. It involved a coordinated offensive by all Federal armies directed against the primary Confederate armies still in the field. By placing unstoppable pressure on the Souths smaller armies, eventually they would collapse. The key to the strategy was to ensure that all of the Norths vast resources focused on destroying the slowly withering southern capabilities. Here the strategy skewed. Before assuming command, Grants predecessor, Major General Henry W. Halleck, set everything in motion for a campaign west of the Mississippiaway from the heartland. The effort, known as the Red River Campaign, represented a major diversion from Grants program for 1864. A key component of Hallecks Red River invasion was to mount another smaller offensive from Arkansas in order to co-operate with the Federal troops moving through the Red River Valley. Grant allowed it to continue after taking command because he believed Federal forces in Louisiana and Arkansas could wrap up the campaign before the scheduled jump off date for his spring offensives and he did not want to embarrass his former boss, Halleck, by countermanding his previous orders. It did not work out as planned.

Confederate forces west of the Mississippi under General Edmund Kirby Smith and Richard Taylor quickly defeated and cornered a much larger Union army under Major General Nathaniel P. Banks. When it appeared the Rebels had Banks army and a large Union fleet in the Red River on the ropes, the Confederates abruptly stopped. Why? Because the Federal army moving southward from Arkansas toward Louisiana threatened the hinterland of Smiths Trans-Mississippi Department confusing Smith as to which column represented the Federal main effort in the region. This Union force under Major General Frederick Steele was the Federal VII Army Corpsalso known as the Department of Arkansasmoving down from Little Rock in accordance with Hallecks original scheme.