Hayes Lowe
Bartow Rangers
Fri Jun 29 11:50:35 2001


I have checked the 1850 census surname index for Cherokee County and find the following:

HAIL pages 56B-85B-86A-106A-107A-135B
HALE pages 23A-36A-61A

"Hale's 31st Inf." was later known as the 49th Ala. Inf. Regt. According to the following source, this included men from Cherokee County [contrary to some other sources, including Brewer].

Quoting from "REGIMENTAL HISTORY CORRECTED; Justice to Forty-ninth Alabama Regiment" By Lieut. Col. John D. Weeden from Florence, Ala.; Confederate Veteran, Volume 4, 1896, page 303:

"Finally, bringing up the Thirty-first Alabama Regiment, which had been held in reserve, they charged at a double quick, routing the enemy and driving them at a run from the field." The Regiment here referred to by Col. Johnston, was, subsequent to the battle of Shiloh, numbered by the War Department at Richmond as the Forty-ninth Alabama Regiment, and, thereafter, was know in the Army by that number. At the time, however, of the battle referred to, the Regiment, as stated by Col. Johnston, was known in that Army as the Thirty-first Alabama, and attached to the Kentucky Brigade, commanded by Col. Trabue, of Louisville. Col. Johnston has kindly assured me, that in a subsequent edition of his work, this error would be corrected. I think it but right and justice to the brave men from the counties of Madison, Jackson, Marshall, DeKalb and Cherokee, who composed the Forty-ninth Alabama Regiment, that this error should be corrected.

According to Brewer, this regiment was not organized until Jan. 1862.

So, my theory is that this Col. Samuel Hale is the Capt. Hale of the "17th". This "17th" designation may have been changed to the "31st" when it entered service with Gen. Johnston, then to the "49th" by the war Dept.