As mentioned last month, when I wrote about George Custer and Joseph Fought, I had planned to write a short post, based upon one letter from Custer regarding Fought. Then, as so often happens, I decided to look for Fought in the digital newspaper databases I subscribe to, and the short story quickly morphed into a much longer affair.

Likewise, I had thought to post a rather short story this month about an artillery officer who, with his section of guns, supported General Buford’s troopers on June 21, 1863. I had recently found several interesting documents from and about him and thought I would tie them together with a short biographical sketch and that would be that. Well, not so much. Other records soon revealed a sad postwar life for the officer.

Last month, Robert Moran, a friend and fellow cavalry historian provided additional pieces of the Joseph Fought puzzle, and, with luck, some readers will know something more about Lt. (and Bvt. Capt.) Theophilus (also Theophie or, most often, T.B.) Bhryd von Michalowski, who commanded a section of two guns in Capt. William Graham’s Battery K, 1^st U.S. Artillery in the Gettysburg Campaign.

As he explained in 1865, Michalowski had been “born in the Kingdom of Prussia, (Province of Posen).” Posen is the German variation of Poznan, a Polish city that fell under Prussian control in 1793, returned briefly to Poland in 1806 and then to Prussia again in 1815. The end of World War 1 saw the area return to Poland, only to fall under Nazi control and later Soviet control before returning to Poland.

Exactly when Michalowski emigrated is unknown, but he enlisted as a private in the 2^nd U.S. Infantry at St. Louis in 1860, before accepting a sergeant’s position (or sergeant major’s) in the 11^th U.S. Infantry. His desire for a commission and the letters written by his commanders on his behalf reveal more of the young man’s backstory.

Capt. Nelson Davis, Michalowski’s company commander, wrote at least three letters on the young man’s behalf in 1861. Considering later events, Davis wrote an especially revealing letter in February, explaining, “I am informed that his father was a late Colonel in the Prussian Army, that he [Private Michalowski] has visited nearly every country in Europe and several in South America…and that he left his native country well supplied with funds.” After visiting South America, Michalowski arrived in the United States, where, as Davis continued, “finding his purse exhausted, was compelled by pride to enlist in the Army rather than ask further aid from his friends.”

Even as tension in the country increased, the War Department may not have been in a hurry to offer commissions, especially to foreigners. By August, the situation had changed, and Captain Davis wrote two more letters on Michalowski’s behalf. In one, Davis defined his “conduct as a soldier…[as] correct, ever rendering a prompt and cheerful obedience to orders and his character has been unexceptionable.” Davis noted that Michalowski had seen service on the frontier and at 1^st Manassas and described him as “a young man of good education and family and is worthy of trust and a position far above that which he now holds.”

In a second letter Davis further reveals Michalowski’s ambition, stating, “he will not accept any position…as a [non-commissioned] officer…not even if he was paid one hundred dollars per month… I would be pleased with the appointment of Michalowski as a [Lieutenant]…if he would accept the position [emphasis added].”

In October 1861, Michalowski received an appointment as a 2^nd Lieutenant in Capt. William Graham’s Battery K, 1^st U.S. Artillery. Graham commended his subordinate for his leadership at Antietam, noting, “he was conspicuous for his gallantry under a very severe crossfire from two of the enemy’s batteries, alternating in loading and firing one of his pieces with but one cannoneer, the others having been killed or wounded.”

He commanded a section of two guns through the Gettysburg Campaign, before being transferred to Battery I, at the end of July. In his report for the action around Upperville on June 21, 1863, John Buford said of Michalowski, “He worked his guns with skill and judgment, throwing his shot in the right place, and on one occasion dispersed a column in front of General Gregg.

As Capt. Alanson Randol later described, “The fighting from [Middleburg] to Upperville was advancing by section and was very exciting. We were frequently on the skirmish line, and sometimes in advance of it…” Fighting by section, leapfrogging from position to position, and supporting the troopers on the skirmish strikes me as the very essence of the idea behind the horse artillery, but with little written by artillery commanders during the campaign, understanding their role in the Loudoun Valley is difficult.

Gen. Alfred Pleasonton’s topographical engineer, Capt. Vincent E. von Koerber, a Hungarian, who, like Michalowski, probably emigrated following the 1848 revolutions, drew a series of maps depicting the artillery movements at Brandy Station, Aldie, and Upperville. Though often dismissed as haughty and “aristocratic,” even von Koerber’s detractors saw him as “a scientific and experienced artillerist.” Viewed today, his maps appear confusing and are often dismissed by historians, but I suspect they depict, more accurately than we care to admit, the actions as described by Randol. Too often we assume the batteries fought with their four or six guns together in line, holding positions throughout the fights, when, in fact, they moved constantly, coordinating their fire as they moved from position to position.

In July 1864, Michalowski requested four months leave “to visit Europe, to enable me to accept a legacy, which has been left me under condition that I appear personally before the Executor. Should the army refuse his leave request, he would be forced to resign his commission.” In January 1863, Michalowski had requested a leave to seek treatment for a dental problem but also to “attend to some important business at the Prussian legation in Washington.” Was his business related to the estate or might he have been seeking a more important position in the Prussian army, as suggested by later events? His ambition, already recognized by his superiors, might have left him unhappy serving as a lieutenant in the artillery, where promotion was especially slow.

In response to his most unusual request, especially amid the near daily combat of General Grant’s summer campaign, the Adjutant General wrote to the Prussian Legation, seeking clarification. In response, an official explained, “…the will (of which the legation holds a copy) distinctly provides, that he will [lose the] benefit of the legacy if he does not appear in person before the Executor…and that…the legacy will be turned over to the main heir.” The official, a Prussian baron, thought a three-month leave “might possibly be sufficient. Still,” as he explained, “transactions of that kind often are protracted by unforeseen circumstances. If therefore you should be inclined to grant…the four months…you certainly would facilitate to him the chance of his finally settling the proceeding before returning.”

Seeing that Pennsylvania congressman John Covode, a member of the Committee on the Conduct of the War, had written to Secretary of War Stanton on Michalowski’s behalf, I had to wonder how they had connected. George Covode, John’s son, and colonel of the 4^th Pennsylvania Cavalry had been mortally wounded at St. Mary’s Church on June 24 and died the following day. The grieving father, who had lost another son only weeks earlier, traveled to the army shortly thereafter to recover his son’s body. Michalowski may have been a witness to the colonel’s wounding and thus may have spoken with Covode, who spent several days with the army meeting with General Grant. By July 24, Michalowski had received final approval from Gen. Henry Halleck.

Apparently seeking letters of introduction to carry with him, Michalowski approached several of his superiors. Gen. David Gregg wrote a surprisingly friendly if not fatherly letter to the artilleryman. “I am very much pleased that you have obtained a leave…to meet your friends in Europe… I can fully attest to your excellence as an officer. Your bravery and zeal displayed in the many engagements in which your battery has taken part are well remembered by me. With my best wishes for a pleasant journey and a safe return.” Gregg signed the letter, “Your friend,” which strikes me as a very personal closing, even more so in the case of a general writing to a lieutenant.

Likewise, Gen. Wesley Merritt, who always seems to me a rather austere man, who expected others to strictly observe the rank structure and their place in it, said, in closing, “Wishing you great success in your future career in the service, I am very truly your sincere friend.”  Captain Randol, now Michalowski’s commander, said, in part, “I regret the legacy so worthily left to you, requires you to be so long absent from the company. I sincerely hope you will soon be permitted to return. Wishing you a safe and prosperous journey.” Gregg and Merritt describing themselves as Michalowski’s friends stands out. Even Randol’s closing suggests to me the bond these men may have felt toward the young lieutenant.

What happened in Europe is unknown, but Michalowski appears to have been sworn in as an American citizen in New York on August 26, probably on the eve of sailing to Europe. He then departed from Bremen, Germany and arrived back in New York on November 7, 1864.

Back with the army, Michalowski sat down on Christmas Day and wrote the following letter, recommending that Sgt. John Shannon receive the Medal of Honor for his actions during the fight at St. Mary’s Church the previous June.

“I…send a statement of services rendered during this war by Sergt. John Shannon of my battery, with a view of getting for him a medal of honor, to which in my judgment he is entitled. During his two enlistments in the regular army, he has always [borne] the reputation of a good, faithful, and intelligent soldier, and has for the greatest part of the time been a non-comm officer. During this war he has been in every engagement the Battery has participated in, under the different commanders…and has always behaved gallantly and bravely…

Since I …have been on duty with this company, I have always found Sergt. Shannon a brave, cool and —- soldier, and often noticed his determined behaviour in action; but none of his acts deserve a higher praise than the one he executed on the 24^th of June 1864 at St. Mary’s Church. My Battery being stationed in such a way as to fill a gap between the 1^st & 2^nd Brig of our Division (the 2^nd) had to bear a terrific fire, as the enemy seemed to have made the centre their especial point of attack, and men & horses fell dead and wounded very fast. Sergt. Shannon was Chief of the right piece of the right section, which I had the honor to command at that time, and had lost a great number of horses, when the order to retreat was given, but some of them being so entangled in the traces, it seemed an impossibility to remove the piece from the field and loss of it seemed certain. The whole Battery had already fallen back and taken up a different position according to orders from Gen. Gregg commanding the division, and still Sergeant Shannon with one driver…persisted in disentangling the dead & wounded horses, and nothing daunted by the terrible fire of the rebel sharpshooters, who were now quite close, he remained until all [were] clear and the piece was limbered up and drawn off the field with two horses. Owing to there being only one road, it was not possible to get any help from the battery, as the lead horses of the cavalry blocked up all the avenues & the woods were too thick to allow men to pass through, and I have therefore no doubt, that the piece would have been lost, had it not been for the strenuous efforts of Sergt. Shannon to get it off. I saw the whole thing myself, as I remained on the field, until the piece was safe, it belonging to my section, as I stated before. The gallant behaviour of the Sergt. struck me so much that I rode up immediately afterwards to my then commanding officer, Capt. A. M. Randol, and reported the facts to him. I think such bravery deserves some acknowledgment, particularly as it is almost the only possible way to show an artilleryman’s coolness and love for his battery; for unluckily our branch of service cannot distinguish itself by capturing flags and other trophies of war.”

What spurred Michalowski to recommend Shannon six months after the fact is unknown. Had something happened to Shannon? Had Michalowski been too occupied with the trip to Europe to write the letter sooner? Had he simply felt the spirit of the season, or did Michalowski’s last statement reveal his frustration with his own chances for advancement? Though supported by generals Henry Davies and John Irvin Gregg, Shannon did not receive the award.

A few days later, several officers wrote letters attesting to Michalowski’s superior talents as an officer and his own actions at Trevilian Station and St. Mary’s Church. Lt. Col. Jonathan Cilley, 1^st Maine Cavalry, enthusiastically reported, “Having been a witness to the courage and power of command while in action of T. B. von Michalowski … I can certify that at the battle of Trevilian Station, June 11, 1864 he maintained his position under an exceedingly hot and accurate fire … also at the fight at St. Mary’s Church, June 24, 1864, he held his battery in position and kept up a rapid and deadly fire until the enemy were near enough to wound a number of his men with pistol shots; that he then at a gallop successfully removed his guns.”

Gen. Charles H. Smith, former commander of the 1^st Maine, now commanding a brigade, also wrote a letter recommending Michalowski for a brevet but his tone is less enthusiastic than Cilley’s. Smith seems to choose his words carefully, as though torn as to whether to support the effort. In doing so, Smith’s comments may hint at things to come. “I have been intimately acquainted with 1^st Lt. T. B. von Michalowski during the twelve months last past and state with pleasure that I know him as an accomplished gentleman of correct habits & good character. He is a thorough soldier, a good disciplinarian & brave in action [but] is very ambitious & exceedingly sensitive as to whatever bears upon his reputation. I entertain no doubt but that he will honor any position that he will be willing to accept. [emphasis added]”

In February 1865, he requested a leave to visit Pittsburgh, “to have a model of a gun made, lately invented by me, and pronounced by some general officers of being worthy of examination and trial.”

Ten months later, in October 1865, Michalowski asked officials at the War Department to return the letters, claiming they had been forwarded by an unnamed friend, “without my knowledge …who thought that they might be recommendations for brevet, particularly as they were entirely unsolicited on my part but it seems they have been kept at the office for no purpose whatever, and as I would like to send them to the War Ministry of Prussia.” He had received a brevet to captain in June 1865 for his actions at St. Mary’s Church, so what should we make of his comment regarding the letters being retained “for no purpose?” And why did he wish to send the letters to the War Ministry in Prussia? With the Civil War over, might he have been casting about for other opportunities?

In 1866 and with Michalowski stationed in Brownsville, Texas, Major General Jose M J Carvajal of the Mexican Army, requested that Michalowski be granted six months leave “with a view to his employment in the Mexican Army.” The army denied his request.

Two months earlier, on June 26, Michalowski, according to Census records, married Louisa Smith in Cameron, Texas, NE of Austin. Benjamin Dwight, author of The History of the Descendants of Elder John Strong of Northampton, Mass., gave her name as Mary Louise Smith, born March 28, 1843, in Matamoros, Mexico, directly across the border from Brownsville. On January 11, 1868, they had a daughter, Clara Maria. When Dwight made the brief entry sometime prior to the book’s publication in 1871, he said of Michalowski, “his present whereabouts are unknown.” What had led to Dwight’s rather ominous statement?

On August 2, 1867, the army filed charges against Michalowski, alleging, in short, that he had defrauded or tried to defraud the government by submitting, on three occasions, duplicate pay accounts or by selling or transferring the vouchers to civilians. Endorsing the paperwork, Gen. Joseph Reynolds wrote, “trial recommended…unless the resignation of this officer be accepted, the latter course is recommended.” Given the option, Michalowski resigned immediately. Other than Dwight’s mention of his daughter’s birth the following January, Michalowski disappears until September 1869.

Although I have not attempted an exhaustive effort to piece together Michalowski’s postwar life, I believe a couple examples will suffice. The earliest account appeared in the Hartford Courant in September 1869. I will quote this article rather extensively, rather than detailing similar legal problems in later years. As reported under the headline, “A Bogus Cuban Patriot,” the reporter explained, “There has been in town for several weeks a stylish looking young man, of pleasing manners, who introduced himself as Colonel T. B. Michalowski, a patriot of the late war, having served with gallantry in a celebrated New York regiment, and also one of the heroic band …that quartered on Gardiner’s Island preparatory to a grand expeditionary movement against the Castilian dynasty in Cuba. His first appearance here was in the guise of an unfortunate soldier, who had been arrested and imprisoned on account of his connection with the Cuban movement, and having a wife in New Orleans, he was desiring of obtaining funds to go there. He had, it appeared, made a short stop in Middletown, where his winning ways so completely blinded many of the leading citizens of that city, that he had no difficulty in securing the strongest letters of recommendation, which ranked him as a hero, and as a deserving Free Mason… he entered the Courant office and told the story of his suffering to the writer hereof in such a sympathetic manner that sympathy would have been excited had he not followed up his narrative by soliciting letters of introduction to leading citizens, on the strength of the documents he had in his possession.”

When the interviewing reporter suggested placing his story in the paper, Michalowski declined, stating, “you see, I am out on bail, and don’t want the New York authorities to know where I am.” Claiming to be destitute, he asked for the name of “the leading Mason in Hartford.” Appearing to be a gentleman, Michalowski raised no suspicions as “to the real object of his visit to Hartford. He talked freely about is wife, and particularly concerning his own exploits, and was indeed quite a lion.”

He had apparently already approached employees at the Pratt, Whitney & Co., offices for bank drafts in his favor and passed himself off “as an ‘Interpreter’ at Colt’s armory. When one of the officials at Pratt and Whitney became suspicious and reported the matter to the police, officers found Michalowski at a boarding house in rooms furnished almost entirely with furniture obtained through false pretenses.

When arrested, Michalowski “did not attempt to deny that he was guilty of all the charges against him but sought to excuse his conduct on the plea that he did not intend fraud. It was his purpose, he said, to secure money from his friends before the drafts given as collateral should be sent forward, and thereby make everything straight.”

About a week later, a reporter for another Connecticut newspaper described him as “the Hartford Cuban swindler, [who] thinks he has been laboring under an ‘hallucination.’” The columnist for the Hartford Courant, had mocked him as a man reduced to “counting cockroaches which are amusing themselves by playing tag in the narrow apartment wherein he dwells.” Though the resolution of the Hartford case is unknown, Michalowski, by avoiding crimes of violence and never swindling his victims out of large amounts of money, seldom served long periods of incarceration. And, with his arrests scattered across the country, the courts seemed to always accept his word that each case was his first violation and that he had no criminal intent. He usually received sentences of two years or less, often being paroled after a year.

He remained in Dubuque, Iowa for a period of months in 1876 and 1877, to include a year in prison. While there, he applied to legally change his name. He also applied for a position as a German language instructor. The combination of the smooth-talking swindler who applies to be an instructor in Iowa suggests to me Prof. Harold Hill in the stage play, The Music Man. In 1880, he appears on the Census records twice. On June 11, he is reported to be living in St. Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota, married to a woman named Alice and listing his occupation as a civil engineer. The following day, he is listed as a resident of the Ramsey County Jail.

I decided to quit chasing Michalowski’s story at this point. I knew nothing of his life beyond his wartime service when I set out to write a short story based around his letter recommending his sergeant for the Medal of Honor. Many questions remain. Most importantly, is any of his backstory true or had he been duping his friends and superiors since he first enlisted in the 2^nd U.S. Infantry? Or, had his expectations of an inheritance in Prussia completely fallen apart, leaving him broken financially and mentally? Or was he simply another victim of the war? And what had happened to his first wife, or had he convinced her to change her name, and what happened to their daughter?

I owe a special thanks to Wayne Motts, who initiated my journey, and to my wife, Teresa, for digging through the Census records.

Sources:

Documents in the National Archives

The Official Records

Ancestry.com

Fold3.com

Wikipedia.com

The Baltimore Sun

The Daily Milwaukee News

The Dubuque Daily Times

The Easton [Maryland] Gazette

The Gallipolis (Ohio) Journal

The Hartford Courant

The Litchfield Enquirer

The Perry Daily Chief

The Sioux City Journal

The Wisconsin State Journal

Benjamin W. Dwight, The History of the Descendants of Elder John Strong of Northampton, Massachusetts, Albany, 1871.

William Haskin, The History of the First Regiment of Artillery, from its Organization in 1821, to January 1^st, 1876, Portland, 1879.

Donald McConnell and Gustav Person, “…A Whirlwind of Bullets,” Company C, 2^nd U.S. Infantry Regiment, 1861,” Infantry, June- August 2011.

Pardons, Commutations, and Remissions, Message of the Governor of Iowa, 1880.

State of Wisconsin in Assembly, Journal of Proceedings of the 29^th Annual Session of the Wisconsin Legislature, 1875.