History of the Sixteenth Connecticut Volunteers — Edition Insights

A Reluctant Chronicler’s Method

Blakeslee’s introduction makes clear that he is not a trained historian: “The author is unaccustomed to historical composition, and makes no boast of literary education.” He states that his purpose is to create “a permanent record of some of the marches, battles, and experiences generally” for surviving members and as a memorial to the fallen. The excerpts show that he relies heavily on his own diaries, which he says recorded mostly personal details. Yet the text also incorporates official-sounding passages—such as the regiment’s recruitment in Hartford County and its organization under Colonel Frank Beach—suggesting he supplemented his notes with other sources. The result is an uneven but earnest compilation, one that foregrounds the author’s limitations even as it attempts to preserve history.

Confederate Voices in a Union Narrative

A striking feature of the excerpts is the inclusion of lengthy extracts from the Richmond Examiner, dated April and May 1864, describing the fall of Plymouth. These passages report the battle from the Confederate perspective, including details such as General Hoke’s demand for surrender and the alleged shooting of Union North Carolina troops and black soldiers after capture. Blakeslee does not frame these quotations with his own commentary; he simply presents them. This editorial choice gives the enemy’s account a prominent place in a Union regimental history, perhaps because Blakeslee lacked firsthand knowledge of that engagement or wanted to show what the regiment’s captors claimed. The effect is a polyvocal narrative that complicates any simple patriotic reading.

The Regiment’s Social Composition and Early Trials

Blakeslee emphasizes that the 16th Connecticut was “almost entirely made up of men in the county, and of excellent material,” including “some of the oldest and best families.” He notes that August 1862 was “a severe shock to most of the men,” who were “accustomed to all the refinements of wealth” and unaccustomed to outdoor life. The transition from civilian to soldier proved fatal for some: “a few of our noble men … died before the regi[ment]” (the excerpt cuts off). This attention to the social background and physical vulnerability of the volunteers gives the early chapters a sociological texture, contrasting with the later battle narratives. It also underscores the gap between the idealized image of the volunteer and the harsh realities of camp life.

Readers should approach this history with an awareness of its hybrid nature: part diary, part scrapbook, part official record. Blakeslee’s willingness to include Confederate sources without rebuttal invites scrutiny of his editorial choices. The work is best read as a primary document of how one veteran tried to shape his regiment’s memory, rather than as a comprehensive or objective account. Those interested in the 16th Connecticut’s experience will find valuable details, but they will also need to read between the lines—and sometimes between the newspaper clippings.

I’ve often lingered over the lieutenant’s honest admission that his war memoir is merely an outline, fragments gathered in youth. That’s a kind of trust. One finds similar patience in The Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution, Vol. 06 — Context and Discussion, where ragged voices piece together a nation’s shaky beginnings. Both whisper that history, stitched from scraps, still holds us gently.