Talk:Albert Sidney Johnston

Untitled

It's Albert Sydney JOHNSTON. He was Secretary of War for the Republic of Texas. He also led a US Army expedition to Salt Lake City to confront the Mormons.

-- He is my great-great-great granduncle. His wife was a Luxich. He was wounded not killed at Shiloh and died later.

He is my great-great-great-great grandfather. Wow so we're related. email me at happyface92@sbcglobal.net

I am a direct descendant of his as well. He is some nth great grandfather of mine. My mother's maiden name is Johnston and is part of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR). To be a member of the DAR you have to prove through extensive research of your ancestry that you are in fact a DAR. When we did this research we are actually able to draw a direct relation for General Johnston to Lord Baltimore, the founder of the Maryland Colony. Oddly enough, General Albert Johnston is not the first General Johnston. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSonicFlow (talk • contribs) 07:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

He is my great grandfather. He married a lady named Martha and had 6 children, 5 boys and 1 girl. There is no mention of this in his biography. They were very wealthy, he was the Notary Republic of Navarro County, had a large farm. My grandfather, his son, married my grandmother Selia Files who was part Cherokee Indian. Albert did not agree with that and took all of my grandfather's royalties away from the oil and gas wells he had in Eureka, TX. They lived very well. It's amazing that Albert was such a strong, intelligent person. Wish I could have met him.. Betty DeMoss McCrory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.69.112.10 (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggest 5 possible wiki links for Albert Sidney Johnston.

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Albert_Sidney_Johnston article:

• Can link Adjutant General: ...] Army. One month later he was appointed to the position of Adjutant General and in January of [[1837]], he became Senior Brigadier Gene...
• Can link Brigadier General: ...jutant General and in January of [[1837]], he became Senior Brigadier General in Command of the Republic Army. The Second President of th...
• Can link Secretary of War: ...[[Republic of Texas]], [[Mirabeau B. Lamar]], appointed him Secretary of War in December of [[1838]]. In [[1840]], he returned to Kent...
• Can link Union Army: ...et behind his right knee while leading a charge against the Union Army. He did not think the wound serious at the time, and sent ...
• Can link popliteal artery: ...wounded Union soldiers. The bullet had in fact clipped the popliteal artery. Within a few minutes Johnston was observed by his staff to...

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The death of Albert Sidney Johnston

I am in possession of the Civil War diary of C.R. Allen, Company A, Second Regiment Illinois Volunteer Cavalry. He was at the Battle of Shiloh and was one of the 15 or 20 soldiers who were sent to find Lew Wallace and direct him to the battlefield.

I have transcribed his diary. The words, spelling and punctuation are Allen's. Anything that is italicized and in [ ] are my words.

Apr 7th 1862 – Monday – Shiloh While the South seems well supplied the Rebel Gen’ls Forrest and [then Capt. John] Morgan were dashing between the two lines. We beg our commanders to lead us to the front but it seems the Gen’ls were afraid that the Rebs had an ambush prepared for us. I believe had we been allowed to charge the already demoralized Rebel army would have been completely routed. We saw signs enough that the Confederates were in a bad plight and only needed pushing to have caused them to throw down their arms and many of them to surrender. While we were following their retreating lines, I opened a large wall tent and there lay a tall handsome dead Rebel, a Gen’l I was satisfied. I asked a wounded Confederate who it was. He said “Maj. Gen’l Sidney Johnston”. I had heard he was in command of the Rebel army on Sunday. I called to the Lieut. in command of our skirmish line. He came up and soon placed a guard over the tent. Well we now had the saddest part of all to do. Look up friends and bury the dead. I went as soon as we got back to our camp that night to a different Reg’t that my old schoolmates belonged to 52nd Ill, 46th Ill, 12th Ill &c. Captain Guy Ward of the 12th was killed. Saw R.F. Chandler of 52nd. He was all right but found that John Baird had lost a leg but was still alive. Rained all night which made it terrible for the wounded.

--RussianBlueLvr (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting description. You posted this here for a reason I assume, so what is it? Would you like to include any of this? Does the April 7th date concern you? The way the battle or his death is worded? Johnston's rank perhaps; it says he was a major general, though he was a full general in the CSA, but the yanks might not have known that. Just wondering why you wanted this here. Kresock (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Above in another comment it is claimed by somebody that Johnston did not die at Shiloh; I believe this poster's intent was an attempt at providing evidence he had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.232.53.40 (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Note added July 11, 2010

Moved from main article by Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

*Note

Whoever wrote this is wrong. He is my Great (to however many degrees) Grandfather. He had more than one son. Before you give people the wrong information, you should make sure you have all the facts.

Fabricated photograph

User Wrad pointed on out the Talk Page of the Utah War article that the photograph of General Johnston in this article was fabricated, probably using Photoshop or a similar program. It is General Johnston's head pasted on the body of another officer, a copy of which can be seen here. Anyone have any good ideas for a remedy? --AzureCitizen (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Although it is not conclusive that this was fabricated (the uniform details do not match the Sibley photograph exactly), I have replaced the image at the Commons with one that has documented source information. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The highest-ranking American general to die in battle in any war.

The oral claim was made a United States National Park Service guide in CSPAN American History program on the Battle of Shiloh that Johnston was the highest-ranking American general to die in battle in any war. I spent a little time looking for verification and the best I could find at the moment is some discussion forums on this. Someone else might be able to find a RS for it. patsw (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page on Lesley J. McNair states that the highest ranking U.S. generals to die in battle in World War II were lieutenant generals, McNair, Frank Maxwell Andrews, Simon Bolivar Buckner, Jr. and Millard Harmon. McNair was killed by friendly fire. McNair and Buckner were promoted to full general posthumously - in 1954. As I recall, no full American generals were killed in battle in any other war in which the United States has been involved, although my recollection obviously has no citation value. It is an interesting point, perhaps worth including if a good citation can be found. Donner60 (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Erroneous Army name and origin

The section where it states "Albert Sidney Johnston raised the Army of Mississippi" is both incorrect in army name and misleading in the origins of the army that Johnston would lead at the Battle of Shiloh. The Army itself was called the Army of the Mississippi indicating that the army was named for either the Mississippi River or it's valley and not the state (See Daniel's book Shiloh, Battle that changed the Civil War p. 64, Cunningham's Shiloh and the Western Campaign Page 119). It was by this name that it's commanders referred to it in the official records. In fact, here is Beauregard's official report stating the army name at the top:http://www.civilwarhome.com/beau.htm, as well as Bragg's official report http://www.civilwarhome.com/braggshi.htm . Additionally, the Army was not raised under Johnston, but was rather was the result of the concentration of several Confederate commands into one (Cunningham pp. 46, 47, 91-98, Daniels pp. 54, 90, 346, 382). I don't mean to seem hostile or petty when it comes to the name (I mean one word), but the connotation associated with the word (operations near a river or it's valley as opposed to a state) are very important. I would cite the references to the change in the article, but I am too uncomfortable with properly editing to do so. Semperpietas (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have looked into this a little more. When this force was organized in late March 1862, I found that Beauregard in fact named it the "Army of the Mississippi." Yet, I think its official name shortly thereafter became, if it was not originally, the "Army of Mississippi." Ultimately, it became the "Army of Tennessee" on November 20, 1862 - with a new Army of Mississippi being formed shortly thereafter - but that is not relevant to the time period under discussion. It may be worth noting that at the same time in early 1862 the Union had an "Army of the Mississippi" under John Pope. If you will look at the same web site, different page, http://www.civilwarhome.com/shilohorderofbattleconfed.htm, on the order of battle for the Confederate force at Shiloh, you will see it is entitled "Army of Mississippi." (Both pages appear to have been retyped from the original but I think we can assume they were done so accurately because I have another source for Beauregard's naming of the army.) For the time period just before or during the Battle of Shiloh "the" Mississippi thus may be more appropriate here, but perhaps with a footnote of explanation because of the more frequent naming conventions for armies and the later use of "Army of Mississippi" for this force before it was changed again.

In general, the Union armies were named after rivers, Confederate armies after states. Early in the war, however, this convention was not always followed. The Confederates had an "Army of the Potomac" for awhile early in the war. Beauregard commanded that force as well. When it was combined with the Army of the Shenandoah and Army of the Northwest, it became the Army of Northern Virginia. In mid-1862, Pope commanded the short-lived Union "Army of Virginia."

If we wish to be as accurate as possible, some more research may be necessary to see exactly how the force should be named at the period in question or perhaps whether some further note or accurate citation is needed to prevent future confusion. Certainly this shows that one can not simply assume that Confederate armies were always named for states and Union armies were always named for rivers. It is not completely accurate for 1861-1862, and there may be a few later examples where the general practice was not followed. Also, it may be that a few army names either were interchanged for periods of time, or at least were changed to similar names at some date after their original names. Care needs to be given to which name is applied during a particular time to avoid confusion. I don't think there are many such cases of naming overlap or confusion but this may be one.

I will undertake as much additional research as I can do with the books I have and with online sources to see if I can come up with the proper way to word, or to explain, the army name. I have not done it before writing this note because I won't know whether I have a definitive source until I start looking, and I think it could actually take a few hours even if I can be definite. Sorry that it seems I jumped the gun on the revert back to the state name.

I did not write or attempt to change the explanation of Johnston's role in raising the force but if I can clear that up, I will do so. I tend to think you are right that Johnston himself should not receive much credit for raising or organizing the force but I am not going to edit that unless I can find a source that would give me a reason to do so. Thanks for looking at this with more diligence. Donner60 (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this error in name is also present at the Battle of Shiloh article. I went digging into additional records, and it would appear that the Army of the Mississippi was never referred to "Army of Mississippi" by it's commanders but rather had it's name changed directly to Army of Tennessee, based on this Official report and correspondence by Bragg about Perryville (the last battle that army used it's Mississippi moniker): http://www.aotc.net/perryv-rep.htm#Bragg It should be in the first paragraph). I also have Timothy Smith's Corinth 1862: Siege, Battle, Occupation on hand. The first major book on the seige of Corinth I know, Smith calls it the Army of the Mississippi and covers it until Bragg takes the army to Kentucky. He doesn't mention a change in name or reference until page 172, where he mentions that the army and department change name to the Army of Tennessee. Smith also includes a great deal about the concentration of the Army in the opening chapters. This would mean that "Army of Mississippi" would solely refer to the army that Pemberton inherited from Van Dorn and led during the Vicksburg Campaign and those forces reconstituted under Polk during the Tupelo and Atlanta Campaigns. When it comes to the traditional naming conventions, it would appear that Confederates also had an "Army of the Rappahannock" referring to the Rappahannock river during the Peninsula Campaign, but it only consisted of two brigades and a cavalry troop stationed at Fredericksburg (Newton, Joseph Johnston and the Defense of Richmond, P. 127) Semperpietas (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

John and David Eicher's Civil War High Commands (2001) has become the standard reference for many people. I have found some apparent errors, possibly typographical errors in some cases because the book contains so many dates. In any event, on page 887, the Eichers show this army and its commanders (Beauregard, Johnston, Beauregard, et al.) under the heading ARMY OF MISSISSIPPI line break (Mar., 1862; Army of the Mississippi, Army of the West). I have looked in vain for a clear explanation of the heading. There is a note that the army was organized on March 2, 1862, with later additions of the Army of Pensacola on March 13 and Army of Central Kentucky and Army of Louisiana on March 29. The most logical interpretation would be that the two armies in parenthesis were merged to form the Army of Mississippi. Not only does this appear to be wrong in view of many other references only to the Army of the Mississippi for this time period, but unlike Army of the West (which is used more than once), no separate entry for Army of the Mississippi is given at all. I have a few other references for Army of the Mississippi. All of the recent works consulted by you and me seem to use Army of the Mississippi. Contemporary commanders (Beauregard in particular) seem to have used that title regularly. I think this shows that the name of the army needs to be changed, but some footnoting will be needed. Other editors could resist the change based on the Eicher book, or perhaps some other reference that neither of us appear to have found. The change needs to be backed up with a citation or more than one citation in the article as well as on the various talk pages to head off any disagreements about the change. I will try to do that tomorrow. I have not had much time to write a brief but careful note today. Donner60 (talk) 06:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Muir, Malcolm and Timothy B. Smith. Army of Mississippi in Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: A Political, Social, and Military History, edited by David S. Heidler and Jeanne T. Heidler. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2000. ISBN 0-393-04758-X. pp. 83-85. Under the title Army of Mississippi: Muir and Smith say in part: "The Army of Mississippi was not so resilient, however. Actually, three Armies of (the) Mississippi existed in the Civil War." Later, they say: "Historians have pointed out that the Army of Mississippi is frequently mentioned in the Official Records as the Army of the Mississippi." McMurry, Richard M. Army of Tennessee in Current, Richard N., ed., The Confederacy. New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan, 1993. ISBN 0-02-864920-6. Macmillan Compendium. Sections from the four-volume Macmillan Encyclopedia of the Confederacy. McMurry first discusses the predecessor units of the Army of Tennessee. On page 72 he states: "The force that developed from the Corinth concentration was known at its March birth as the Army of Mississippi (sometimes the Army of the Mississippi)." Along with the Eicher material, these references provide at least some confusion if not some warrant for using Army of Mississippi. See also Army of Mississippi. That being said, I think Army of the Mississippi is still more accurate, based on contemporary usage, for this first Army of Mississippi. I continue to think that a good footnote will be necessary but it is taking some time for me to get this all down in a much briefer form than our comments, and still be clear and with citations. It may not turn out as brief as desirable, which is one reason for putting it in a footnote. On the other point, Johnston may be credited with concentrating forces at Corinth which resulted in the creation of this army, but to say that he "raised" an Army of Mississippi certainly is not accurate. Also, the pre-Shiloh Civil War section appears to me to be somewhat incomplete, at best. I am not giving up the effort but wanted to note it is a little more complicated and may take a little longer than I originally thought. Donner60 (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I am the one responsible for this when I wrote the Battle of Shiloh article. As explained in footnote 2, I was aware that documentation at the time used "the" in the title, and if I recall the metal signs at the battlefield use that, too. However, since the Eichers agree with my usage, and to avoid confusion, I thought this was a reasonable shorthand. Otherwise, the article Army of Mississippi would have to be rewritten and a new article called Confederate Army of the Mississippi would need to be created, which did not seem worth the trouble to the readers or the editors. The footnote seemed sufficient. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hal: I am not eager to do wholesale re-writes on this topic, at least not right now. I already have bogged myself down over a period of many months on some articles (one or two in particular) which I think are important but which were not really my top priorities or at least were not articles I wanted to spend as much time on. I have wanted to concentrate more on minor, but important, battles and battle articles which need expansion. Instead, I have ended up mostly working on biographies. On the other hand, I do find the biographies interesting and I think all the generals and at least a few other significant officers should have an article.

I would not mind doing such rewrites and new articles eventually if I do not have any articles I really want to work on in mind. I do think some clarification on the army name is appropriate. For now, I would simply propose to add to the footnotes or add a footnote in the article or articles. I think too many contemporary records and modern historians use "Army of the Mississippi" not to attempt to explain that. The fact that another editor changed this to Army of the Mississippi and then commented on my revert to the state name shows me that a little more explanation is in order. If not for that, I don't think I would even have taken notice of this. I certainly don't want to make a big deal of it or spend a lot of time on it. But I think I will try to put a few sentences into a footnote and try to keep it from being a long dissertation. The "Army of Mississippi" article already has a reference to the "Army of the Mississippi" name. I think another sentence or few sentences of explanation. I already have seen that will take a little time to write both accurately and concisely so I may take a few days to get a final version and, again, I certainly do not want to spend a lot of time on it. (You may have seen that I recently added a footnote. If I thought this was a clear and easy point, I would have had it done by now too.)

I certainly rely on the Eicher book quite a bit but it is not perfect. This does not involve a possible date typo, the usual apparent error that I have found, of course. But I can not figure out exactly what they mean by the parenthetical under the title "Army of Mississippi." I would interpret it as meaning the two armies were combined to make that army, but I could find no explanation for the parentheticals and there is no prior entry for Army of the Mississippi. Not only would that not square with contemporary usage, but it would not fit the timeline. So that is not what they mean by it. Muir and Smith and Current, both encyclopedias, use the Army of Mississippi title, but then make reference to the Army of the Mississippi usage for this time period. As the previous comments note, many historians use Army of the Mississippi for the army that fought at Shiloh and Beauregard's report also uses that title. I have a few examples in addition to the ones cited specifically so it does not seem to be an isolated aberration.

I see some of your edits from time to time because I have put the articles on all Confederate generals and some Union generals on my watchlist but we have not had any interchange for awhile. I hope you are doing well. Donner60 (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I have gone through a few published sources about this, including ORs, Cunningham, Smith, Daniels, Sword, and the NPS. All seem to agree the name was the "Army of the Mississippi". Further research into Corinth and Perryville does not suggest that Army name was changed (with Bragg referring to it as Army of the Mississippi in his reports about Perryville) until the Department was renamed to Tennessee. It would appear that the Eichners made an error, or just used shorthand. If you need a new article written for Confederate Army of the Mississippi, then I volunteer to contribute since we have an article on the Confederate Army of the Potomac. The clincher for me is Timothy Smith's new book on the siege of Corinth, which took place after battles of Shiloh. He mentions no name change except for the change to Army of Tennessee. In the Index of Smith's book (for short reference), he lists the Confederate Army of the Mississippi, Confederate Army of the West, Confederate Army of Tennessee, and the Confederate Army of West Tennessee. He does not mention a Confederate Army of Mississippi at all, despite including the Army of West Tennessee (which was renaming of the Army of the West). I apologize if raising the issue would cause such a problem. I just want to ensure that the right name is included. Semperpietas (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should be as accurate as possible. Hal has made innumerable contributions to Civil War articles and is a better writer than most as well as a thorough researcher. I not only admire his skills and contributions but I have almost always been in complete agreement with him. I agree on the value of the Eichers as a source but I must say that I find they are not infallible and that their explanation, or non-explanation in this case leaves something to be desired, I think it should not prevail as a shorthand over the overwhelming usage of Army of the Mississippi by contemporaries and later historians. I don't read Hal's remark as saying the changes should not be made. My reading is that he relied on the Eichers, and thought the change was more trouble than it was worth. I take that to mean he was explaining his original contribution and perhaps that he personally would not want to go back into this, and associated articles. I must say that I can understand that. If he is saying the change or the explanation is more than the average reader needs or can take in, I don't agree with that. I don't think Hal's reluctance to revisit the subject is a reason for someone else not to make the more accurate changes and I think Hal would agree that a more accurate, properly sourced version is preferable. I would say go ahead with the new article. I still plan a revision with citations here but, as I noted above, I am not eager to spend a lot of time on a new article on the topic of this army at this time either. Donner60 (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I have drafted several paragraphs to replace the last four sentences of the first paragraph and the second paragraph of the Civil War section of this article. The existing two paragraphs are too brief, in my opinion, to give a reasonably detailed summary of Johnston's actions before Shiloh. This will give a chance to work the different name of the army into the narrative. I still have to finish this up. Add a few more sources and add a footnote explaining the army name, since I do not want to take up space in the text. I hope this will result in a more informative article that is still reasonably brief and adequately written. I don't want to rely just on the Woodworth book cited in the references, although that seems to be a good source for most of the necessary information. It may take a day or more since I am not sure how busy I will be this weekend but I have made a good start on the draft. Donner60 (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Johnston's career in Texas prior to 1838, as well as his leadership of the Utah Expedition 1857-1859, deserve significant enhancement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.54.115 (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Albert Johnston: Slave Owner

Is there a particular reason that not only this unassailable and widely-available fact is not only excluded from this article, but even the words "slave" and "slavery" are banished from an article about a slave-owning general of an army which (ostensibly) fought for the sake of keeping slavery? What the actual fuck???

• http://www.militarymuseum.org/Johnston.html (probably not up to snuff as a WP ref, but a starting point to be sure)

Can you point to any specific edits where these terms were removed? Otherwise, maybe calm down and realize that wikipedia articles aren't always complete or comprehensive. User2635 (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead photo date

I see the lead photo is dated as "1860-1862". If that's a Confederate uniform (& pardon my ignorance for not being sure) then it cannot be earlier than May 6, 1861 when he resigned his U.S. Army commission. If it is a U.S. Army uniform, it cannot be later than that date. (This came up because I was working on categories, etc. for File:General Albert Sidney Johnston, carte-de-visite photograph, circa 1860-1867 (PORTRAITS 2260).jpg, the same photo as a carte-de-visite.) - Jmabel | Talk 06:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, The original glass plate negative is at the Library of Congress here. Mojoworker (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I noticed the Library of Congress has some writing at the top which says "Maj. Genl A. S. Johnston". According to Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, "Mr. Lincoln's Administration treated General Johnston with a distrust which wounded his pride to the quick, but afterward made such amends as it could, by sending him a major-general's commission." That would place the photograph sometime between Lincoln's inauguration on March 4, 1861 and May 6, 1861. Mojoworker (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Based on the above, I edited the caption to state c. 1861. "April" could probably be added if you think it makes sense. Mojoworker (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Thanks! Is that a U.S. uniform or Confederate? - Jmabel | Talk 16:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It is a U.S. Army uniform though of course many Confederates wore those in the early days (and of course he had been a U.S. Army officer). I should note however that this is not a genuine photography as parts like the uniform are drawn. Those collages were very common and in relation to civil war officers there are countless drawn with uniforms or ranks they never wore, also collages that put the heads on a different body (be it drawn or photographed) were made. Johnston for example never hold a rank with a two-star insignia (except in the Texian Army in the 1830s). ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@GELongstreet: wouldn't his major-general's commission mentioned above have been a two-star rank? Mojoworker (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Such a promotion, even if really having been offered, was never enacted on. The general orders of the war department of 1861 include Johnston having resigned with the rank of Colonel. Also it would need both Johnston's acceptance of it and, in the end, confirmation by the U.S. Congress. As said before those picture collages took lots of liberties in various ways. And picture descriptions of that period are likewise notoriously error-prone when it comes to details. ...GELongstreet (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)