CIR: P-13 Benning’s Brigade August 9, 1864


in Confederate Inspection Reports

P13BenningBde18640809FBConfederate Inspection Report:

Benning’s Brigade, Field’s Division, First Corps, Army of Northern Virginia1

August 9, 1864

The Confederate Army of Northern Virginia produced inspection reports at approximately monthly intervals late in the Civil War.  Luckily, many of these reports have been preserved and are available on microfilm from the National Archives and Records Association. I have produced transcriptions of the key information from these reports. See the bottom of this page for freely downloadable transcriptions of most of these reports. This transcription is copyrighted by Brett Schulte and may not be distributed, changed, or reproduced in any manner without the written consent of the transcriber.

M935 Roll #: 10

Image # from Digitized Copy: 0035-0046.jpg

Date of Inspection: August 9, 1864

Commander: Colonel Dudley M. DuBose (of the 15th Georgia)

Inspection Location: New Market Heights, north of Deep Bottom near the James River

Aggregate Present & Absent: 1,963

Aggregate Effective for the Field: 7122

Officers and Men Present for Duty (PFD): 712

Weapons: Enfield Rifles, Springfield Rifles, and Richmond Rifles


  • 2nd Georgia, Lt. Col. William S. Shepherd, 172 officers and men PFD
  • 15th Georgia, Major Peter J. Shannon, 220 officers and men PFD
  • 17th Georgia, Lt. Colonel William A. Barden, 147 officers and men PFD
  • 20th Georgia, Captain Henry C. Mitchell, 173 officers and men PFD

Downloadable Spreadsheet:



  1. Confederate Inspection Report P-13: Benning’s Brigade, August 9, 1864; Inspection Reports and Related Records Received By the Inspection Branch in the Confederate Adjutant and Inspector General’s Office. (National Archives Microfilm Publication M935, Roll 10: Inspection Reports P-12 – 39-P-24); War Department Collection of Confederate Records, Record Group 109; National Archives Building, Washington, D.C.
  2. SOPO Editor’s Note: “Effectives” generally means men carrying muskets, so no commissioned officers are included.  “Present for Duty” includes commissioned officers.  So this number probably should be lower then the PFD.  Instead, the Inspector wrote the same number for both, obviously an error.  I did not accidentally make a typo.  The inspector typed it this way.

{ 0 comments… add one now }

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: