Regimental structure
The act of 22 July 1861, section 2, established the regimental structure. Each infantry regiment was to have:
- one colonel
- one lieutenant-colonel
- one major
- one adjutant--a lieutenant
- one quarter-master--a lieutenant
- one surgeon
- one assistant surgeon
- one sergeant-major
- one regimental quartermaster-sergeant
- one regimental commissary-sergeant
Section 9 also allows each regiment one chaplain.
Each of the ten companies were to have
- one captain
- one first lieutenant
- one second lieutenant
- one first sergeant
- four sergeants
- eight corporals
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 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:
- Eight men were mistakenly entered on company G's list instead of company G of the 90th Pennsylvania Volunters (Charles Baird, Charles R Frost, William Harran, Robert Hebberton, Charles Johnston, John Kimball, Peter Ruddy, Edward Stanley). (Bates includes them.)
- Thomas Kelly was transferred as a first lieutenant from the 118th Pennsylvania, but was mustered out effective the date of the 118th's muster out since the 91st had no vacancies for a first lieutenant. (Bates does not include him, although Kelly initially joined the regiment with his men.)
- James Appel was transferred with men from the 62nd PA, but he had already died in Andersonville Prison. (Bates includes him.)
- James Cleveland (G) was sent to the 91st by mistake, instead of the 98th. (Bates includes him.)
- John Ackerman was discharged the day after he enlisted because he was drunk when he enlisted. (Bates includes him.)
- William O'Connor (K) was transferred with men from the 62nd PA, but he had already died in hospital. (Bates includes him.)
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). At least these men reenlisted after mustering out:
- James Clark (after mustering out on surgeon's certificate)
- Henry Abbott (G) (after mustering out on surgeon's certificate)
- John A Beaver (F, D, A) (after mustering out on surgeon's certificate)
- Henry Clothier (B) (after mustering out on surgeon's certificate)
- Alpheus Bowman (B) (after having been discharged by sentence of general court martial)
- Stephen Godfrey (A) (after mustering out when his term expired)
(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.) But in other cases I suspect someone may have reenlisted, but have not been able to confirm it, including these men:
- William Spangler: a William Spangler served in company G from 9 September 1861 until he was discharged on surgeon's certificate on 17 April 1863, and a William Spangler was appointed Captain of company G "from Civil Life", and served from 17 March 1865 until the regiment mustered out on 10 July 1865. Their being the same person might help explain why a commissioned officer was appointed "from Civil Life" instead of from within the regiment, as usually happened that late in the war.
- Winchester Myers (H, 1864-65), Winchester Myers (H, 1861)
- Peter Weaver (G) and Peter Weaver (K)
Finally, I suspect George C Rubicam and George W Rubicam are the same person.