Battle of Shiloh: Throwing Stones at the 'Hornet's Nest'

In the field of history there is a fairly new and increasingly popular method of research called ethnohistory, where researchers go beyond traditional sources (books and manuscripts) and use other tools such as oral traditions and archaeology in order to fill in gaps and create a more complete picture of an event. This method is particularly useful in areas such as Native American history, where written documents from the individuals and tribes themselves are usually completely absent, forcing past historians to rely on biased (and occasionally flat-out false) accounts from outsiders. However, ethnohistory can also contribute important information to events that have been more than adequately documented. Military engagements are often among the most documented events in history, since officers are often required to write post-battle reports or testify at military tribunals; yet the confusing and complicated nature of war (as well as the urge to stress one's own achievements and gloss over the failures) creates gaps in the historical record, gaps that ethnohistory can and has helped fill.

The Battle of Shiloh took place in Tennessee on April 6th and 7th, 1862 during the American Civil War, and at that point represented the bloodiest military engagement in United States history: altogether slightly less than 24,000 casualties, a figure that would be outdone in later battles and even dwarfed at Gettysburg and Chickamauga. Arguably the most famous aspect of this battle was the Hornet's Nest, where scattered regiments from two Union divisions somehow organized a defense that held off waves of Confederate attacks for approximately seven hours until, after becoming completely surrounded, finally surrendered late in the day on the 6th. This delay bought the Union army enough time to regroup and counterattack the next day, turning a retreat into a vitally important victory for the North.

My first encounter with a very different version of this story came from catching an episode of 'Battlefield Detectives' which discussed this very event (see, we can learn something from tv), and others have additionally argued against this conception of the battle (for instance, this individual from HistoryNet.com) - offhand, I do not know any specific historians who have argued against the traditional account of the Hornets Nest, although some undoubtedly have. Using archaeology around both the Union and Confederate lines at the Hornet's Nest, researchers have found some startling evidence that contradicts descriptions from the soldiers.

For one, after methodically searching the Union line they found a lack of unfired ammunition, which is odd considering that in the heat of battle soldiers always dropped bullets when reloading. They did, however, find a decent number of fired ammunition along the Union line, indicating that the yanks were probably taking more fire from the rebs than they were dishing out.

Additionally, in the immediate aftermath of the battle gravediggers reported burying a comparatively small number of dead soldiers in the vicinity of the Hornet's Nest - strange, considering the custom was to use mass graves where the heaviest fighting had taken place in order to clean up the area as fast as possible. Even stranger is that years later when the government paid to have Union soldiers relocated to the national cemetery, they found that very few at all had been buried at the Hornet's Nest.

A final strike against the popular conception of the Hornet's Nest was that the canister fire (artillery shells that worked like a shotgun) that the Union supposedly rained down onto the Confederates to drive each wave back would have proven largely ineffective in reality - the Confederate line was apparently along the crest of a nearby hill, which would have absorbed most of the Union canister fire. In fact, archaeological evidence suggests that the Northern soldiers probably received more artillery fire than they shot out.

Ethnohistory (in this case, archaeology) thus helped historians create a more accurate depiction of the Battle of Shiloh. The episode of 'Battlefield Detectives' drew two conclusions from this evidence. First, that the popular conception of the Hornet's Nest probably arose from the anniversary celebrations held by Union veterans of the battle, where they would increasingly exaggerate their roles in the engagement. This seems a plausible explanation, considering others have pointed out that General Prentiss, one of the division commanders at the Hornet's Nest, initially gave a humble report of his unit's actions during the battle that he seemed to embellish slightly as time went on.

The second conclusion, however, struck me as a step in the wrong direction. The researchers seemed to feel that the Hornet's Nest simply was not really that important of an event during the battle. This argument is something of an overstatement. Regardless of whether or not the Union soldiers mowed down Confederate waves with musket volleys and canister fire, the approximately 3,000 men in the center of the Confederate attack remained an issue that the rebels had to deal with, slowing down their advance and buying Grant some time (some argue that the South should have simply bypassed the area, a strategy that tends to ignore the problem of now having a sizable force behind Confederate lines). And even if it was not the hurricane of a fight it has been made out to be, clashes and skirmishes still took place at the location; the Confederates were not able to simply skirt by the location to advance on the main body of Union infantry. Even the act of surrendering must have helped the North - the Confederates now had 2,200+ prisoners that had to be brought to the rear and put under at least minimal guard, costing time and manpower. In this case, casualties on the field do not necessarily correlate to strategic importance.

Ethnohistory can contribute greatly to our understanding of an event, as the work done recently on the Battle of Shiloh shows. However, I think it is important not to get too carried away and make radical conclusions simply because new evidence arises. Ethnohistory should fill in the gaps and help correct mistakes, but it should not be an all-important piece of the puzzle that alone can change history. That can be as problematic as those who ignore enthohistory altogether.

(Anyone else find it fitting that the history buff seems to write the more long-winded posts here? Trunkely, let's hear an in depth, step-by-step description of how one discovers, charts, and draws conclusions from stratification in rock layers.)