CIR: P-12 Benning’s Brigade September 8, 1864

0 comments

in Confederate Inspection Reports

P12BenningBde18640908FBConfederate Inspection Report:

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

September 8, 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: 0025-0034.jpg

Date of Inspection: September 8, 1864

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

Inspection Location: Chaffin’s Farm on the James River

Aggregate Present & Absent: 1,8962

Aggregate Effective for the Field: 1,896

Officers and Men Present for Duty (PFD): 671 officers and men

Weapons: Enfield Rifles, Springfield Rifles, and Richmond Rifles

Sub-Units:

  • 2nd Georgia, Lt. Col. William S. Shepherd, 145 officers and men PFD
  • 15th Georgia, Major Peter J. Shannon, 217 officers and men PFD
  • 17th Georgia, Lt. Col. William A. Barden, 143 officers and men PFD
  • 20th Georgia, Captain William Craig, 166 officers and men PFD

Downloadable Spreadsheet:

 

Source/Notes:

  1. Confederate Inspection Report P-12: Benning’s Brigade, September 8, 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: Clearly the inspector was not accurately representing one of either “aggregate present & absent” or “aggregate effective for the field.”  The former should be much larger at this point in the war.  I wanted to point out the inspector filled out the report this way.  I did not have a typo here.

{ 0 comments… add one now }

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: