Gilham’s Manual & Its Usage in the Army of Northern Virginia
and Modern Confederate Reenacting 

By James P. Rife

The debate concerning the usage of drill manuals throughout the Confederate armies has raged within reenacting circles for well over decade, and continues today.  Indeed, one of the most important questions a new or existing unit needs to answer is which manual is correct for the specific unit being portrayed.  The question is not easy to answer and requires a great deal of research and extrapolation based upon the surviving Confederate records and sources.  Currently, the manual written and subsequently revised by Lieutenant General William J. Hardee, a renowned military scholar of his day, dominates the hobby.  The reasons are myriad, but include long-term familiarity by senior reenacting “commanders” in the mainstream, most of whom cut their teeth in the 1980s when other drill manuals were largely unknown.  As result, Hardee’s manual became, and remains, the hobby’s standard for the most part.  

Mike Bussey, of the 1st Tennessee, has written an excellent article outlining the history of Hardee’s manual and comparing it with another widely known manual, that written by the distinguished Virginia Military Institute (VMI) professor, Major William Gilham.  However, Bussey’s argument that “it appears that the infantry drill manual of choice in the Confederate army was Hardee’s ‘Tactics’” must be challenged on a number of levels.  First and foremost, the Confederate ‘Army’ was not monolithic, and was actually comprised over a dozen field armies of varying sizes, missions, and capabilities, spread over the vast expanse of the southern Confederacy.  The two most prominent and powerful of these of course were the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of Tennessee, two organizations with very different military traditions and operating characteristics.[i]

With this in mind, Bussey’s argument is on safe ground when he states that “It is a documented fact that many Confederate units, including the 1st Tennessee, used Hardee’s Drill Manual from 1861-1865.  Indeed, there can be no doubt that Hardee’s manual was the system of choice in the Army of Tennessee since he was one of its leading generals and personalities.  However, Bussey’s contention that “In the almost total absence of period sources specifically naming other manuals, Hardee’s was most likely taught throughout the Southern military” is less certain since compelling references do exist concerning the usage of Gilham’s Manual in the Virginia army.

A thoroughly Virginia product, Gilham’s Manual originated with John Brown’s hanging in 1859.  During the “event,” Governor Henry Wise witnessed the inability of the commonwealth’s militia to function above the company level. The confusion was largely caused by novice, non-professional officers attempting to lead undisciplined militia troops in the execution of non-standard drill systems.  Embarrassed, and alarmed at the militia’s poor performance in view of the perceived threat of slave uprising (which Brown had attempted to instigate), Wise ordered General Francis Smith to assign an officer at the Virginia Military Institute to “write” a manual to standardize Virginia’s drill system and instruct the Commonwealth’s officers and troops in the execution of their duties.  Gilham drew the assignment.  Throughout 1860, he labored to produce the manual, and made several extended trips to Philadelphia to supervise its publishing by Charles Desilver.  The manual was published in January 1861 and issued to the cadets at VMI, who incorporated it into their daily parade ground activities.  Soon after, Wise’s successor, Governor John Letcher ordered that the manual be adopted as the official manual for Virginia.

In terms of content, as historian and reenactor Eric Mink of the 4th Virginia, Stonewall Brigade (http//:www.stonewallbrigade.org) has stated, Gilham’s Manual was not an original work, but a compilation, and rehash, of other manuals such as Hardee, Scott, Poinsett, etc.  Indeed, Gilham includes, nearly word-for-word, both Scott’s “heavy infantry” drill and Hardee’s system for “light infantry” and “riflemen.”  Although Gilham would probably have been sued for plagiarism in the modern world, this was acceptable practice in the 19th century, and his manual did a great service by incorporating the best features of all the previous manuals into a single, comprehensive work. For the volunteer and militia officer, it included everything that he would need to know in administering his unit and handling his troops, such as the U.S. Army’s Articles of War, the drill, line and staff duties, and organization of the various branches of the army, advice on fighting and tactics, explanation of weaponry and ammunition, target practice, conducting courts martial, music, and a glossary of standard-practice military terms. For the citizen-turned-soldier, or “weekend warrior” in today’s parlance, it is the most complete textbook for the training and supervision of commands. For this reason, General Philip Kearney wrote the Desilver in Philadelphia on August 3, 1861: "It is comprehensive, complete, and reliable. I regard it the best Military Work that exists." George McClellan wrote on May 23, 1861, "I...think it an excellent work to be placed in the hands of the Volunteers." Gilham's strength, Mink reiterates, is in what it included, everything needed for a novice officer to learn his duties and supervise his men.

Mink’s careful research has shown that the original Stonewall Brigade in fact used Gilham’s Manual at the start of the Civil War. The first key reference to the manual’s usage can be found in staff officer Henry Kyd Douglas’ I Rode With Stonewall.  Interestingly enough, Douglas’ mention of Gilham’s use involves Jackson himself. The incident occurred around August 1861 when Douglas, as a junior lieutenant in the 2nd Virginia, was officer of the guard on a dark and wet night. Jackson had been stopped by the guard and asked the countersign, which he refused to give. He asked Douglas under whose authority he was acting, and Douglas replied:

“My authority was Gilham’s Manual. He told me to quietly and apparently without any annoyance to reinstruct the sentinel and bring Gilham to his tent the next morning. I did both and he was very cordial in the morning reception, admitted Gilham’s authority, but had a copy of his order given to me.”[ii]

Another of Mink’s references involves a militia company, commanded by Captain John H.S. Funk, that became part of the 5th Virginia. In the summer of 1861, Captain Funk sent his brother, Sergeant Jefferson W.O. Funk, on recruiting detail to Winchester. In an undated letter to his brother, Captain Funk requested that his brother: “Go to Lieut. Mesmer’s house & tell his wife that Bud Newton said send him Gilums [sic] drill book.” Similarly, Lieutenant John R. Mesmer was a member of Company K, 5th Virginia, while Capt. James W. Newton commanded Company E in the summer of 1861. That Captain Newton had a copy of Gilham’s Manual at his home suggests that he may have acquired it while in the militia prior to the war. While some in the 5th Virginia may have obtained their copies in the prewar Virginia military, the officers in the 33rd Virginia apparently had to wait to purchase their manuals from the Confederate publishers.[iii]

Although Virginia had commissioned Gilham’s manual for use by commonwealth troops, many found it too large and too expensive for practical use. Moreover, the prewar edition was published by Charles Desilver of Philadelphia, and after Virginia’s seceded in April 1861, this source was suddenly cut off.   Nevertheless, the Richmond firm West & Johnston decided to publish its own edition, which appeared for sale in the beginning of August 1861.  To acquire copies, Virginia officers were compelled to purchase their own since commonwealth authorities failed to directly issue the manual to its officers, perhaps because of expense and a shortage of commonwealth funds. As Mink notes, this was the case with the officers from the 33rd Virginia. Captain Frederick W.M. Holliday of Company E apparently made a trip to Richmond around August 1861 and took orders for Gilham’s Manual, as well as Army Regulations - 2nd Edition.  Holliday’s collected papers at Duke University includes the list he made of 33rd officers wanting copies of Est & Johnson’s edition of Gilham’s Manual. The names listed are John Gatewood Co. C, George W. Allen Co. F, David H. Walton Co. K, and Lieut. Martin Strickler Co. B. General Jackson is also listed, but he declined his copy yet, characteristically, he needed a copy of Army Regulations.[iv]

Modern arguments invariably revolve around how heavily and where Gilham’s Manual may have been used, as opposed to Hardee’s. The issued is clouded further since the Confederate government never adopted any one manual as its official choice. In May 1861, as Mink relates, a resolution was proposed in the Provisional Congress of the Confederate States to adopt Hardee and that the Secretary of War purchase "ten thousand copies...the cost of the same shall not exceed one dollar a copy." This resolution was tabled and apparently never acted upon.   However, in the absence of army level orders (with a couple of exceptions) stipulating which manual the troops should use, there is enough evidence to suggest that Gilham’s was the preferred system in the Army of Northern Virginia.   Indeed it appears that the decision was left up to the states and their officers, since Mink has found orders from Virginia and Georgia officials naming Gilham’s Manual as their choice, with endorsements from Adjutant Generals to the governors of Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi and New York for Gilham’s adoption. Georgia supplied their troops with copies, while in Virginia the officers had to purchase theirs. Evidence such as this has led Army of Northern Virginia scholar Philip Katcher to categorically state that Gilham’s Manual “became the most widely used infantry manual in Lee’s Army.”[v]

The argument can be made that Gilham's Manual was used early in the war, but later dropped in favor of Hardee’s revised 1862 version since it is known that VMI cadets were using Hardee’s in 1864.  However, because the differences between the two systems are more or less cosmetic, and since a large portion of the Virginia officer corps was affiliated with VMI and therefore familiar with Scott’s 1835 infantry tactics (which Gilham incorporated), it is entirely conceivable that they did not see a compelling reason change horses in mid-stream, and continued to use Gilham’s Manual for the war’s duration. 

For re-enacting purposes, I personally believe that Gilham’s is a more elegant system than Hardee’s, and when properly executed by a well-drilled company, looks much sharper, particularly with its inclusion of “casting about” while loading and fixing and unfixing bayonets, resulting in a nice Venetian blind effect among the ranks.  Moreover, Gilham’s left-handed, elbow bent position of “shoulder” and “carry” arms are much easier for the re-enactor to sustain on the march and in formation than Hardee’s arrow-straight right-handed carry.  Finally, coming from a loaded and primed, “shoulder arms” position, the ready position (figure 35, pp. 100-101) in which the rifled-musket is held straight-up, perpendicular to the middle body (very similar to a “present-arms,” but lockplate and hammer-out, a la Scott’s Tactics and those of the British Army of the Revolutionary War period.), looks very smart but is rarely seen at reenactments.

In sum, Gilham’s is not only historically correct for the Army of Northern Virginia, but it offers a number of advantages for the Confederate reenactor.  Not only does the system look good to the interested observer, but it is easier to execute, and is more comprehensive than Hardee’s.

I wish to give full credit to Mr. Eric Mink of the 4th Virginia, Stonewall Brigade, whose excellent research, article on the subject, and sources I shameless ransacked for this piece in the interests of re-enacting improvement.

Click HERE to send us an email
Last updated on
Powered by St. Germain Media Services, LLC