Paid Advertisement
Historynet/feed historynet feedback facebook link Weider History Group RSS feed Weider Subscriptions Historynet Home page

Letters From Readers - September 2007 - America's Civil War

Originally published on HistoryNet.com. Published Online: July 02, 2007 
Print Friendly
1 comment FONT +  FONT -

A Confederate and a Colt Named Peyton

Since there has been much speculation on whether the quarterback Peyton Manning of the Indianapolis Colts is related to Major Peyton T. Manning of the Confederate Army and General James Longstreet's staff, I decided to look into their families and see if there is a connection between them. The short answer: It doesn't appear that there is, despite the fact they share an unusual first name.

Major Peyton Manning (1837-68) was born in Alabama and raised in Monroe County, Miss. He attended the Georgia Military Institute. He died in Monroe County in 1868. He was the son of Dr. George F. Manning, born circa 1813 in Alabama, and his wife Sarah F. Millwater (1819-1883). Dr. Manning was the son of Dr. James Manning (born circa 1775 in New Jersey, died May 3, 1841, in Huntsville, Ala.) and his wife Sophia Thompson (born circa 1780 in Georgia). Major Manning undoubtedly was named after his uncle, Peyton Manning.

Football player Peyton Williams Manning is the son of All-America quarterback Elisha Archibald "Archie" Manning III, born in 1949. Archie was the son of Elisha Archibald Manning II, who was the son of Elisha Archibald Richard Elam Manning (1830-1916), who was born in South Carolina. Richard was the son of Elisha Manning (1803-1866, born and died in South Carolina), who was the son of John Manning (1783-1844), who also was born and died in South Carolina. John's father was Melea Manning (born 1757), and his grandfather was Moses Manning, who was born in 1731 in North Carolina and died in 1810 in South Carolina. The football player probably was named after Archie's uncle, Peyton Manning.

As can be seen, there is no New Jersey or even Alabama connection in the football player's family, who moved from South Carolina to Mississippi. Further, the names of Elisha's grand­uncles are known, and none of them was named George.

Quarterback Peyton Manning's great-grandfather Richard Elam Manning appears to have served in Company B, 36th Mississippi Infantry. So he does have Confederate Army connections, just not connections with Major Peyton Manning.

Bruce Allardice
author of
More Generals in Gray
Des Plaines, Ill.

Defending Captain Warren Moseley

Three years ago I wrote a letter to you in response to a very interesting article written by William J. Miller, "The Two Pictures of Private Jemison." Mr. Miller had identified the speaker telling the tale of Jemison's death on the Atlanta street corner as Captain Warren Moseley, but went on to state that "no such name could be found on a Confederate roster." As a genealogical researcher of the Moseley family, I was able to identify "Captain Warren Moseley" as "Private Warren Adolphus Moseley of the 4th Georgia Infantry Regiment," explaining that his appellation of "Captain" was gained later in the war when he was a member of the 4th Regiment Georgia Reserve Cavalry. After reading "The Mystery of Private Jemison" in the May 2007 edition of your magazine, I am filled with regret at having provided his name!

This most recent article is filled with innuendo and embellishment, serving only to bolster the character assassination of Warren Moseley by the authors, Alexandra Filipowski and Hugh T. Harrington. Their opinion piece seems quite unfair, as Captain Moseley is not with us to answer their speculation.

Warren Moseley was a descendant of a distinguished Virginia family. Just like Edwin Jemison, he had Revolutionary War forebears. They were law-abiding people.

The encounter that took place on an Atlanta (not Macon) street corner in 1906 between Warren Moseley and Robert W. Jemison Jr., in which Moseley was relating one of his wartime experiences, did not "end awkwardly" as suggested by the authors. Until Warren Moseley met Robert W. Jemison Jr. on the street corner of Atlanta, he did not know who the fallen soldier at Malvern Hill had been. Robert W. Jemison Jr. provided the identification.

The article doesn't seem to suggest that the decapitation of Edwin Jemison was news to Robert W. Jemison Jr.; it was encountering an eyewitness to his death that was serendipitous.

As to Moseley's motivation for telling the story and the disparaging moniker of "professional veteran" in need of attention, the authors demonstrate their ignorance of Southern society at the beginning of the 20th century. Veterans like "Captain" War­ren Moseley didn't have to seek attention—they were revered. People wanted to hear stories of the great battles of the war. As the veterans grew older, perhaps they relished the attention, but is that a character flaw?

The authors go on to point out how Moseley used his celebrity for financial gain. At the turn of the 20th century, most war veterans got little or nothing in the way of compensation for their service. Moseley was then 65 years old. If he could earn some money from endorsements, who are we to judge? Nevertheless, he seemed to maintain the respect of his peers, for they conferred on him further positions of responsibility in veteran associations.

As a student of the American Civil War for over 40 years, I have read thousands of compiled service records of Confederate soldiers. These records in the National Archives are replete with errors. So when the authors state with disdain that "Moseley could not have been at Malvern Hill," I would say that they should investigate the Civil War practice of exchange. Many paroled men were back fighting with their units long before they were officially exchanged.

Further, if one reads the report of Brig. Gen. Ambrose R. Wright regarding the Battle of Malvern Hill (Official Records, Series I, Vol. XI, Chapter XXIII, pages 812-816), it quickly becomes apparent that the regiments of his brigade did not fight the battle as originally positioned in line of battle. In fact, very early on, the 4th Georgia along with some men of other regiments in the brigade got separated and pinned down in a forward position. They remained on the field from about 11:30 a.m. until well into the night.

During the battle, other brigades had charged forward and had been repulsed, including Cobb's Brigade. To state that the 4th Georgia "was at least a quarter of a mile from Private Jemison's 2nd Louis­iana" is simply overstating the surety of the facts. As evident from their own map of the battle, with the angle of approach by Wright's Brigade, and the fact that they had moved from hollow to hollow in an attempt to avoid being blown to bits by Union guns, Cobb's Brigade may well have come right up behind Wright, placing the 4th Georgia and the 2nd Louis­iana in the same place on the battlefield, as both regiments were on the right of their brigades.

Several years ago, I was investigating the Civil War service of one of my wife's ancestors. I had a photograph of him posing with other veterans at a Veterans Reunion in 1916. Search as I might, I could never find a record of the man having served in the Confederate Army. However, an older gentleman whose help I sought told me, "You can be sure that your wife's ancestor served the Confederacy, cause if he didn't, those crusty old bastards wouldn't have let him in the picture!"

Captain Warren Moseley told his stories on street corners, at reunions and in the newspapers. If he had not been at Malvern Hill, "those crusty old bastards" that he served with most certainly would have called him a liar. They didn't. They treated him as the comrade in arms that he was.

Miles Krisman
via e-mail

Alexandra Filipowski and Hugh T. Harrington respond: Mr. Krisman, we are sorry that you have such strong negative feelings about our article. We assure you that we were very thorough in our research. We are freelance writers and researchers who have been investigating Captain Moseley since approximately 2002, two full years before Mr. Miller's article appeared in America's Civil War. From the first we realized that Captain Moseley was the man referred to as having spoken with Private Jemison's brother.

It was during our own research that we realized that Captain Moseley's story did not add up. We used two sources to come to our conclusion that Captain Moseley was not at Malvern Hill.

First, Captain Moseley stated under oath on his pension application, filed in Bibb County, Ga., September 12, 1910, that he was captured near Winchester, Va., and held as a prisoner of war for three months in 1862, and then exchanged at Point Lookout, Md., in September 1862.

Second, the "Roster of the Confederate Soldiers of Georgia, 1861-1865" lists him as being captured at Strasburg, Va., 19 miles from Winchester, in June 1862 and exchanged at Point Lookout, Md., in September 1862.

These two documents support each other in the fact that Captain Moseley was not at Malvern Hill, and we stand by that position. In addition, even if Captain Moseley was at Malvern Hill, we do not believe he would have been able to distinguish Private Jemison from the hundreds of other men in the 2nd Louisiana.

With regard to the encounter between Captain Jemison and Robert Jemison Jr., the article in The Atlanta Constitution on March 26, 1906, clearly stated in its byline that the incident was reported from the Macon bureau of the newspaper.

We never in any way said anything positive or negative about Captain Moseley's family history, nor did we say anything negative regarding his service to the Macon Police Department. We also never stated that Captain Moseley's storytelling was wrong, only what he did and that there was financial gain involved. We are not judging his actions, only reporting them in context with his other Civil War stories. In addition, no one really knows what his peers thought about those stories, whether good or bad.

We have the utmost respect for Captain Moseley. He fought in support of his home throughout a war that tore apart a nation. Although we doubt the credibility of his war sto­ries, it does not mean we doubt the honor he deserves as a Confederate veteran.

One-pounder Blunder

I believe there is an error in the illustration captions for the article on Civil War machine guns ("Load the Hopper and Turn the Crank") in the July issue. The illustration on P. 43 captioned "Americans open up with their machine gun during World War I" is actually a 37mm infantry cannon known as a "one-pounder." My credentials: two wars as an infantry platoon leader and company commander.

I am a new subscriber, and I enjoy your magazine very much.

Jack Wilde
Camano Island, Wash.

Send letters to America's Civil War Editor, Weider History Group, 741 Miller Dr., SE, Suite D-2, Leesburg, Va. 20175, or e-mail to acw@weiderhistorygroup.com Please include your name, address and daytime telephone number. Letters may be edited.


One Response to “Letters From Readers - September 2007 - America's Civil War”


  1. 1
    Brian Moseley says:

    I am the Generational direct line grandson of Captain Warren Moseley. Please provide any contact information available for the author of the above article "Defending captain Warren Moseley". Thank You.



Leave a Reply

Human Verification: In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Related Articles


History Net Images Spacer
Paid Advertisement
Paid Advertisement
History Net Daily Activities
History net Spacer
History net Spacer
Historynet Spacer
HISTORYNET READERS' POLL

Which of these wars resulted in the most surprising underdog upset?

View Results | See previous polls

Loading ... Loading ...
History net Spacer
STAY CONNECTED WITH US
RSS Feed Daily Email Update
History net Spacer History net Spacer
Paid Advertisement

Paid Advertisement
What is HistoryNet?

The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by Weider History, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines.

If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest.

From Our Magazines
Weider History

Weider History Network:  HistoryNet | Armchair General | Achtung Panzer! | StreamHistory.com
Today in History | Ask Mr. History | Picture of the Day | Daily History Quiz | Contact Us

Copyright © 2014 Weider History. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Advertise With Us | Subscription Help | Privacy Policy