91st PA--officers (structure) and number of men

91st PA--structure and numbers

[related file: officers (names)]

Index



Regimental structure

The act of 22 July 1861, section 2, established the regimental structure. Each infantry regiment was to have:

Section 9 also allows each regiment one chaplain.

Each of the ten companies were to have

Each company was supposed to have 64 to 82 privates.

The act of 3 March 1863, section 19, allowed the President to consolidate companies whenever a regiment had one-half the maximum number, with a commensurate reduction in the number of officers, and section 20 limited the number of officers if the regiment was below the minimum number.

Musicians

On 17 July 1862, Congress passed a law ending regimental bands (but permitting smaller brigade bands). This is presumably why Abraham Banker and William Kirkpatrick (both principle musicians, F&S) were mustered out on 9 October 1862 (after the permitted thirty days after the passage of the act had passed!).

On 3 February 1864, the drum corps played at a ceremony presenting a new set of flags to the regiment ['Presentation of flags' (Philadelphia Press 4 February 1864, page 2)].

On 25 July 1864, 12 musicians were present and 5 absent. Of those present, 1 was a bugler, 11 were drummers, and none were bandsmen. Of those absent, all 5 were drummers. [letter, Lentz to Bennett, 25 July 1864]

On 10 September 1864, Sellers asked that musicians Thomas Coyle and John Falls be returned from the 5th corps hospital, since the drum corps was "entirely broken up".

While in Alexandria, the drum corps played "spirit-stirring music" at a ceremony displaying a new flag at the City Hall. They were quartered in the post office building. ('From Alexandria'. Daily National Intelligence (Washington DC) 18 June 1862 (issue 15,552), column D)

Number present (etc.)

Battle of Gettysburg
20 officers and 205 enlisted men (excluding pioneers and musicians) were engaged in the battle of Gettysburg (letter, Sinex to Fowler, 25 Mar 64)
21 August 1863
no enlisted men were acting as commissioned officers
1 November 1863
total strength of the regiment was 436, of whom 176 were absent
21 December 1863 and 22 December 1863
292 present
28 December 1863
303 enlisted men were present with the army
4 January 1864
233 enlisted men [veterans?], 158 recruits, and 20 officers were present, 25 were in hospital, 3 officers were on detached service, and 2 were on sick leave
veterans who returned with the regiment after their furlough
see veteran volunteers for evidence about the problem and the number who returned
6 March 1864
204 enlisted men and 14 officers were present; 8 officers were on detached duty, 1 was absent sick, and 1 was absent without leave, and 1 had resigned; 156 men were absent without leave, 17 were absent sick, 3 had died, 1 had deserted, and 35 were on detached service
7 Mar 64
134 enlisted men and 12 officers were present equipped for duty (letter, Sinex to Marvin, 7 Mar 64).
13 Mar 64
13 officers and 249 enlisted men were present for duty (total 262), 1 officers and 76 enlisted men of whom were "on duty east of Cedar Run". 298 were absent, including 9 officers on detached service, 1 officer sick, 61 enlisted men on detached service, 146 enlisted men awol, 72 enlisted men sick, and 9 enlisted men in confinement (letter, Sinex to Marvin, 13 Mar 64)
19 Mar 64
13 officers, 293 enlisted men equipped for duty [letter, Sinex to Marvin, 19 Mar 64]
23 Mar 64
13 officers and 207 enlisted men were present; 10 officers and 222 enlisted men were absent (letter, Sinex to Fowler, 23 Mar 64]
25 [?] Mar 64
327 men were present in the regiment; 17 were detached within the army; 1 was sick in the division hospital (345 total present in the army) [letter, Sinex to Fowler, 25 [??] Mar 64]
4 Apr 64
present: com off 13, enl men 351 (total 364)
absent: com off 10, enl men 206 (total 216)
of those present, 13 com off and 314 enl men (total 327) were present for duty
11 Apr 64
384 enlisted men and 13 officers were present; 172 enlisted men and 10 officers were absent (see letter, Sinex to Marvin, 11 Apr 64, for a company-by-company breakdown).
14 Apr 64
present for duty: 12 officers and 339 enlisted men (total 351); absent: 10 officers, 193 enlisted men (203 total) (letter, Sinex to Marvin, 14 Apr 64)
15 Apr 64
in the week ending the 15th, the 91st

gained 1 commissioned officer (to promotion or appointment), and 15 enlisted men (4 recruits, 9 returned from being AWOL, and 2 returned from confinement)

and lost 1 enlisted man (discharged for disability)

present: 14 officers, 394 enlisted men (408 total)
22 Apr 64
in the week ending the 22nd, the 91st

gained 3 commission officers (returning from detached service and 28 enlisted men (9 recruits, 10 from detached service, 1 from leave, 5 from awol, and 3 from confinement), and

lost 1 officer and 3 enlisted men (died from wounds received in action

present: 16 officers, 418 enlisted men (434 total)
[I do not know why the numbers don't add up; a net gain of 27 over 408 should result in a total of 435, not 434]
[letter, Sinex to Marvin, 22 Apr 64]
28 Apr 64
in the week ending the 28th, the 91st

gained 32 men (25 recruits, 1 reenlistment, 3 returned from detached service, 1 from absence sick, 2 from awol

lost 3 men deserted

[letter, Sinex to Fowler, 28 Apr 64]
May 64
1 man was transferred to the VRC, and 3 recruits were received
29 June 64
the reg't had 23 officers and 516 enlisted men
co E had 1 officer and 83 enlisted men present and absent; 41 of the enlisted men were present for duty
[letter, Gregory to Bennett, 29 June 64]
4 July 64
the reg't had 23 officers and 509 enlisted men
co D had 1 officer [James Diehl] and 74 enlisted men; 37 of the enlisted men were present for duty
[letter, Sellers to [unnamed] captain, 4 July 1864]
8 July 64
15 officers and 240 enlisted men were present for duty; 17 officers and 258 men were present, with 2 officers and 15 men sick
[letter, Lentz to Bennett, 8 July 1864]
8 Aug 64
co.E: 2 officers, 81 enlisted men, 38 enlisted men present for duty
regiment: 21 officers, 520 enlisted men
[letter, Sellers to McFarland, 8 Aug 64]
2 Sep 64
15 officers, 220 enlisted men present for duty
15 officers, 228 enlisted men present
[letter, Sellers to Bennett, 2 Sep 64]

company officers to report all officers and enlisted men absent whose term did not expire before 31 Dec 64 [circular HQ 91st PA, 2 Sep 64]
6 Sep 64
22 officers, 511 enlisted men [present and absent]
co.D: 1 officers, 68 enlisted men [present and absent]; 42 or 52 enlisted men present
[letter, Sellers to Bennett, 6 September 1864]
16 Sep 64
15 officers and 235 enlisted men present
14 officers and 232 enlisted men present for duty
5 enlisted men gained (2 recruits gained from depot, 2 from desertion)
1 commissioned officer (William Carpenter sent to hospital wounded) & 5 enlisted men lost
1 company and 1 regimental inspection
1 dress parade
[letter, Sellers to Tayman, 16 Sep 64]
summary of regimental strength, May-September 1864
May: 24 officers, 565 men [2 recruits joined, 0 discharged]
June: 23 officers, 516 men [0 recruits joined, 0 discharged]
July: 22 officers, 518 men [0 recruits joined, 0 discharged]
August: 22 officers, 514 men [0 recruits joined, 0 discharged]
September: 19 officers, 484 men [3 recruits joined, 2 officers and 24 enlisted men discharged (2 officers and 14 enlisted men present, 10 enlisted men absent]
[letter, Sinex to Tayman, 6 Oct 64]
31 Oct 64
total officers present & absent in regiment: 16, enlisted men: 567
officers present & absent in co.C: none; enlisted men: 33 present, 47 present & absent
officers present & absent in co.F: 1, enlisted men: 35 present, 52 present & absent
officers present & absent in co.G: 1, enlisted men: 34 present, 46 present & absent
officers present & absent in co.H: 1, enlisted men: 34 present, 46 present & absent
[letters]
9 Nov 64
total officers present and absent: 20
total enlisted men present and absent: 544
total officers in company I: 1
total enlisted men in company I: 46
enlisted men present in company I: 33
[letter, Sellers to Bartlett, 9 Nov 64]
16 Dec 64
total officers present and absent: 16
total enlisted men present and absent: 530
total officers in company K: 2 (1 wounded, 1 on detached service)
total enlisted men in co.K: 63
total enlisted men present in co.K: 38
[letter, Sellers to Bartlett, 16 Dec 64]
25 Dec 64
total officers present & absent: 15
total enlisted men present & absent: 529
total officers present & absent in co.A: 0
total enlisted men present & absent in co.A: 65
total enlisted men present: 36
[letter, Sellers to Bartlett, 25 Dec 64]
1 Jan 65
total officers in regiment 17
total enlisted men in regiment 514 [?]
total officers in co.B 0
total enlisted men in co.B 52
enlisted men present in co.B 27
[letter, Sellers to Bartlett, 1 Jan 65]
4 Jan 65
19 officers in regiment
512 enlisted men in regiment
1 officer in co.H
42 enlisted men in co.H
29 enlisted men present in co.H
[letter, Sellers to Bartlett, 4 Jan 65]
21 Feb 65
18 officers & 510 enlisted men in reg't
1 officer & 43 enlisted men in co.C
27 enlisted men in co.C present
[letter, Sellers to Morgan, 21 Feb 65]
4 Mar 65
reg't had 18 officers and 510 enlisted men
co.D had 1 officer and 70 enlisted men, with 42 enlisted men present
co.G had 0 officers and 34 enlisted men, with 24 enlisted men present
[letters, Sellers to Farnsworth, 4 March 1865]

Number of men who served in the regiment

Unfortunately, determining how many men served in the 91st is not easy. Besides possible errors in the records, two issues arise.

First, who should count as a member of the regiment is surprisingly difficult to determine. The published roster in Bates follows the paperwork, which may be the best strategy, but leads to odd results. At least these issues arise:

Second, some men reenlisted in the regiment after having been discharged. The regimental records I have seen occasionally mention this (see, e.g., company D descriptive book, entry 107; or the consolidated morning report for 20? February 1865), and I have also seen evidence in one widow's pension file (see John McGehan). At least these men reenlisted after mustering out:

(The muster-in rolls, which I have not seen because they are too fragile for the National Archives to copy, may have more information here.) In these three cases, I suspect the soldier reenlisted, and the index to the index to the compiled service records apparently confirms that:

And I have followed the index to the compiled military service records in linking Joseph Allison (E) and Thomas Allison, and also in linking James and William Carpenter (B). I also suspect George C Rubicam and George W Rubicam may be the same person (although the index to the compiled service records has separate cards for them). Nicholas N Rockland and Nicholas N Koshland may well also be the same person. And whether Adolph Bankard was transferred with other men the 62nd Pennsylvania (as some orders report), or had already been discharged (as other records, including his absence from the 91st's roster in Bates, suggest), is not obvious. Perhaps the fact that William Soumillien's pension card mentions only his service in the 118th, and not his service in the 91st, and the 118th's records apparently don't mention his transfer, is relevant too (or perhaps they simply forgot that he was absent in arrest, and he himself may not even have known that he was on paper transferred).

I am very unsure whether Henry Weigle (B) and Henry Weigle (F) are the same person; I am currently waiting for information from the National Archives that might help determine that. (See especially the 'note on identification' about Henry Weigle for further explanation.)

I have combined Michael E Muldoon (H) and Michael Muldoon (D); the index to the compiled service records does have separate cards for them. Similarly for John McGeehan (D/F) and John McGeehan (D).

The company C descriptive book, but not the index to the compiled service records (!), mentions Owen Roberts, whom I have guessed was transferred from the 118th PA. Whether my guess is right is very unclear.

The index to the compiled service records doesn't mention William H Knouse (B), suggesting that he's really the same person as William H Knouse (F).

Bates, but not the descriptive books or the index to the compiled service records, mentions a Davis H Kelly (H). I have assumed he is David H Kelly (H)--but the muster-in dates are years apart.

The headstone for Alonzo Page, and some written records, claim he served in the 91st, but I doubt they are accurate.

The company H descriptive roll has a crossed-out entry for a William Miller [?], who was discharged by court order; he is not in Bates, or in the index to the compiled service records. I have included him in the regiment.

According to Bates, but not according to the regimental records or the index to compiled military service records, Harvey Reinhart was transferred from K 91 New York Infantry to the 91st PA. I have included him in the database, but will send for his compiled service record from the 91st New York.

Based on the index to the compiled service records, I suspect these men served in the 91st, but have not yet confirmed their service (but I have added others whose compiled service record confirms they served in the 91st):

  1. Hannigan, Charles (co.E--seems likely to be an error, but I haven't figured out how)
  2. McDonald, William (K) [probably 90th PA]
  3. Moore, George (?) [transferred from 118th? other evidence claims he mustered out with his company]
  4. Salls, John (K H) [could he be John Falls?--waiting for John Falls' compiled service record]
  5. Tafe, William H (-)
  6. Tims, Jacob W (-)
  7. Turner, George (-)
  8. Wise, Peter (-)
  9. Williams, Henry (-)

I have tentatively identified Manuel Bloom (H) and Andrew Bloom (K/H), but am not at all confident this identification is correct. I have identified William Onkest (D) and William Unkert (D), although the compiled service records for them are separate; the data matches, and they are not on any of the same muster rolls. I have followed the compiled service record in identifying Daniel M Smith (I) and David M Smith (I), but so little information is available about them that this identification is very speculative.

Finally, the regimental records I have seen do not include everyone in the regiment. George Surrick (B) served in the regiment, but is not listed in any regimental records I have. Others listed in the pension index by regiment include: George Foster (A), Edward J Doolittle (B), John R Lynch (B), John B Schultz (B), George Swick (B), James Johnson (D), David Howe (F), Frederick Knickrehm (F), Thomas J Murphy (F), Reading Emmors (H) [not in the index to compiled service records], Peter Olheiser (H), Benford Fletcher (I), Alexander Stair (K). Many of these may be like John P Huver, who served in the 118th Pennsylvania, and was borne on the 91st's rolls under the name 'John Huret'. Or like Robert McClellan (H), whom the index to the compiled service records suggests was John McClarren (H K).

But some people were temporarily attached to the 91st, and remained officially assigned to a different regiment, including Andrew George (I; listed in Bates as 'George Andrews'), and Edward J Doolittle (B). I have included these men because they are in the index to the compiled service records (and have probably included others because they were mentioned in Bates, without realizing that they were only temporarily attached).

Also, official burial records list Rolin Rowe as having served in the 91st, but I have not identified him in any regimental records (and have not added him to the "database").

People who are in the index to compiled service records cards for the 91st, but whom I've excluded from my database:

Note also that Charles Blazo is listed in Bates (and the ARIAS Civil War cards), but not in any regimental records I have seen, and not in the index to the compiled service records.

I have assumed that John Devine is James Devine (see the note on identification there), but that assumption may be wrong; note in particular that the index to compiled service records did not have a cross-reference from John Devine to James Devine.

The index to compiled service records suggests that the - (B) in Bates is either John Walton (B/D) or John F Walters (B), but I do not know which.

I do not know who the Joseph Webb listed in the consolidated morning report for 26 Feb 1864 is.

? David Wood is in Bates and the 13 Feb 63 consolidated morning report, but not the index to the compiled service records.

I have included Lackey, John (G) and William Mar (?), but the only information I have about them is from the index to the compiled service record (since the National Archives couldn't find the compiled service record for him).


top of document | home
revised 4 Oct 15
Contact Harry Ide at hide1@unl.edu with comments or questions