Failure™ Magazine

Another perspective on “Mr. Gatling’s Terrible Marvel”

Compiled by Jason Zasky  as part of Letters to the Editor

I enjoyed the article about Julia Kerr’s biography of Richard Gatling [“Shooting Star”], and I believe the book [“Mr. Gatling’s Terrible Marvel”] must be fascinating, particularly the part about how Gatling used his seed-planter design to create the gun. However, in my opinion, some of the author’s comments are incorrect.

The reason for the slow adoption of the Gatling gun during and after the Civil War was not the romance of war. If any romance survived after the First Battle of Bull Run, it was stamped out at Antietam, the bloodiest day of combat in American history. Many types of repeating arms were offered to the Union government, but the general in charge of procurement rejected all of them because he thought they wasted ammunition. It was only after the inventor of the Spencer repeating rifle was able to demonstrate his gun to President Lincoln personally that he received orders for thousands of his guns. (Lincoln ordered the army to buy some, and they quickly demonstrated their value.) Both commanders and privates loved them, and the Confederates tried to capture as many as they could. And the Henry repeating rifle was so popular with troops near the end of the war that the Army offered veterans who reenlisted use of the Henrys, with the option of buying them at the end of the war. Hundreds of soldiers accepted.

During the war, medium- and long-range field artillery was common. For close-up work, both sides used the anti-personnel round known as canister, which turned cannons into giant shotguns that blew great holes in the ranks of the enemy.

After the war, the army returned to its stingy use of ammunition and perpetuated the use of single-shot rifles and carbines, while European nations were adopting repeating rifles. A major reason why Custer and his men were slaughtered is that they were armed with single-shot carbines, while many Indians possessed repeating Winchesters obtained at trading posts. Custer did not use Gatlings at Little Big Horn, but not because they were too awkward to move over rough ground. Custer had been a cavalry commander in the Civil War, when the cavalry on both sides employed “horse artillery.” These units provided mounts to all the soldiers, and trained to move quickly over difficult terrain. My understanding is that such a unit had not been developed for rapid deployment of the Gatlings (which were much lighter than the horse artillery cannons). The soldiers manning the Gatlings had not been trained to keep up with rapidly-moving cavalry. They typically moved with the much slower infantry, which also fought against the Indians.

Richard Botteri
Portland, Oregon