A Black Confederate Soldier from Fairfax? Not Quite

The Civil War blogsphere contains many posts and websites devoted to the topic of black Confederates.  For some time now, I've steered clear of this subject.  Although I understand and support efforts to prevent the distortion of history by those who are pushing certain agendas, the issue has taken on a life of its own, generated excessive controversy, and perhaps distracted us a bit from other issues.  All of that being said, I'd like to take a look at the story of George Lamb, an African-American body servant from Fairfax.

An 1855 entry from the Fairfax County Register of Free Blacks indicates that George Lamb was a free mulatto born to a free mother in Fairfax County sometime around 1834. According to an obituary from the Fairfax Herald, Lamb, who was widely known as "Uncle George," worked on various farms throughout the county. When the Civil War broke out, Captain William Dulany of the Co. D, 17th Virginia Infantry (the "Fairfax Rifles") brought Lamb with him as a body servant. (Readers may recall that Dulany was the Unionist Fairfax delegate to the Virginia Convention.) It is not certain whether Lamb worked for Dulany prior to the war, or whether he was hired specifcially to come with Dulany. 

Lamb remained with the 17th Virginia throughout the war, even after Dulany was severely wounded at Blackburn's Ford in 1861.  Presumably Lamb continued to serve with the regiment as a servant of some sort.  I have not located any evidence that he shouldered a rifle and fought alongside white soldiers.  The website for the "Fairfax Rifles" Living History Society also notes that there were five other blacks "who served with the Confederacy from Fairfax County."  After the Civil War, Lamb worked as a blacksmith for Joseph Cooper, who ran a wagon shop in Fairfax.  Lamb never married and died in 1926.  He is buried at Jermantown Cemetery.

Lamb's obituary notes that he "was on the Confederate soldier pension role, and is believed to have been the only colored man drawing a pension on his record as a soldier in the Southern army."  The paper likely got its terminology confused and its facts wrong.  According to an 1936 letter from the Commonwealth of Virginia in the case of another servant, Virginia paid Confederate servant's pensions in addition to enlisted Confederate soldier's pensions.  The letter notes that nearly all of the servant's pensions were awarded to "colored people, who rendered service to the Confederate Government or Confederate officers" as "body servants while such officers were in service," as "cooks, teamsters, hostlers" or "in Confederate hospitals."  The Library of Virginia's Confederate Pension Rolls, Veterans and Widows Database "includes claims submitted by more than five hundred African Americans who had worked as cooks, herdsmen, laborers, servants, or teamsters in the Confederate army."  Interestingly, the only George Lamb in the database that I located was a man from Greene County, Virginia who enlisted in 1864.  If Lamb in fact received a pension, it was more than likely a servant's pension.  And he certainly was not the only black to be paid such a servant's pension in Virginia.

Andrew Chandler, and his slave, Silas Chandler (courtesy of Civil War Memory)

Lamb's story appears on the website Reconstructed Yankee, which was designed to promote the production and filming of Caleb's Triumph, a fictional story about a black Confederate soldier.  As far as I can tell, the movie has not yet been released.  The site provides background information on several black Confederates, including Lamb and the usual suspects like Silas Chandler.  The website presents most of the facts on Lamb noted above, and concludes:

Given recent research on Black Confederate pensioners in Virginia, the obituaries [sic] erroneous assumption that he was the only such African-American on the Virginia pension roles in 1926 is interesting and indicative of white sentiments at that time. 

The website extrapolates from pension records and reaches the impossible conclusion that "3,700 to 3,900 Black Confederates serving in combat roles from Virginia alone is plausible and feasible." (emphasis in original)  By grouping Lamb together with such claims, it is clear that the author would like to use Lamb's story to support his overall view that blacks willingly and loyally fought for the Confederacy, and in large numbers.

Returning to the facts, we know that Lamb was a free black body servant with the 17th Virginia during the Civil War.  What we don't know, at least from the sources I reviewed, was what motivated Lamb to accompany the Fairfax Rifles.  Was his service merely out of loyalty to Dulany?  Was he trying to avoid losing his freedom through some mischance in civilian life?  Did he welcome this service as an opportunity for steady employment during a time of war?  In any event, we must be careful not to take what we do know about one African-American's story and jump to conclusions about the role of so-called black Confederates in Virginia or elsewhere.

Brent on Trade: The (Human) Cost of Cotton Production

A few weeks ago I featured a post on a pro-slavery speech given in March 1861 by George William Brent, the Alexandria delegate to the Virginia Convention. Brent viewed the preservation of the Union as the way to ensure the continued existence of slavery. Secession and civil war would only lead to the peculiar institution's demise. Reading through Brent's speech, a few arguments related to international trade attracted my attention.

A slave family picking cotton outside of Savannah, Georgia (courtesy of The New Georgia Encyclopedia)

Today, critics of free trade sometimes attribute unfair foreign competition to the lack of workers' rights and protections in other countries. The failure of foreign governments to respect fundamental labor rights enables producers to hold down their costs of production by suppressing wages.  Some governments are even accused of turning a blind eye to the use of slave labor.  Facing low to non-existent labor costs, foreign companies then flood world markets with cheaply made goods.  If we go back 150 years, we find Brent on the other side of the equation, making arguments about the Southern dominance of world markets based on maintaining the existence of inexpensive and abundant slave labor.

Brent raised the issue of foreign competition during a portion of his speech where he refuted concerns about the ramifications of a decision by Virginia to remain in the Union:

[W]e are told that if we do not enter into this Confederacy, if we do not link our destinies with the Gulf States, that the Gulf States will inhibit the States on the border from sending their slaves for sale into the cotton States. Mr. President, can they do it? Dare they do it? Their own power, their own interest depends entirely upon the production of cotton.

Brent believed that the economics of slavery and cotton would prevent the Deep South from ever attempting to embargo slaves from Virginia and other "border states" that remained loyal:

In order to compete successfully with the other cotton growing countries of the world, the price of cotton must be kept down to a certain minimum price. When it goes beyond that, the production of cotton is stimulated in the other cotton growing regions of the world. [The Gulf States] therefore, cannot dispense with our labor—they are forced to have it. . . .

They boast, Mr. President, that Cotton is King, they tell us that his supremacy is so firmly established that it cannot be over borne: that his sway is so omnipotent that England, with all her antipathy to slavery, with all her instincts in behalf of freedom, must bow in submission before his power. How is this? Is this boast justified by the facts? Is it true that the cotton of the Southern States is King? Are there any other countries in the world that can compete with the Southern States in the production of cotton? Why, sir, India produces already more cotton than the Southern States. . . .  It is asked, why it is that England, with all her efforts, has not been enabled to build up rivals in India and elsewhere to the cotton production of the South? It results from this consideration alone, that whilst cotton can be produced in India -- as it is in our own country, yet the cost of transportation from the cotton fields to the points whence it is to be carried to England, is so great that it cannot be sent and sold to any advantage at the existing price.

But whenever cotton, grown in the Southern States, has risen . . . you will find the growth of cotton in India will be extended and proper facilities for its transportation provided. . . .  [I]f the cotton Confederacy should interpose a law inhibiting the sale of negroes from the border States, the result would be that labor would be enhanced in value in the cotton States, and cotton would necessarily cost more, and that India, Algeria, Central America and South America would come into competition with the cotton States in the production of cotton.

Brent drew a link between costs of production and trade. Slaves were just another input into production, which, when priced right, helped the Southern states preserve their top position in world cotton markets. Of course, the very existence of this input depended on depriving an entire race of personal and economic freedom. Brent's attitude reminds us that even pro-Union Southerners were not necessarily troubled by the evil system upon which the region had built and maintained its prosperity.

Townsend in Langley: Abandoned Huts and Contraband

The Pennsylvania Reserves left Camp Pierpont in Langley and headed towards Manassas in March 1862. The division was rerouted to Alexandria, where the soldiers spent a few weeks before heading further south as part of General Irvin McDowell's First Corps.  Journalist George Alfred Townsend entered Langley not long after the Pennsylvania Reserves had moved out.  In his book Campaigns of a Non-Combatant (1866), he described the scene:

"Langley's," — a few plank-houses, clustering around a tavern and a church, — is one of those settlements whose sounding names beguile the reader into an idea of their importance. A lonesome haunt in time of peace, it had lately been the winter quarters of fifteen thousand soldiers, and a multitude of log huts had grown up around it. . . . 

[I] examined the huts in which the Reserves had passed the winter. They were built of logs, plastered with mud, and the roofs of some were thatched with straw. Each cabin was pierced for two or more windows; the beds were simply shelves or berths; a rough fireplace of stones and clay communicated with the wooden chimney ; and the floors were in most cases damp and bare. Streets, fancifully designated, divided the settlement irregularly; but the tenements were now all deserted save one, where I found a whole family of " contrabands " or fugitive slaves.

George Alfred Townsend, ca. 1899 (courtesy of Wikipedia)

Townsend, while betraying a somewhat patronizing attitude, gave readers an idea of the hardships that this family endured in the search for freedom:

These wretched beings, seven in number, had escaped from a plantation in Albemarle county, and travelling stealthily by night, over two hundred miles of precipitous country, reached the Federal lines on the thirteenth day.  While the troops remained at Langley's, the [husband, Jeems,] was employed at seventy-five cents a week to attend to an officer's horse. Kitty [the wife] and Rose [the daughter] cooked and washed for soldiers, and the boys ran errands to Washington and return, — twenty-five miles! The eldest boy, Jefferson, had been given the use of a crippled team-horse, and traded in.newspapers, but having confused ideas of the relative value of coins, his profits were only moderate. The nag died before the troops removed, and a sutler, under pretence of securing their passage to the North, disappeared with the little they had saved. They were quite destitute now, but looked to the future with no foreboding, and huddled together in the straw, made a picture of domestic felicity that impressed me greatly with the docility, contentment, and unfailing good humor. . . .

Kitty asked Townsend how far the family had to go to get to the North, and Townsend reported "[a] long way. . . perhaps two hundred miles."  The wife seemed willing to continue the family's trek, but Jeems shouted her down, reminding her that she "got a good ruff over de head now."  Before leaving, Townsend "tossed some coppers to the children and gave each a sandwich."

We don't really know how much Townsend may have embellished his story by the time he put pen to paper.  But assuming at least some truth, the episode paints an interesting portrait of a slave family that fled to the Union lines in Northern Virginia and earned a living by doing odd jobs for the soldiers at Camp Pierpont.  The family's fate is unknown; the Pennsylvania Reserves's departure may have complicated matters, but then again, there were still plenty of Union troops in the Washington area who could furnish work.  I hope to research more about the life of fugitive slaves in and around "Washington City" during the war, and what role they may have played in helping the Union Army.  

Note on the book:

A special shout-out to Bob Eldridge of the Hunter Mill Defense League, who first told me about the local anecdotes contained in Townsend's book.  I bought my copy, a re-print from Time-Life of the 1866 original, on Amazon.com.  I hope to get the original someday to add to my collection of antique Civil War-era books.

Happy St. Patrick's Day!: The 69th New York at Fort Corcoran

Like many Civil War enthusiasts, I have always been fascinated with the exploits of the famed Irish Brigade, even though I don't have a drop of Irish blood in my body!  On this St. Patrick's Day, I was looking for an interesting Northern Virginia connection to the unit.  It turns out that Fort Corcoran in Arlington was constructed in May 1861 with the help of the 69th New York State Militia, a regiment which eventually formed the core of the Irish Brigade.  The fort, one of the first built around Washington during the Civil War, defended the approaches to the Aqueduct Bridge, along with Forts Bennett and Haggerty.  Fort Corcoran was named after Colonel Michael Corcoran, leader of the 69th New York.  The regiment fought at Bull Run and re-enrolled as the 69th New York State Volunteers when its 90-day enlistment period expired.  Colonel Thomas Francis Meagher, who replaced Colonel Corcoran after his capture at Bull Run, sought to organize an all-Irish unit.  His wish was granted, and he soon was leading the Irish Brigade.

Officers of the 69th New York State Militia at Ft. Corcoran, 1861.  Col. Corcoran is at the far left. (courtesy of the Library of Congress)

Speaking Engagement: McLean Historical Society

I wanted to let readers know that I will be speaking to the McLean Historical Society on April 14.  Jacque-Lynne Schulman, president of that organization, as well as the Historical Society of Fairfax County, has graciously invited me to give a talk on Fort Marcy.  This will be my first speaking engagement on the war since starting the blog, and I am looking forward to sharing what I have learned while researching Fort Marcy and its role in the defenses of Washington.  My presentation will also place Fort Marcy in the context of local historical events, including the Union occupation of Langley/Lewinsville (present-day McLean), the Second Manassas Campaign, and Jubal Early's attack on Fort Stevens.  I hope to see you next month in McLean!

Event Details

Where:
McLean Community Center
1234 Ingleside Avenue
McLean, Virginia 22101

Date and Time:
Thursday, April 14 @ 7:30 pm

Event is free of charge, and no reservations are required.  For more information, contact Jacque-Lynne Schulman, schulm@erols.com or 703-442-9370 (evening).

 

Alexandria's Delegate: Unionist for All the Wrong Reasons

Alexandria County sent Unionist George William Brent to the Virginia Convention on February 4, 1861. As the Convention met and debated in Richmond, Brent sought a compromise to keep the Union together and avoid civil war. A resolution he introduced on February 20, 1861 called on the Convention to support the Crittenden Compromise or "any other plan of conciliation equivalent thereto, which has been, or may be hereafter offered, by which harmony may be restored between the people of the different States, and the Union perpetuated." Brent's opposition to secession was not based on any deep-seated concerns over the constitutionality of leaving the Union. In fact, by his own admission, Brent firmly believed in the right of states to secede. However, Brent saw secession as folly mainly because it would lead to the demise of slavery. In his view, preservation of the Union was the best way to ensure the preservation of slavery.

George William Brent (courtesy of findagrave.com)

In a lengthy speech to the Convention on March 8, 1861, Brent laid out the reasoning behind his position. He first challenged the assumption that slavery was the main driver of South Carolina's decision to secede. As he alleged:

[I]t has been more a desire to relieve herself of this system of protective tariffs than for protection of the institution of slavery, which has animated her in her political course.

Brent believed that upon a closer examination, arguments for secession based on slavery could not withstand scrutiny. He disputed that the perceived Republican threat to the extension of slavery into U.S. territories was much of a threat at all:

The constitutional right [to own slaves] is valuable and ought to be maintained, but I would ask how far is it available as a question of practical statesmanship? The absolute right is one thing, but the practicability of its exercise is another. In that view I take the ground that it has little real, practical value.

We have in the first place no territory belonging to the United States into which slave labor can profitably go. It will never go into any Territory where it is not profitable

Brent also doubted that the South had the reserve of slaves to spare for the expansion westward:

The truth is, that the South has no slaves to go there. The South has yet vast and valuable cotton lands unoccupied, and the demand upon the slave labor of the South is so great that it is inadequate to meet it.

Brent saved his harshest criticism for those who saw secession as a means to deal with the fugitive slave issue. He observed that the states of the Deep South had little to worry about in the first place, given the buffer of border states like Virginia that could prevent escaped slaves from easily reaching free soil. He then explored the fallacy of the argument linking secession to a resolution of the fugitive slave problem:

But we are told that secession will remedy the escape of our slaves. In what manner? What is the remedy proposed? We have been told. . . that we could establish along the border, a cordon of military posts to intercept the fugitive. Mr. President, the remedy is worse than the disease. You would establish in the midst of the border States, within their very heart a standing army dangerous to the liberties and freedom of the people, and which would entail upon us for its support and maintenance a cost far greater than the value of the slaves lost. Such a policy would invite the establishment of corresponding military posts along the line of the free border States, and strifes and collisions would inevitably ensue. And, finally, Mr. President, the remedy would be ineffectual, for experience has demonstrated that in all countries where no natural barriers intervene, large standing armies have proved ineffectual to resist the escape of fugitives from justice, or the operations of the smuggler. But what would be the effect of secession upon the escape of fugitive slaves? Secession would relieve the Northern States from all constitutional obligations of duty to return our fugitive slaves. It would relieve the negro-stealer from all legal and constitutional restraints, and it would give a secure and safe asylum upon our borders for the escape of the fugitive. As has been well said by some member upon this floor, it would bring Canada down to our very doors. . . .

I think, then, that the evil in the matter of escaped fugitive negroes will be aggravated by secession rather than diminished. (emphasis added.)

Brent rightly predicted that secession would lead to bloodshed and the end of slavery:

I, for one, believe that a peaceful separation of these States cannot be effected. The interests are too great and too pervading to be snapped suddenly asunder without causing irritation, bitterness, strife and civil war. . . . 

If this Union is to be involved in war, the institution of slavery will vanish from our midst. The perpetuity of that institution depends upon peace and upon repose. Let civil war once sound its horrid tocsin in this land, and slavery is at once ended. (emphasis added.)

Brent, hearkening back to his own resolution, called on the delegates to find a solution to the current crisis:

Let, then, Virginia, Mr. President, strive vigorously to remove all causes of discontent between the two sections of the country. . . .

Let her . . . call a conference of the border States. Let them determine upon such amendments to the Constitution as may be deemed necessary for the protection of the South. I care not whether they are the Crittenden amendments, or any other amendments equivalent to them. Let her propose them as the ultimatum upon which the settlement of the questions at issue between the two sections is to be adjusted.

But Brent then warned that:

. . . no attempt should be made, on the part of the Federal Government, to coerce and subjugate the States that have seceded from the Union. Recognizing, as I have always done, the right of a State to secede, to judge of the violation of its rights, and to appeal to its own mode for redress, I could not uphold the Federal Government in any attempt to coerce the seceded States to bring them back into the Union.

Brent concluded by declaring his ultimate allegiance to his state, above all else:

My lot is cast with that of Virginia; come weal, come woe. Beneath her soil repose the remains of those who gave me existence, and of my children, and when my own journey of life shall have been run, my prayer will be that I too may rest in her bosom.

Brent’s Unionist views are disconcerting given their reliance on a pro-slavery rationale. Among Southerners, however, he was in a minority. Those who supported secession distrusted Lincoln and the Federal government to protect the existence of slavery. In their minds, the only way to ensure the protection of their “property” was to leave the Union altogether. Brent did not buy this argument and trusted that the Union and Constitution would function to protect the “peculiar institution.”

In the end, Brent’s speech failed to convince the delegates, who approved an Ordinance of Secession on April 17. Brent voted against the Ordinance, but remained loyal to Virginia, just as he said he would. Brent was soon commissioned as an officer of the 17th Virginia and would later go on to serve Generals Braxton Bragg and P.G.T. Beauregard in the Western Theater.

Civil War Forts of Arlington Tour, Part III: Fort Marcy

My last stop on the tour of Civil War forts of Arlington was not in Arlington at all.  After visiting Forts Ethan Allen, C.F. Smith, and Bennett, our group drove to Fort Marcy, just across the line in Fairfax County.  Fort Marcy belongs to the National Park Service and is located off the G.W. Parkway North, just before the Rt. 123/McLean exit. I visited Fort Marcy last spring, but had not realized just how well the remains of the fort were preserved due to the foliage and overgrowth.  Needless to say, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that there is much more to see.  The Park Service still has a long way to go to interpret the site, but armed with our guide David, and his engineering drawings, we were able to explore the remnants of this important fort.

Fort Marcy

Fort Marcy, like nearby Fort Ethan Allen, was constructed to defend the approaches to the Chain Bridge along the Potomac. The fort was also located next to the critical roadway of the Leesburg & Georgetown Turnpike. Soldiers under Brigadier General "Baldy" Smith, including regiments from Vermont, began construction in September 1861 on land belonging to local businessman Gilbert Vanderwerken. (Readers may recall that Fort Ethan Allen was also built on poor Vanderwerken's property!) The fort was 736 yards in perimeter with emplacements for 18 guns. The fort was originally named after "Baldy" Smith. However, in late September, it was renamed in honor of Brigadier General Randolph Barnes Marcy, chief-of-staff and father-in-law to Major General George B. McClellan, commander of the Army of the Potomac. 

Brigadier Gen. Randolph B. Marcy, the fort's namesake (courtesy of the Library of Congress)

By 1862, erosion had taken its toll, and the Union Army was forced to renovate the fort. Although the perimeter was reduced to 338 yards, the 18 gun emplacements were retained.  The army also made improvements to the magazines and embrasures. Soldiers from several units garrisoned at Fort Marcy during the war, including the 4th Massachusetts Heavy Artillery, the 4th New York Heavy Artillery, and the 6th Pennsylvania Heavy Artillery.

We entered the fort's interior through a modern cut in the south wall of the fort. The fort has several well-preserved features, including the ramparts, ditch, gun emplacements, and bombproof.

Looking towards the fort's entrance, or sally port, near Chain Bridge Rd. (Leesburg & Georgetown Turnpike during the Civil War).  The rise of the fort's walls is visible to the left and the right of the entrance.

View of the gun emplacements along the south wall of the fort.  A lone 12-pounder howitzer marks one of the emplacements.  Aside from two 12-pounder howitzers, Fort Marcy's armament consisted of three 24-pounder guns, six 30-pounder Parrott rifles, three 20-pounder Parrott rifles, three 10-pounder Parrott rifles, one 10-inch mortar, and two 24-pounder Coehorn mortars.

Looking eastward along the fort's south wall.  The ditch, or dry moat, is clearly visible in front of the wall.

View from the ditch of the exterior slope of the west wall.

View of an auxiliary battery position on the exterior of the fort's west wall.  Such auxiliary batteries, together with rifle trenches, added extra protection.

Gun emplacement at the northwest corner of the fort.  This gun appears to be a 6-pounder, which is not included on the list of armaments for Fort Marcy.

A closer view of the above gun emplacement.  The outline of the embrasure in the fort's wall is visible.

Looking down from the north wall to the ditch.  Current-day Chain Bridge Rd. can be seen in the upper left of the photograph.  The residence of the Saudi Ambassador now sits across the road from this part of the fort on land that was likely occupied by soldiers who manned Fort Marcy.

Remains of the bombproof in the interior of the fort, roughly east of the fort's western side. 

Sketch of the bombproof and sally port as viewed from camp, from Heavy Guns and Light: A History of the 4th New York Heavy Artillery (courtesy of Wikipedia).

As I walked the grounds with our tour group, I was impressed at how much of the fort still remains intact.  That being said, a visitor, without a guide or a good map, would be at a loss to understand many of the features at the park.  The National Park Service has installed a few markers (see here, here, and here); otherwise, there is little to interpret the site. Perhaps most people stop there, and think that it is all just "grass and some cannons."  When I went last year, I was lucky to find a brochure in a wooden box at the entrance.  I understand that the government is short on funds these days, but it would be nice to see a few more signs throughout the park that interpret the fort's remains and history more thoroughly.

Following Fort Marcy, the group returned to Fort Ethan Allen Park. Overall, I greatly enjoyed Arlington's tour of Civil War forts.  The four-in-one deal is a welcome opportunity for those with busy lives -- or twins at home like me!  Our guide was knowledgeable and helped us to get a real feel for what remains of some of the forts around Chain Bridge and Key Bridge.  Additional information on future tours can be found on the Arlington County Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources homepage.

Note on Sources:

My background information for this series of posts comes largely from Mr. Lincoln's Forts: A Guide to the Civil War Defenses of Washington by Benjamin Franklin Cooling III and Walton H. Owen II.  This book is the "Bible" of sorts for those interested in the forts around D.C.  I would highly recommend the book if you want a detailed look at this subject.

Civil War Forts of Arlington Tour, Part II: Fort C.F. Smith & Fort Bennett

As I wrote in my last post, this past Saturday I went on a tour of Civil War forts sponsored by Arlington County.  Our first stop was Fort Ethan Allen, close to the Chain Bridge over the Potomac.  The group headed next to Fort C.F. Smith Park (2411 24th Street N., Arlington VA 22207), where our guide, David Farner, is park manager.  The 19-acre park contains the remains of Fort C.F. Smith, as well as a walking trail, ornamental peace garden, and bird creek.  A 20th-century mansion on the grounds can be rented for weddings and other occasions.  The property was purchased by Arlington County in the mid-1990s.  This move prevented the site from falling into the hands of private developers who may have been less inclined towards preserving and interpreting the history of the property. 

Fort C.F. Smith

The Union Army built Fort C.F. Smith in early 1863 to extend the "Arlington Line" of forts in Alexandria (now Arlington) County to the Potomac River.  This installation, together with Forts Strong, Morton, and Woodbury, served to protect the Chesapeake & Ohio (C&O) Canal crossing at Aqueduct Bridge, near the current day Key Bridge.  Fort C.F. Smith also covered a tributary ravine of Spout Run that was not under the protection of Fort Strong's artillery.

The fort, built as a lunette with a west and south face, had a perimeter of 368 yards.  Of the two faces, only part of the west wall remains.  Although there were emplacements for 22 guns and four siege mortars, just16 guns and four mortars were installed.  Various buildings, including the mess hall, barracks, and officers' quarters were erected to the east of the fort, but these structures were torn down after the war, and no traces remain.  Fort C.F. Smith was garrisoned by troops from several regiments, including the 2nd New York Heavy Artillery, the 1st New Hampshire Heavy Artillery, and the 4th Massachusetts Heavy Artillery.
 
The fort was built on land belonging to Thomas Jewell.  The Union Army wrecked Jewell's home, which was painted a distinct red, to make way for the fort.  Initially called the "Fort at Red House," the fort was named after Major General Charles Ferguson Smith, who commanded soldiers under Ulysses S. Grant at Fort Donelson in February 1862. As the defeated Confederate force prepared to surrender, Smith advised that Grant ask the enemy for nothing less than "unconditional and immediate surrender." Grant obliged, and the "Unconditional Surrender" nickname stuck with Grant throughout the remainder of the war.  Smith died of complications from a seemingly minor non-combat leg injury in April 1862.
 

Major General C.F. Smith (courtesy of the Library of Congress)

Several features of Fort C.F. Smith are still visible, including the west wall and ditch, north magazine, gun platforms, and bombproof. 

Looking towards the west wall and gun platforms.  A replica M1841 6-pounder occupies one of the emplacements. Visible in the foreground is a Civil War Trails marker, one of four historical markers on the property.

Co. F, 2nd New York Heavy Artillery along the west wall, August 1865.  This photograph was taken from the north magazine (courtesy of the Library of Congress). 



Remains of the north magazine near the west rampart of the fort.



A close-up view of the 6-pounder in an emplacement along the west wall.  A limber sits in front of the north magazine.

Well-preserved remains of gun placements along the west wall.

Looking along the west face of the fort towards the north.  The ditch is clearly visible below.

Remains of the western side of the bombproof.



Co. K, 2nd New York Heavy Artillery, in front of the east side of the bombproof. The timber was removed after the war, and today, only remnants of the dirt cover are visible.

Fort Bennett

After completing our tour at Fort C.F. Smith, we headed deeper into another residential neighborhood and parked around the 1600 block of 22nd Street N.  A historical marker tells the story of Fort Bennett, but no traces of the fort remain. The marker is actually located downhill from the original site of the fort, now buried underneath the suburban streets.  Arlington also runs  Fort Bennett Park, which overlooks the Potomac River and Georgetown.  We made a quick stop at the park to examine the terrain.



Fort Bennett Historical Marker, 22nd Street N., Arlington, Virginia.


In May 1861, the Union Army entered Virginia and began construction of the first defensive works. Fort Bennett, with a perimeter of just 146 yards and five artillery emplacements, was designed to protect the Aqueduct Bridge and lend support to nearby Fort Corcoran. Looking at the commanding position above the Potomac River and Key Bridge from Fort Bennett Park, I gained a good understanding of why the fort was built in this area. The fort's namesake is Captain Michael P. Bennett of the 28th New York Infantry, who directed its construction.

Close-up view from Fort Bennett Park across the Potomac to the surviving abutment of the Aqueduct Bridge in Georgetown.

View of Aqueduct Bridge from across the Potomac in Virginia, roughly in the same spot where the above photograph was taken (courtesy of the Library of Congress).

After this short stop at the Fort Bennett site, we set out for our final stop. Overall, I was very impressed by Fort C.F. Smith.  Along with Ft. Ward in Alexandria, Fort C.F. Smith is one of the best sites to visit in the Civil War defenses of Washington.  As the pictures indicate, the remains of the fort are very well preserved, and a visitor can really get a sense for the apprearance of the place during the war.  Fort Bennett represents the opposite extreme -- history lost to time and development.  At least a marker bears witness to what happend on the heights of Arlington nearly 150 years ago.