September
27, and October 26, 2000
(Read
the latest from Paul
Rosewitz re the recovery of Frémont
howitzer carriage parts near Bridgeport, 2008.)
Bob,
The myths that have risen around the Carson City Howitzer
may make it impossible to determine if it is the actual tube
Fremont lost, but here is what I do know, or understand to be
true:
1. Cyrus Alger did manufacture that tube in 1836-7 and it
was delivered to the army in May 1837 as one of a group of 12.
Another mountain howitzer was manufactured and delivered in Dec.
of 1837. These are the 13 mountain howitzers that are generally
identified as model 1835. The new system was developed and is
called alternately the 1840 or 1841 model depending on the
document. the first order for mountain howitzers after the
delivery of the orginal 13 was in 1845 for 12 pieces that were
delivered in 1846. Therefore, if no French mountain howitzers were
purchesed (which the records seem to indicate) and Fremont was
carrying a regulation mountain howitzer (which military records
seem to indicate) then to have a weapon in 1843, it would have to
be one of these original 13. So the Carson City tube is in the
ball park.
Now, was it actually the one he took? Short of seeing
something that says that numbered tube went to him, we will never
know.
1a. The argument that the Carson City Tube is called the
Fremont Howitzer because of the Mexican War could have as much
credance. The howitzer that General Kearny lost as San Pasqual was
actually recovered later by Fremont and was not turned over to
Kearny by him. It has been referred to in California as the
Fremont Howitzer also. I believe it may have gone to the Presidio
for a while then was lost. The two weapons Kearny brought from Ft.
Leavenworth were probably from the original lot also as CPT Bell
had several mountian howitzers in store before the war began but
the 1846 delivery was made in April 1846 and there was time for
two new dated howitzers to make it out to St Louis before the
expedition set out in June. So, there is some doubt there
also.
2. Fremont and several other officers including the Chief
of Ordnance refer to the new mountain howitzer as the French type
or invented by the French. It was common knowledge that it was the
model we acquired from France and that they designed it for their
ongoing war in Algiers. Zindel might have mentioned it but I think
Fremont more likely would have been aware of the origins and may
have heard it from St. Louis Arsenal.
3. I stand by the belief that the print, whether Pruess's
or the lithographer is just wrong. Look at most lithos of the
Mexican War and you will see old split stock guns depicted
although we only took a couple of this type gun to Mexico in the
Siege train. They just drew them wrong.
4. For shafts vs. limber I believe they had shafts. No
limber. From recent findings I believe the shafts are not the
design depicted in the 1849 Mordicai Ordnance Drawings. They were
lighter and had less iron on them that led to breakage in the
field. Brian thinks the weapon was not pulled with the pack
saddles. That may or may not be true but from the manuscript it
appears that it was pulled by shafts most of the time.
5. I was amazed when I went through the Ordnance records
and found no correspondence between Bell and Talcott on the
howitzer. I reviewed some references last night and it appears the
reason for this was a resolution of the US Senate on Dec. 18, 1843
to ask President Tyler to cause all correspondence relating to the
issue be sent to the Senate. Senate Doc. 14, 28th Congress, 1st
Session, US serial 432 is supposed to have a transcript of
Fremont's orginal requisition, Kearny's approval, Talcott's
response and Secratary of War Porter's letters and other
accumulated letters. Do you have a copy of this by chance? I would
like to see it [read next entry]. I will try to get a copy
of it from a couple of sources I have, since I will not be in
Washington again until 30 November.
Paul
On October 30, 2000, Brian
O'Conner provided the that text of Talcott's response:
Paul & Bob,
Here is what I have as the correspondence between Capt. Bell
and George Talcott (Sr.)
Senate Document, 28th congress, First Session. Document Files,
Iowa State Library.
Capt. Bell of the Arsenal to the Chief of Ordnance
St. Louis Arsenal, May 10, 1843
Sir:
I transmit, herewith, the copy of an order from Colonel
Kearny, commanding this military department, founded on a
requisition of Lieutenant J.C. Fremont, of the Topographical
Engineers, for certain ordnance stores, to be used by his party on
an expedition to the Rocky Mountains, authorized by the
government. The order appears to have been given by the Colonel
only on the principle of the urgent necessity of the case, which
as Lieutenant Fremont stated, would not admit of the delay
necessary for reference to Washington. Under these circumstances,
the order being preemptory, and the whole responsibility being
assumed by the Commander of this Department, I felt it my duty,
however reluctantly, rather than disobey a positive order, under
these circumstances, to make the issue; and especially as it
appeared to be a case of great urgency, from the statement of
Lieutenant Fremont.
If in this matter I have erred, I hope the Colonel will
perceive that it has been in consequence of being placed in a
dilemma of some difficulty and that it has been from a want of
anything but a respect of the order and regulations of my own
department. I therefore respectfully ask of the Colonel his
sanction to this issue, and his views as regards the propriety of
my conduct in the case, which may be necessary for my future
government.
I am, Sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
William H. Bell
Capt. Com'g Post.
Fremont's Requisition:
Requisition for ordnance and ordnance stores, for an
expedition into the Oregon Territory. Required May 8, 1843,
mountain howitzer, 1; carriage complete with harness, 1; pistols,
4; pairs holsters,etc., 2; carbines, 33; kegs of rifle powder, 5;
pounds of artillery ammunition, 500; tubes, filled, 200
J.C. Fremont, 2d Lieut. Topographical Engineers
Col. Kearny's Order:
Department Orders
Headquarters 3d Military Department Jefferson Barracks May
8, 1843
For the foregoing reasons, as given by Lieutenant Fremont,
and as he is to leave tomorrow, and therefore has not time to hear
from Washington, in reply to an application for arms and
ammunition, Captain Bell, Ordnance Department, will issue on the
foregoing requisition; the whole responsibility of which is
assumed by myself,
S.W. Kearny
Col. U.S. Dragoons
This earlier email of October 26, 2000 from
Major Rosewitz contains
additional detail:
Sir,
I read with interest the information you have on your site
regarding the Fremont howitzer. I think the greatest detractor to
the whole issue of the weapon is the belief that CPT Bell issued
anything but an American 12 Pounder Mountain howitzer to LT.
Fremont. Unfortunately for speculators, the American Mountain
howitzer is almost identical to a French Mountain Howitzer in
shape, dimensions and packing. I hope you can indulge me while I
provide some additional information that may be beneficial for
your web site.
The fact of the matter is, the 1828 French howitzer did NOT
have dolphins (handles), it DID disassemble and pack on saddles,
and we did NOT buy a single piece from the French. Lts. Tyler and
Huger saw the howitzer in Metz, France at the Artillery School and
Tyler had plans drawn up to use in manufacturing it. The US model
did have trunnions in line instead of below the "axis of fire"
like the French, but most of the carriage was the same design
excepting changes for American manufacturing practices and
conversion from metric to inches. In Pruess's drawing he depicts
what appears to be a split trail carriage and a barrel with
dolphins. The French howitzer actually had a box trail carriage
like the US. The primary difference between the two was the
conversion to US measurements.
Dimensions- The French model was slightly larger
dimensionally(for example the bore of a US mountain howitzer is
4.62 inches where as the French is 4.745 inches). The US Howitzer
is a 12 pounder (which I will discuss below) where as the French
is a 12 centimeter (note: 12 cc= 4.74 in). This also begs the
question, if it was a French piece, where was the ammunition
coming from, they could not use US shells because they would have
been too small.
The French mountain howitzer ball diameter tolerance was
4.686 to 4.639 while the US was 4.53 to 4.49 with 4.52 being the
correct ball size. Other differences included the bore length of
the French was 31.90 vice the US of 28.16; the exterior length of
bore being French 33.87 and US 32.91 (bore length only, not
including cascable); weight of the French 221 pounds and the US
220. (refer US Ordnance Manual 1862 pgs 21,34, 488)
I like your scale drawing of the Pruess howitzer. The US
mountain howitzer had 38" wheels and a track of 30.2 inches. The
height of the axis of the trunnions above the ground is 27 inches.
If your drawing is accurate then the Pruess howitzer would have
had wheels not even two and one half feet tall leaving an axle
approximately 14 inches off the ground. That would have been very
unwieldy. General Jesup complained of the Mountain Howitzers in
Florida sticking on stumps and uneven ground and at that time
(1837-39) thewheels were 36 inches tall; 27 inch wheels, if
correct would definitely be a mess. However, I think again, we can
not rely on the drawing.
The other common mistake is the belief that French mountain
howitzers did not disassemble. This is not true. They disassembled
just as their US counter-parts did. I have a lithograph of the
French foreign legion in Algiers c. 1846 packing their mountain
howitzers on mules through a mountain stream bed. It looks
amazingly like a US howitzer. I also have lithos of the French
manual that shows how they packed each saddle. The saddles used
differed between the two countries with the US model being more
box shaped. It only takes three saddles to carry one howitzer
complete. All the saddles are identical having been designed to
allow each piece of the weapon to fit into different notches or
portions of the pack saddle. the first saddle holds only the
howitzer (the tube), the second saddle hold the carriage and
wheels, the wheels being removed from the carriage and strapped
on, and the third saddle holds two ammunition chests with eight
rounds each. (saddle #1 carrying 220 pounds, #2 277 pounds and #3
224 pounds) refer Ord Man page 75. The thill or shafts are
designed to be attached directly to one of the pack saddles for
draught. The limber you depict was not available until the Mexican
War a couple of years later. Testing of that model started at Fort
Leavenworth in 1845-46.
You mention the 1851 Mountain Howitzer manual that was
developed by Jesse Reno. I might point out that Reno was a very
good choice for that manual because of his service in the Mexican
War. The Mountain Howitzer and Rocket Battery of the Ordnance
Corps was commanded by 1LT George Henry Talcott, the inspector of
the Carson City howitzer. Brevet 2LT Reno was the third officer of
the battery and commanded it for a short time before being wounded
in front of Mexico City. He was very knowledgeable of the weapon.
This manual does give a good description of packing the weapon and
confirms it onl takes three saddles to pack the weapon and ammo
contrary to what Lewis says on your web side (3-5 according to
him)
A note on ammunition: The reason the mountain howitzer is
considered a 12 pounder is because of the diameter of the bore,
not the weight of the projectile. A US 12 pounder will have a bore
of 4.62 inches and fire a projectile of 4.52 inch diameter.
Therefore a 12 pounder gun, field howitzer and mountain howitzer
all use the same shell of 4.52 in. diameter. The difference comes
when you designate the weapon the round will be used in. Only guns
fired shot. A 12 pounder shot actually weight 12.25 pounds. Your
information about 12 and six pounders is incorrect. the six
pounder has a bore diameter of 3.67 inches and fires a six pounder
shot weighing 6.1 pounds and 3.58 inches in dia. You also say that
the 12 pdr field howitzer uses a .75 pound charge. In fact it
depends on the round it fires, for shell and canister it uses one
pound of powder, while for spherical case it is 1.25 lbs. The
mountain howitzer uses one half pound for each round type and only
fired the 12 pounder shot (solid ball) during proofing. The
information you present about the chamber is correct. Guns (6
&12 pdrs) do not have a chamber and use more powder producing
a greater velocity and flatter trajectory while howitzers have a
chamber requiring less powder to project the same ball at lower
velocity and higher trajectory. (Ord Man., 1862, pgs 34, 280-81,
400) Guns fire shot while howitzers do not.
Fremont requested 500 pounds of ammunition and 200 fuzes
which has always confused me since the normal way to request would
be number of rounds. 50 fixed Mt Howitzer shells would have
weighed just over 500 pounds ( each weighing 9.9 lbs.) but why
take 200 fuzes.
The actual hand receipt for the Mountain howitzer and
equipment has not been located, if it ever existed. This makes it
difficult to determine what Fremont received. An Ordnance officer
would indicate by regulation what he was issuing. If it was a
foreign weapon he would have to designate it as such. CPT Bell did
not do that in any of his correspondence on the issue. Another
practice of the time was to say 'one howitzer complete'. This
meant the tube, carriage and equipments. For the mountain howitzer
that would include the Thill (shafts). However, in the 1841
ordnance manual, the thill was an optional piece of equipment and
the manual states if the gun was not packed on the saddles it
could be pulled short distances on the thill or 'packed in a
cart'. Fremont took several carts with him and could have carried
the weapon in one of these or pulled on the thill as the reference
to having to repair a shaft seems to indicate. I think he probably
had the saddles and equipment necessary to utilize it based on the
letter of Col
J.J. Abert, Chief of Topogs dated July 10th 1843 to Senator
Benton in which he states :
"It appeared to me not only a useless, but an embarrassing
weapon to such an expedition, requiring well instructed men for
its Management and a serious increase of means for its
transportation; and it will be a more favorable result than I
anticipate if the mere embarassments from transportation do not
oblige him to leave it and its equipment at the first trading post
at which he shall arrive."
In all my experience with mountain artillery I have yet to
see anything that would sway me from thinking Preuss used artistic
license with the howitzer. Although he was a cartographer and a
landscape artist known for his accuracy, there is nothing that
says he drew the howitzer in that scene at the same time he
sketched the rest of it. The famous depiction of this drawing is
from Fremont's report. There is no telling if the howitzer was
added by the Lithographer at that time. Lacking other descriptions
that confirm the design, I think we just have to accept that it is
only a drawing
Final note. I read Lewis' The Fremont Cannon-- High up and
Far Back while at my officer advanced course at Fort Sill years
ago. I would be extremely careful of quoting any of his
assumptions regarding the mountain howitzer. His knowledge of the
weapon is slight at best. His assumption that the weapon was
French because the US used Bronze and the French used brass shows
one example of his novice status. The US weapons were bronze, as
were the French. If you refer to the Ordnance Manual (1841, 1851
or 1862) you will find a section that discusses the material for
Ordnance. On page 22 of the 1862 manual the topic Bronze starts
out-- Bronze for cannon (commonly called brass) consists of 90
parts of copper and 10 of tin,... The italics are present in the
manual.
An article that provides an excellent presentation of
document fact regarding the request of the weapon is "The Myth of
the Fremont Howitzer" by Donald Jackson, Missouri Historical
Society Bulletin, Vol 23, No 3 (April 1967). It includes the
various letters to the Topog office that are generally misquoted
in accounts that take the side of Fremont or his wife. I hope you
might find something here to help you with your site. I am an avid
fan of the mountain howitzer and have done a lot of work with them
over the years. Any time I see a new resource I want to be sure it
has the best information available because over the years the
Mountain Howitzer has been one of the most misunderstood weapons
ever adopted by the US military. Good luck on the site. If I can
be of any assistance, please contact me.
Paul
2008 update: Paul R. Rosewitz, Lt. Colonel, US Army, Night
Chief of Operations, HQ ISAF (NATO), Kabul, Afghanistan
