Christmas in Washington 1862: A Dinner for the Sick and Wounded

As Christmas of 1862 approached, Elizabeth Smith, the wife of Interior Secretary Caleb B. Smith, was busy organizing a holiday dinner for patients of the military hospitals in and around Washington.  Following the carnage at Fredericksburg, many wounded soldiers were transported to the nation's capital for treatment.  Their presence added to the numbers of the Union Army's sick and wounded who were already recuperating in Washington.   Theses men faced the sad reality of Christmas away from loved ones back home, and Smith and others like her were determined to bring some holiday cheer to the hospital wards.

Smith and her fellow volunteers raised donations from across the Union to help defray the cost of the Christmas meal.  The New York Times noted that "a large outlay will of course be required," and informed readers that "[a]ny sums left with United States Marshal MURRAY, at his office in Chambers-street, will be duly acknowledged and forwarded to Washington."  (N.Y. Times, Dec. 10, 1862.)  The City of Philadelphia alone raised three thousands dollars, while the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad "volunteered to transport supplies over their road free of charge."  (Daily Morning Chronicle (Wash., D.C.), Dec. 25, 1862, in Hay & Hill at 294-95.) 

The editors of the Daily National Republican (Wash., D.C.) could barely contain their enthusiasm on Christmas morning:

To-day, this city is to witness a scene never witnessed  here before--the Christmas dinner to the sick and wounded soldiers in the hospitals, got up under the auspices of Mrs. Secretary Smith and the noble ladies associated with her in this grand Christian effort.  (Daily National Republican, Dec. 25, 1862.)

The Cleveland Morning Leader described the grand Christmas event for readers:

Accounts say that nowhere else in the world than in America could have been seen the sight which made this holiday remarkable and memorable--the banqueting of 35,000 wounded and sick soldiers upon a Christmas dinner, spread by the hands of individual benevolence.

Tables were set and abundantly and elegantly covered in the largest wards of the different hospitals.  The room were ornamented by volunteer hands with evergreens and flowers.  Volunteer waiters, gentlemen and ladies of the first families in the land, tenderly and devotedly served the wounded warriors in every hospital, waiting first on those too injured to be moved to the tables.  (Cleveland Morning Leader, Dec. 29, 1862.)

The dinner also provided the soldiers with entertainment and a chance to rub elbows with some of Washington's bigwigs:

To make the festive occasion more complete in most of the hospitals, hired or volunteer singers sang songs of home and country; in others, members of Congress and Cabinet officers made speeches happily fit to the occasion, and moved socially among the tables.  (Cleveland Morning Leader, Dec. 29, 1862.)

President Lincoln and the First Lady even visited the sick and wounded soldiers at several of the hospitals.  The couple "rejoiced the hearts of the brave volunteers . . . with their presence and soothing and consoling words."  (Daily National Republican, Dec. 27, 1862.)  The pro-Administration Daily National Republican noted:

Many were the exclamations heard of "Honest man, God bless you;" "Here is one volunteer who prays for your long life and happiness;" "May Heaven protect you;" "Providence must have selected you to rule us in such an hour" . . . . (Daily National Republican, Dec. 27, 1862.)

"Washington, D.C. Mess hall at Harewood Hospital heated by elaborate stoves" (courtesy of Library of Congress).

The Cleveland Morning Leader reported that "[o]ver seven thousand turkeys and chickens were consumed at this novel Christmas dinner."  (Cleveland Morning Leader, Dec. 29, 1862).  The paper explained that "this immense amount of poultry came mostly from Maryland and Pennsylvania, but four car loads of it came all the way from Chicago."  (Cleveland Morning Leader, Dec. 29, 1862.)  In addition, "[t]hree hundred turkeys, sent from ever-generous Albany, came cooked and ready for the table."  (Cleveland Morning Leader, Dec. 29, 1862.) 

Given the magnitude of the event and the number of actors, there were a few glitches.  The Daily National Republican stated that "[i]n some of the hospitals. . . through the non-arrival of a portion of the supplies. . . there was delay and annoyance."  (Daily National Republican, Dec. 27, 1862.)  Moreover, "in one or two cases the unaccommodating spirit and incompetency of the officers in charge, had a very unpleasant effect."  (Daily National Republican, Dec. 27, 1862.)  Overall, however, Mrs. Smith and her volunteers pulled off quite the organizational feat.  As the Daily National Republican exclaimed, "the ladies have every cause for gratulation and praise."  (Daily National Republican, Dec. 27, 1862.)

The Christmas dinner in Washington's military hospitals offered a grateful nation the opportunity to do something for the men who were fighting to put down the rebellion.  The year had proven a very difficult one, and there were two more wartime Christmases yet to come.  Violent and savage battles, as well as sickness and disease, had already extracted a heavy toll in suffering and death.  At least on this one day, the sick and wounded soldiers in and around Washington could try to enjoy a little holiday cheer and hope for the time when they would be reunited with loved ones.

"Santa Claus in Camp," Harper's Weekly, Jan. 3, 1863 (courtesy of sonofthesouth.net)

Finally, I'd like to wish all of my readers Happy Holidays!  As always, thanks for taking the time to visit and read the blog.  See you in 2013!

Sources

"Bridging the River," National Review, Dec. 24, 2007; Cleveland Morning Leader, Dec. 29, 1862; Daily National Republican, Dec. 25, 1862; Daily National Republican, Dec. 27, 1862; N.Y. Times, Dec. 10, 1862; John Hay & Douglas Hill, An Idler: John Hay's Social and Aesthetic Commentaries for the Press During the Civil War, 1861-1865 (2006);

"Baldy" Smith's Division and Dranesville

Today marks the 151st anniversary of the Battle of Dranesville.  I've written a few times about this engagement that pitted Gen. E.O.C. Ord's brigade of Pennsylvania Reserves against a smaller force under Gen. Jeb Stuart.  I even authored the lead piece on the battle for the Civil War Trust's website.  Not too long ago historian John Hennessy sent me a period newspaper article that has shed some additional light on the events surrounding the fight at Dranesville.

Ord's men, accompanied by the famed Bucktails and a force of artillery and cavalry, set off from Camp Pierpont in Langley, Virginia during the early morning hours of December 20, 1861.  Gen. George A. McCall, commander of the Pennsylvania Reserves, ordered Gen. John F. Reynold's brigade to follow in support.  Ord ran into Stuart's men at the tiny hamlet of Dranesville, and a brisk fight ensued.  Reynold's troops, who were stopped at Difficult Run along the Leesburg-Georgetown Turnpike (VA-193), marched towards the battlefield.  Gen. George G. Meade's brigade of Reserves also left Langley and headed down the pike to Dranesville.  Both brigades arrived too late to participate in the fight, which resulted in a Union tactical victory.

The role that Reynolds and Meade played (or did not play) is well known.  Thanks to the article that John Hennessy sent my way, I recently learned that the Gen. William F. "Baldy" Smith's division also got involved in the day's events.  Smith's men were quartered for the winter at Camp Griffin, in the same general vicinity as Camp Pierpont (today's McLean, Virginia).  His command included the Vermont Brigade and another brigade under Gen. Winfield S. Hancock.  According to a December 24, 1861 account from a soldier-correspondent of the 6th Vermont:

On Thursday last, Gen. McCall had a fight with some 8000 of the enemy.*  About one o'clock, on that day, our brigade was drawn up, together with Gen. Hancock's brigade, the batteries of [Capt. Thaddeus] Mott and [Capt. Romeyn] Ay[res], also some Maine regiments, for the purpose of proceeding to the scene of action and if possible to flank the enemy on their retreat. ** We marched at a rapid pace some ten or twelve miles in the vicinity of Hunter's Mills and Drainsville [sic], but come to a sudden halt on account of a bridge being burnt.  All we had to do was to "about face" and march back, reaching camp a little before eight, tired enough to rest.  The next morning at four we were tramped out on picket. ("A March," Vermont Journal (Windsor), Jan. 4, 1862, courtesy of John Hennessy.)

This article intrigued me, as I didn't recall coming across any references to Smith's men playing a role, however remote, in the engagement at Dranesville.  I at once searched for additional references and found a letter that Corporal Dan Mason, Co. D, 6th Vermont sent to his fiancee, Harriet B. Clark.  The facts in this correspondence closely track the details from the Vermont Journal article.  On December 27, 1861, Mason wrote:

I dare say you have heard of the battle at Drainsville a few days since We heard the firing from our camp. Gen McCalls division of Penn soldiers went out in the morning on a foraging & scouting expedition (this Div is encamped about a mile north of our camp) Our division started about 2 oclock P M. to assist them if nessessary We marched 12 miles we came to a branch of the Potomac the rebels had burned the bridge so that we were compelled to face about & march homeward the boys were in the best of spirits until the order to about face came. that made them look disappointed quite a number fell out by the way & were picked up the ambulances which follow an army to pick up those that are wounded or sick & are not able to march. . . . (spelling and grammar as in original; courtesy of Vermont Historical Society, On-Line Collection of Dan Mason Letters.)

Co. D, 6th Vermont Volunteer Infantry at Camp Griffin (courtesy of Library of Congress)

Both of these accounts explain that the march to Dranesville was interrupted when Smith's men stumbled upon a destroyed bridge.  Given that the Pennsylvania Reserves moved freely back and forth along the Leesburg-Georgetown Turnpike, including the portion that crosses the Potomac tributary of Difficult Run, it appears that Smith's men took a different route towards Dranesville.  Their line of march towards Dranesville may have continued due west from Camp Griffin (today's McLean) in the direction of Hunter's Mills, or could have turned northwest onto the Leesburg-Alexandria Turnpike (current VA-7).  Both routes passed over creeks, and Confederate soldiers may very well have burned the bridge at any of the crossings.  (For a detailed map, see here.)

The mobilization of Smith's men on the afternoon of December 20 makes sense.  A fight had erupted at Dranesville between a Union brigade and a Confederate force of unknown size.  As word reached the camps around Langley, Smith took action to render assistance to the Pennsylvania Reserves.  Of course, Ord beat Stuart without needing help from other brigades.  In any event, Smith's men were blocked at the site of a burned down bridge, and it is unclear how much they could have contributed that day.

Notes

*The Battle of Dranesville occurred on a Friday, not a Thursday.  The correspondent greatly exaggerated the size of Stuart's force, which consisted of 1,600 infantry, 150 cavalry, and a four-gun battery of artillery.  (OR, 1:5, 490.)
**"Our brigade" means the Vermont Brigade.  Two Maine regiments --the 6th and 7th Maine-- belonged to Smith's division. The 6th Maine was part of Hancock's brigade.  (See George B. McClellan, Report on the Organization and Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac (1864).)

A "Mystery" Solved: The Blockhouse at the Chain Bridge

A few weeks ago I wrote about a wartime photograph of a blockhouse at the Chain Bridge over the Potomac that was published in Miller's Photographic History.  Something about the picture just didn't add up, and the documentary evidence failed to confirm with any certainty that the photograph was what the caption in Miller's said it was.  As I wrote, "the complete story behind the 'blockhouse at the Chain Bridge' remains a mystery."  Thanks to a few knowledgeable readers, it didn't remain a mystery for very long.

Within days of posting the story about the blockhouse at Chain Bridge, Chuck Siegel, Debbie Robison, and Keith Yoder contacted me.  All of them wrote to say that the photograph in Miller's actually depicts the Orange & Alexandria Railroad (O & A R.R.) bridge over Bull Run.  Their comments and emails referred me to numerous pieces of photographic evidence to prove that Miller's Photographic History had gotten it all wrong.  (Incidentally, Chuck Siegel maintains a website dedicated to O & A R.R.; Debbie Robison is a Fairfax County History Commissioner who writes a blog on Northern Virginia history.)

Debbie sent me a reference to a National Archives copy of the photograph in Miller's, entitled "Bridge and blockhouse built by U.S. engineers, ca. 1860-ca. 1865."  I was struck by what I saw on the high resolution digital copy of the image.  Such magnification was not possible with the versions of the photograph that I had previously examined.  An enlargement of the photograph clearly shows railcar wheels and axles scattered at the bottom of the bridge near the water's edge.  Railroad tracks are also visible running across the bridge.  Chain Bridge was not a railroad bridge, and sat nowhere near a railroad!  The topography in the photograph also matches that seen in other images of the railroad crossing at Bull Run.  (See here and here, for example.)   Likewise, the distinctive stone abutment that appears here looks like the one seen in other photographs of the Bull Run Bridge.  After searching the Library of Congress collection of Civil War photographs, I located a copy of the same photograph entitled, "U.S. Military Railroad Bridge, Bull Run, Va. Orange and Alexandria R.R."  This find confirmed the actual identity of the bridge published in Miller's.

"Bridge and blockhouse built by U.S.engineers, ca. 1860-ca. 1865" (courtesy National Archives, ARC Identifier #524695). The railroad bridge over Bull Run, located near Union Mills, was rebuilt at least seven times during the course of the Civil War.

Detail of the above photograph showing railcar debris around the bridge abutment.  Note also the railroad tracks crossing the bridge.

Another photograph of the same location, seen below, looks across the railroad bridge from the side where the blockhouse was situated.  The people gathered there, including women and children, appear to match the individuals shown in the photograph from Miller's.  It is likely that these two photographs were taken on the same day.

"Bridge, ca. 1860-ca. 1865" (courtesy of National Archives, ARC Identifier #529324).  Compare the group of persons in this photograph with the close-up from the photograph above.

This photograph depicts the construction of the truss bridge over Bull Run in April 1863 and provides yet another view of the topography at the crossing:

"Part of construction corps building new military truss bridge across Bull Run, April 1863" (courtesy of Library of Congress).

Other photographs show the blockhouse that was constructed on a bluff to the northeast of the O & A R.R. bridge on the Fairfax County side of Bull Run.  Such structures were designed to guard railroad bridges and other critical locations against attack by Confederate partisans operating in the area. 

"Bridge and block house on Orange and Alexandria R.R. near Bull Run, Va."  (courtesy of Library of Congress).  This photograph looks east across Bull Run.  The truss bridge is visible above and to the left of the cabins.  Another blockhouse was apparently built to the southwest of the bridge in Prince William County.

"R. R. (i.e. Railroad) bridge across Bull Run. O. & A. R.R." (courtesy of Library of Congress). Another view of the railroad bridge and blockhouse, taken farther downstream.

A current view of the bridge abutment on the Fairfax County side of Bull Run (courtesy of Historical Marker Database).  A Norfolk Southern bridge now crosses the stream to the left of the original location.  According to Chuck Siegel, the imprint of the blockhouse also remains, but is now overgrown with underbrush.

The skeptic in me couldn't take that picture in Miller's Photographic History at face value given what I know about Chain Bridge and the defenses of Washington.  I'm glad that readers responded to my original post and helped to set the record straight.  Now if we can just get that caption in Miller's classic work corrected! 

Sources

George B. Abdill, Civil War Railroads: A Pictorial Story of the War Between the States, 1861-1865 (1961); National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, Orange and Alexandria Railroad Bridge Piers (1989).