All Not So Quiet Along the Potomac

Johnston Prepares to Leave Centreville: The Logistical Challenges of Withdrawal

2012-02-28T06:15:00.005-05:00

Confederate commander Joseph Johnston was summoned to Richmond to confer with President Jefferson Davis in mid-February 1862. The Confederate President wanted to discuss "the question of withdrawing the army to a less exposed position." (Johnston, Narrative, 96.) Johnston left the Confederate lines at Centreville and traveled to Richmond, where on February 19 (or 20, depending on the account), Johnston joined a meeting of Davis and his Cabinet. Johnston and Davis agreed that the army should fall back to a more defensible position before Federal commander George McClellan launched his anticipated advance into Virginia. The general, however, argued that current winter conditions were less than optimal for such a move. The roads were deep with mud and in no shape to transport men and materiel. The heavy artillery pieces along the lower Potomac at Evansport and other locations presented particular difficulties. Johnston also worried about the ability of the Orange & Alexandria (O&A) Railroad to move his vast supplies from Manassas Junction to a safer location.

The meeting allegedly lasted around seven hours. When all was said and done, Johnston left the President's office "with the understanding. . . that the army was to fall back as soon as practicable." (Johnston, Narrative, 96.) Davis walked away with a somewhat different interpretation of what was agreed. He had given Johnston the discretion as to the exact timing of a general withdrawal, but seemed to think that an evacuation of Centreville was not in the works any time soon. Instead, he felt that Johnston should wait until a withdrawal was "absolutely necessary." (Symonds 145.) It later became evident that Davis even imagined that he might find a way to pull together enough reinforcements to enable Johnston to take the offensive. (OR, 1:5, 1084.)

Gen. Joseph E. Johnston (courtesy of Wikipedia)

Back at his hotel, Johnston ran into an officer who asked him if he knew that "the cabinet had been discussing that day the question of withdrawing the army from the line then occupied." (Johnston, Narrative, 97.) Likewise, during his return trip, Johnston ran into "an acquaintance from the county of Fauquier, too deaf to hear conversation not intended for his ear, who gave me the same information." (Johnston, Narrative, 97.) Johnston was alarmed by the leak and likely feared that McClellan would get word of the Confederate plans before he had time to act.

Arriving in Centreville on February 21, Johnston immediately set to work preparing for the evacuation of the Centreville line. On February 22, he issued orders to "the chiefs of the quartermaster's and subsistence departments to remove the military property in the depots at Manassas Junction and its dependencies, to Gordonsville, as quickly as possible. . . ." (Johnston, Narrative 97.) Johnston also directed the president and superintendent of the O&A Railroad to work the network "to its utmost capacity" for the purpose of transporting the army's supplies. (Johnston, Narrative 97.) At the same time, Johnston informed his divisional commanders to prepare "in a quiet way" for the evacuation. (Early 53.)

Johnston faced a daunting task. The Confederates had accumulated mountains of supplies while staying a Centreville. Johnston only needed around 1.5 million pounds of provisions on hand, enough to feed his army for fifteen days. He tried throughout January 1862 to limit the food that Richmond was sending his way, but to no avail. Now he had stores of around 3 million pounds. The government had also constructed a meat-packing establishment at Thoroughfare Gap without Johnston's knowledge. That facility possessed 2 million pounds of cured meat, as well as extensive herds of cattle and pigs, that were in danger of falling into Union hands if not shipped away or destroyed.

Aside from Confederate commissary and quartermaster stores, Johnston had to deal with the clothing and provisions that state governments had forwarded to the front at Centreville. Private baggage presented another difficulty. As Gen. Jubal Early recalled:

Owing to the fact that our army had remained stationary so long, and the inexperience in campaigning of our troops, there had been a vast accumulation of private baggage by both officers and men. . . .

After the confidential instructions for the evacuation were given, I tried to persuade all my officers to send all their baggage not capable of being easily transported and for which they did not have immediate necessary use, on the railroad to some place in the rear out of all danger, but the most that I could accomplish was to get them to send it to Manassas Junction. This was generally the case with the whole army, and the consequence was that a vast amount of trunks and other private baggage was accumulated at the Junction at the last moment, for which it was impossible to find any transportation. (Early 53.)

Johnston soon vented to Davis about the situation. On February 25, he wrote:

The accumulation of subsistence stores at Manassas is now a great evil. The Commissary-General was requested more than once to suspend those supplies. A very extensive meat-packing establishment at Thoroughfare is also a great incumbrance. The great quantities of personal property in our camps is a still greater one. Much of both kinds of property must be sacrificed in the contemplated movements. (OR, 1:5, 1081.)

Davis sent Johnston a pointed response on February 28:

The subsistence stores should, when removed, be placed in position to answer your future wants; those cannot be determined until you have furnished definite information as to your plans, especially the line to which you would remove in the contingency of retiring. The Commissary-General had previously stopped further shipments to your army, and gives satisfactory reasons for the establishment of a packing establishment at Thoroughfare. (OR, 1:5, 1084.)

Given the state of the muddy roads, the rails were the best option for moving the large quantity of supplies from Centreville. Johnston, however, worried that the railroad was not up to the task. The commander complained to Davis of the "wretched mismanagement" of the line. (OR, 1:5, 1083) By the start of March, Johnston expressed his concern to Davis that "[t]he removal of public property goes on with painful slowness, because, as the officers employed in it report, sufficient number of cars and engines cannot be had." (OR, 1:5, 1088.) A.C. Myers, the Quartermaster General, disputed Johnston's claim. He told Davis that all cars and engines from the O&A Railroad, the Manassas Gap Railroad, and the Virginia Central Railroad were "in use at Manassas," and that "no further increase can be made." (OR, 1:5, 1093.) In any event, the system was stretched to capacity, causing innumerable delays, and could not handle much more.

Johnston also remained concerned about his ability to remove the big guns blockading the Potomac and feared that the army would be forced to abandon them in the withdrawal. Davis was obviously dissatisfied with the commanding general's assessment. He urged Johnston that "[w]hatever can be should be done to avoid the loss of those guns." (OR, 1:5, 1084.)

To make matters worse, Johnston's scouts were picking up increased Union activity. On February 22, he reported to Davis:

The enemy may not allow us much time for changes of position. He has been more active than usual lately. It is reported that a picket of 8 men was captured this morning near Fairfax Court-House. Reconnaissances on the Lower Occoquan and on the Potomac have been frequent, the latter in balloons as well as boats. (OR, 1:5, 1079).

A few days later, on February 28, Johnston learned that "the enemy is in force at Harper's Ferry, having crossed the Potomac on a pontoon bridge." (OR, 1:5, 1083.) He warned Davis that "[s]hould they move directly upon Winchester from that point as well as Hancock, our left would be so threatened as to compel the movement you have ordered without further delay." (OR, 1:5, 1083.) Johnston's now sensed danger on both his flanks. As March got underway, the cautious general surely felt the pressure to complete his plans for withdrawal as expeditiously as possible. If only those pesky logsitics weren't so difficult!

Sources
Jubal A. Early, Autobiographical Sketch and Narrative of the War Between the States (1912); Joseph E. Johnston, Narrative of Military Operations (1874); Joseph E. Johnston, "Responsibilities of the First Bull Run," Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, Vol. 1 (1887); Stephen W. Sears, To the Gates of Richmond: The Peninsula Campagin (1992); Craig L. Symonds, Joseph E. Johnston: A Civil War Biography (1992); Jeffry Wert, General James Longstreet: The Confederacy's Most Controversial Soldier (1993).

Our Boys: The Quest for a First Edition

2012-02-22T06:12:00.005-05:00

In a few recent posts, I have cited to Our Boys: The Personal Experiences of a Solider in the Army of the Potomac by Archibald F. Hill. This war memoir, first published in 1864 by John E. Potter and Company of Philadelphia, offers interesting insights into life in the 8th Pennsylvania Reserves. I have found the descriptions of Camp Pierpont in Langley particularly useful in researching Northern Virginia history during the first winter of the war. Given that I am an avid bibliophile, it should come as no surprise that I immediately began a search for a first edition of Our Boys to add to my growing collection of antique Civil War books.

My searches on eBay, AbeBooks, and other on-line booksellers turned up few 19th century editions of the book, although a multitude of print-on-demand editions were being offered for exorbitant prices. Imagine my delight when I found an affordable copy on AbeBooks, which was being billed as a "scarce" edition published in 1864. When receiving the book a couple weeks later, however, I soon began to doubt that I had acquired a first edition of Our Boys.

A few differences immediately stood out from the 1864 edition available on Google Books. The title page in the first edition lists a publication date of 1864. The edition I purchased has no date on the title page, although a copyright date of 1864 appears on the reverse side of the title page. The first edition has a frontispiece of a scene from the book; my version has a portrait of the author instead. The 1864 edition also contains a flowery dedication to Gen. George B. McClellan, but the same tribute is missing from my copy. Finally, I noticed that the 1864 edition includes advertisements at the start of the book, with Our Boys listed first in a series of books that "[e]very friend of the soldier wants." The advertisements in my book appear at the very end, including one for Life and Public Services of Abraham Lincoln by Frank Crosby. With a little detective work, I discovered that this book on Lincoln was first published in 1865, a dead giveaway that I did not have an 1864 edition of Our Boys!

Frontispiece and title page of the edition that I purchased.

So, if I did not purchase a genuine first edition, then what edition do I own? For the answer to this question I turned to the expert at my neighborhood used book store, the Old Book Company of McLean. (If you are ever in the area, be sure to check out the impressive collection of Civil War and military history books at this store!) Phil took a look at my volume, listened to my legwork, and agreed that I had not acquired a first edition. He then consulted Tom Broadfoot's Civil War Books: A Price Checklist With Advice (1996). This classic reference work listed three editions of Our Boys: 1864, 1865, and 1890. All three books were published in Philadelphia, but the name of the publisher was not provided. After digging around and examining on-line listings, Phil seemed to think that I had the 1890 edition, particularly in light of my book's blue cloth binding and the gilt decoration on the spine. According to Phil, I paid a fair and reasonable price for the version I owned, even if I didn't get a first edition. There is a silver lining to the story after all!

Spine of my circa 1890 edition, showing gilt design and lettering. The book is in good condition, with slight cocking and signs of rubbing on the covers. The binding is still relatively tight.

Cover of 1890 edition by Keystone Publishing Company of Philadelphia (courtesy of Books of Valor). This book is a first edition of the Keystone printing of Our Boys. Note the slightly different title of Our Boys in the Army.

Additional research back at HQ generally confirmed the assessment by the Old Book Company. I located an 1865 edition on Google Books, and this version was printed with 1865 on the title page, as well as different advertisements at the start of the book. I also noticed that Keystone, another publisher out of Philadelphia, printed an 1890 edition, although this version has a pictorial cover of three soldiers that my book does not. Listings in AbeBooks point to circa 1890 editions by Potter, as well as Keystone. It is unclear whether the Broadfoot listing covers the Keystone or Potter version, or both.

I am glad to have found a 19th century edition of Our Boys. It certainly has the authenticity that those expensive print-on-demand versions cannot offer. Of course, I've gained some additional insights into on-line book purchasing. Claims of "first edition" should be thoroughly investigated. When in doubt, take the time to ask questions and have the bookseller send pictures. (AbeBooks has a valuable guide on this topic.) For now, the search for a first edition of Our Boys continues. Perhaps I will find a copy the romantic, old-fashioned way, while spending a rainy afternoon in a used and rare bookstore.

Civil War Photographs at the Corcoran Gallery

2012-02-17T06:18:00.002-05:00

The other day I walked the short distance from my office to the Corcoran Gallery of Art in downtown DC to view the new exhibit, Shadows of History: Photographs of the Civil War from the Collection of Julia J. Norrell. This temporary exhibit consists of a variety of photographs amassed by Norrell, a Washington lawyer and collector who only became interested in the war about six years ago. Images by George Barnard, Matthew Brady, Alexander Gardner, Timothy H. O'Sullivan, and others line the walls of a small, intimate galley on the museum's second floor.

Those looking for well-known pictures will not be disappointed. Among others images, visitors will find Gardner's Sharpshooter's Last Sleep from Gettysburg, a Barnard picture of Rebel works in front of Atlanta, and James Gibson's 1862 shot of the ruins of the Stone Bridge over Bull Run. However, those looking for a deeper experience will walk away with a more nuanced and complex understanding of the war. Although few in number, the images are presented in a thought-provoking manner. The curator chose and arranged the photographs with obvious care. We are asked to contemplate and reflect on the meaning behind what we see.

Ruins of Stone Bridge, Bull Run, James Gibson, 1862 (courtesy of Wikipedia). Because photography is prohibited in the exhibit room, I was unable to take pictures and have chosen to illustrate this post with copies of the same photographs found on the Internet.

The exhibit places a particular emphasis on the participation of African-Americans in the conflict. There are photographs of United States Colored Troops, reminding visitors of the important military contribution that blacks made to the Union war effort and the fight for emancipation. There are also photographs depicting other roles that African-Americans played. One picture by D.B Woodbury, for instance, shows black laborers standing on a bridge across the Chickahominy River. An 1862 image by Gardner entitled, What Do I Want, John Henry?, features a black servant waiting on a group of Union officers in Warrenton, Virginia. The photograph reminds visitors that African-Americans still occupied a subservient position in the eyes of most whites. The war was being fought to secure their freedom, but it was only the start of a long road to equality.

"Ram," Baty A 2d U.S. Colrd Art'y, photographer unknown, 1865 (courtesy of Corcoran Gallery). This photograph is one of four showing the battery in various stages of drill.

The exhibit is punctuated by a modern piece that dominates one entire wall. Whitfield Lovell's Visitation: The Richmond Project: Battleground (2001) features a life-size portrait of a proud U.S.C.T. soldier, drawn in charcoal on wood planks. (See here for a photograph.) A cannonball sits at the base of the portrait. A small, Victorian table off to the left side holds an antique copy of The Southern States of the American Union (1895). The book is open to a couple tattered pages discussing the legitimacy of secession and the economic motives for emancipation. (If you are interested, here is a link to the book; the excerpt is at pp. 236-37.) There is no denying the power of this contemporary installation. The artist has dramatically presented us with a symbolic reminder of African-American participation in the war to defeat slave holding secessionists and secure freedom from bondage.

A display case in the center of the room contains a collection of cartes-de-visite. Some of the small photographs shatter our typical notions of the war. Placed between images of George McClellan and Jefferson Davis are photographs of a mixed race artilleryman and an Asian-American infantryman. The visitor is left to wonder how these men were viewed by white soldiers, and how they reacted to the way white soldiers perceived them. The diversity seen in these photographs raises questions about inclusiveness in American society that have taken many decades since the war to answer.

Some of these photographs are just plain stunning works of art. George Barnard's scenes from the Atlanta Campaign represent artistry in black-and-white. His image of Buen-Ventura in Savannah, Georgia depicts vestiges of the Old South, Spanish moss and all. The photograph recalls the Southern society that Sherman's army tore asunder as it moved through Georgia. Gardner captured scenes of destruction, like the burned out ruins of the Confederate armory building in Richmond. Such photographs have documented and preserved for all generations the devastation that the Civil War visited on America.

Buen-Ventura, Savannah, Ga., George Barnard, c. 1864-65 (courtesy of Wikipedia)

Although off-topic for this blog, a neighboring exhibit features poignant Afghan war photographs by Tim Hetherington. Visitors entering the room are transported from 19th century America to 21st century Afghanistan. The photographs present a study in contrasts with the images of the Civil War hanging on the walls next door. Yet we are also reminded that the more things change in war, the more they stay the same.

Residents of the DC area, and visitors to the nation's capital, should not miss the opportunity to view the Norrell collection at the Corcoran. These photographs, from the famous to the obscure, have a lot to tell us about the nation's deadliest conflict. We can thank the Corcoran, and Ms. Norrell, for putting on a truly remarkable visual history lesson.

Visiting the Exhibit

The Corcoran Gallery is located at 500 17th Street, N.W. Shadows of History runs through May 20, 2012. The museum charges a $10 admission fee. For more information about the exhibit, and the museum in general, check out the Corcoran Gallery's website.

In a future post, I will have something to say about the Corcoran family ties to the Civil War. Stay tuned.

Cracking Down on Drinking in the Union Army Around Washington

2012-02-14T06:21:00.000-05:00

A few of my recent posts have discussed the role that drinking played in the everyday lives of the soldiers encamped around Washington during the first winter of the war. While whiskey and other intoxicating beverages helped to alleviate the boredom of camp life, the consumption of alcohol also led to trouble and disciplinary actions. No less a figure that Gen. George B. McClellan, commander of the Army of the Potomac, weighed in on the subject at the start of February 1862.

As part of his review of a court-martial involving a drunken solider in Gen. Joseph Hooker's Division, McClellan expressed his concern with the level of intoxication:

No one evil agent so much obstructs this army in its progress to that condition which will enable it to accomplish all that true soldiers can, as the degrading vice of drunkenness. It is the cause of by far the greater part of the disorders which are examined by courts-martial. It is impossible to estimate the benefits that would accrue to the service from the adoption of a resolution on the part of officers to set their men an example of total abstinence from intoxicating liquors. It would be worth 50,000 men to the armies of the United States. (Gen. Orders No. 40, Feb. 4, 1862.)

McClellan noted that he was not singling out Hooker's Division for criticism. Rather, in examining the file, he saw the "evils of intemperance and the terrible consequences of it to the individual soldier." (Gen. Orders No. 40.) McClellan hoped that other divisions would also draw lessons from the court-martial and "resolve to contribute their exertions to the cure of this giant evil." (Gen. Orders No. 40.)

As February got underway, the Union Army around Washington was taking various measures to prevent intoxication in the ranks, at least among enlisted men. A captain had been stationed at the Long Bridge over the Potomac "to see that no spirituous liquors [were] either carried over that structure or down the river for troops." (Phila. Press, Feb. 5, 1862.) On February 4, the steamer Telegraph headed towards Budd's Ferry, Maryland with a cargo of twenty barrels of whiskey. The army stopped the vessel and seized the liquor. The newspaper reported, however, that "[o]fficers . . . are at liberty to claim any which may be intended for them, and must appear at the Provost Marshal's office for that purpose." (Phila. Press, Feb. 5, 1862.)

"Drunken Soldiers Tied Up for Fighting and Other Unruly Conduct," by A.R. Waud (courtesy of Library of Congress)

A little later in February, Owen McCarty, a grave digger known by the nickname "Old Mortality," was arrested for selling liquor to soldiers of the 1st Pennsylvania Reserves at Camp Pierpont in Langley, Virginia. The offender "was seated high upon wagon, surrounded by a guard, and wore suspended from his neck a miniature head-board; on which was printed the words; 'Old Morality' digs soldiers' graves; and by selling whiskey, helps to fill them.'" (Weekly Mariettian, Feb. 15, 1862.) The wagon passed through Washington en route to the guard house and caused "considerable excitement among the pedestrians on the side walk." (Weekly Mariettian, Feb. 15, 1862.) Perhaps Old Morality would have been better off working in one of the numerous Washington saloons.

At the end of February, McClellan issued a general order appointing Andrew Porter as Provost Marshal General in the Army of the Potomac and establishing a department under his command. The commanding general entrusted provost marshals with several duties related to his fight against intoxication, including "suppression of drunkenness, beyond the limits of the camps," "[s]uppression of . . . drinking-houses or bar-rooms," "regulations of . . . taverns," and "[e]nforcement of orders prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors, whether by tradesmen or sutlers." (General Orders No. 60, Feb. 21, 1862.) Despite McClellan's efforts, however, Union soldiers would continue to indulge their fancy for intoxicating liquors. The fight against drunkenness was a hard one, and certainly not one that McClellan or any other general could ever completely win.

Sources
Army of the Potomac, General Orders and Index to General Orders, 1862 (1863); David M. Delo, Peddlers and Post Traders: The Army Sutler on the Frontier (1998 ed.); George B. McClellan, Report on the Organization and Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac (1864); Philadelphia Press, Feb. 5, 1862; Weekly Mariettian, Feb. 15, 1862; Bell I. Wiley, The Life of Billy Yank (1983 ed.)

Union Soldiers in Northern Virginia Welcome Victories From Far Afield

2012-02-07T06:11:00.001-05:00

Although the military situation in Northern Virginia was relatively calm in February 1862, elsewhere in the Confederacy the Union Army was on the move and scoring important victories. Ft. Henry fell to Brig. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant on February 6, followed by Ft. Donelson on February 16. The Union capture of the two forts opened the path for an advance into the state of Tennessee along the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers. Meanwhile, the Union secured a key foothold on the North Carolina coast when Brig. Gen. Ambrose E. Burnside and Flag Officer Louis Goldsborough beat an inferior Confederate force at Roanoke Island on February 7-8. The news of the distant victories reached the Union Army's winter camps in Virginia and boosted the men's confidence in their cause. Perhaps the defeat of the Rebellion would come sooner rather than later.

"Capture of Roanoke Island, Feby. 8th 1862: By the federal forces, under Command of Genl. Ambrose E. Burnside, and gunboats under Commodore L.M. Goldsborough," Currier & Ives (courtesy of Wikipedia)

Brig. Gen. George G. Meade, a brigade commander with the Pennsylvania Reserves at Camp Pierpont in Langley, wrote to his wife on February 9 about the capture of Ft. Henry. He asked her enthusiastically, "Is not the news from Tennessee glorious?" (Meade 245.) Meade felt that Ft. Henry, along with the victories at Dranesville and Mill Springs, Kentucky "prove most conclusively that [the Confederates] are not invincible, and will run just as soon, if not sooner, than we will." (Meade 245.) He reported that these wins "have had a most beneficial effect on our morale, and I think all hands are now here looking forward to the period when we can do something." (Meade 245.) A few days later, on February 11, Meade told his wife:

To-night we have the good news that Roanoke Island has been taken by the Burnside fleet, and while I write the camp is cheering all around me. There are no particulars, so that our cheers are unmingled with mourning. (Meade 245.)

All told, however, Meade was still a bit measured in his enthusiasm. In a February 16 letter, he warned:

Foolish people consider the war over because we have had a few victories, but I consider it just begun. I believe, though, if we continue to be as fortunate as we have recently been, that it will not be long before the other side will have enough of it. (Meade 246-47.)

Enlisted men in Northern Virginia rejoiced at the news of the recent wins. Elijah Brown, a private from Co. F, 2nd Vermont at Camp Griffin in Lewinsville, wrote to his sister on February 14 about the capture of Roanoke Island:

The Burnside Expedition has gained [] A great Victory . . . . Sissy we shall have them well cornered soon they will have to give up soon and surrender to the Gallant Banner of stars and stripes . . . .*

A.F. Hill of the 8th Pennsylvania Reserves described with perhaps a bit of embellishment his regiment's reaction as a mounted messenger rode into Camp Pierpont with news of Ft. Donelson's surrender:

A soul-stirring cheer went up; every man in the regiment shouted with gladness on hearing the welcome news. Other regiments took up the cheer, and ere long fifteen thousand men were yelling at the top of their voices; and they continued to do so until they were hoarse.

Our brass band now came forth, took its position on the most elevated spot in our regimental street, and played all the national airs they could think of; beginning with "Hail Columbia," and winding up with "Yankee Doodle." The whole regiment gathered around, cheering at intervals in a deafening manner. (Hill 198.)

Hill noted that most men felt that the victory spelled the end of the war, although one soldier dared to shout, "Ah boys, the war is not over yet." (Hill 199.) This young man was more realistic in his assessment than many would have cared to admit.

Dan Mason, a corporal with Co. D, 6th Vermont at Camp Griffin, summed up the impact of February's victories in a letter to his fiancee on February 22:

One month has wrought a great change. our army has been successful at every point. many Forts & important places with thousands of rebel prisoners have been taken by our gallant troops. As you will get the news in the papers long before this reaches you I will not give the particulars here. The daily newspapers (which are brought from Washington every day by little news boys) are filled with cheering news. Our arms are crowned with successs at every point. Camp Griffin is often made wild with joy on receiving the glorious news loud hurahs rend the air. it is deafening to hear the shouts of the excited soldiers. the wildest enthusiasm prevails.*

Mason, however, also doubted the prospects for an advance in Northern Virginia anytime soon. He told his fiancee that "it is so very muddy now (& has been for the last 6 or 8 weeks) that it is impossible to move heavy artillery & the baggage waggons which must nessessarily attend the advance of an army."

Mason was on to something. The Army of the Potomac would have to wait a bit longer before Gen. George McClellan would make a move, and even longer before a major victory on the battlefield. Until that time, the soldiers around the nation's capital would have to draw inspiration from Union victories elsewhere.

Note
*The spelling and grammar in the soldiers' letters are as in the original.

Sources
A.F. Hill, Our Boys: The Personal Experiences of a Soldier with the Army of the Potomac (1864); Letters of Elijah Brown, On-Line Collection, Vermont Historical Society; Letters of Dan Mason, On-Line Collection, Vermont Historical Society; George G. Meade, The Life and Letters of George Gordon Meade, Vol. 1 (1913).

A Truly Handsome Publication: A Book on the Vermont Civil War Photographs of George Houghton

2012-02-01T06:26:00.013-05:00

Many readers may have seen the article in the February 2012 issue of Civil War Times on the Civil War photographs of George Houghton from Brattleboro, Vermont. Matthew Brady, Alexander Gardner, and Timothy O'Sullivan loom large in our collective memory, but in comparison few have heard Houghton's name or seen his photographs. Houghton followed Vermont regiments during the first couple years of the war and and left us a priceless record of Union soldiers in camp and on campaign.

I first came across Houghton's photographs at the McLean Community Center. It turns out that Houghton stayed with the Vermont Brigade at Camp Griffin in what is now McLean, Virginia from October 1861 through early 1862. (As readers of this blog know, I have an interest, bordering on obsession, with Camp Griffin!) Houghton captured numerous images of the brigade's encampments and the surrounding countryside. Some of these photographs grace the walls of the Community Center. Imagine my delight when I discovered that the Vermont Historical Society has published, "A Very Fine Appearance":The Vermont Civil War Photographs of George Houghton by Donald W. Wickman. Harold Hotlzer contributed the foreword on the Civil War in photography.

"A Very Fine Appearance" covers Houghton's three separate stays with Vermont regiments in the field: at Camp Griffin from 1861-62; during the 1862 Peninsula Campaign; and along the Occoquan River during the winter and spring of 1863. The book presents full-page reproductions of Houghton's photographs; a caption and related quotation from a diary, newspaper, or other source are provided on the page opposite each photograph.

Camp of the 5th Vermont at Camp Griffin, Virginia (courtesy of Vermont Historical Society). This photograph is featured on the cover of the companion book to Ken Burns' The Civil War.

Maj. Charles B. Stoughton, Col. Edwin Stoughton, and Lt. Col. Harry N. Worthen on the Peninsula, 1862 (courtesy of Vermont Historical Society).

Houghton had a way with subject and camera. His images pull you in and transport you back 150 years. I spent over an hour just glancing at one photo after another, and by the time I was finished, I felt that I had visited the men in the field. Perhaps most powerful are the posed images of the soldiers and their officers in camp. Study their expressions and body language, and you come away thinking you've met these men. The book is filled with page after page of such photographs, from the lowliest private to generals like "Baldy" Smith and Winfield Scott Hancock. Houghton's images of Union Army camps are alone valuable for what they tell us about how the soldiers organized and lived their lives when not on the march. But Houghton has given us more. He captured not just the look, but the feel, of the camps. Some of his images of Camp Griffin, for instance, convey the starkness and loneliness of winter camp in a barren, distant countryside.

"A Very Fine Appearance" belongs in every Civil War enthusiast's library alongside other photographic collections. Although the hardcover carries a rather hefty price tag, owning a copy of Houghton's masterful Civil War photography is well worth the cost. "A Very Fine Appearance" is a handsome publication in its own right, and reminds us once again that there will always be room for "real" books in an age of e-readers.

Vignettes of a Solider's Life at Camp Pierpont

2012-01-30T06:26:00.001-05:00

While researching for my article on the Battle of Dranesville, I came across an interesting memoir by A.F. Hill of the 8th Pennsylvania Reserves.* Published in 1864, Our Boys: The Personal Experiences of a Solider in the Army of the Potomac tells Hill's story from enlistment through the Battle of Antietam, where Hill was wounded and lost his left leg. Hill belonged to Company D ("Brownsville Grays"), which was raised in Brownsville, Fayette County, Pennsylvania. He rose to the rank of sergeant before being discharged after Antietam. Hill dedicated Our Boys to George B. McClellan, "our loved and honored commander." I have not yet read the entire book, but it seems like a lively and perhaps sentimental account of life in the Union Army. I hope to add a first edition of Our Boys to my antique book collection in the near future!

There are a few passages from the book that are worth sharing for the window they provide into the everyday life of the Pennsylvania Reserves at Camp Pierpont in Langley during the winter of 1861-62. I particularly like this excerpt, which describes the heart of the camp along what is today the Georgetown Pike, or VA-193:

The Pennsylvania Reserve Corps was encamped so as to occupy, about equally, both sides of the "Georgetown and Leesburg" pike. This road was to us as Broadway to New York—as Chestnut Street to Philadelphia; it was our thoroughfare—our most public avenue. A number of independent sutlers had erected their temporary store-houses by the pike; several generals, among them [George A.] McCall and [John F.] Reynolds, had established their head-quarters immediately by it; and it was altogether quite a public street. (Hill 176.)

The pike is now a two-lane commuter road, lined with large homes and sometimes choked with traffic, but the Langley Ordinary, site of McCall's HQ, survives as a witness to the war years.

Flag of the 8th Pennsylvania Reserves (courtesy of Pennsylvania Capitol Preservation Committee)

Hill and his friend, Dave Winder, decided at one point in December 1861 to pay a visit to Winder's acquaintances at Camp Griffin, where Gen. "Baldy" Smith's division had its winter quarters. After "a very muddy walk of three-fourths of a mile" from Camp Pierpont to the neighboring encampment, Winder found his friends and immediately launched into a story. (Hill 177.) As Hill describes the scene:

I thought he would never get done telling his friends stories of the battle of Drainesville [sic], in which he asserted that our regiment had been hotly engaged. He stated that, three separate times, our regiment repulsed a brigade of five thousand rebels; and he expressed it as his belief, that the Eighth Regiment alone, unsupported, could charge clear to Richmond. When, at length, he did pause, I suggested the propriety of returning to the pike. Winder, with difficulty, succeeded in tearing himself away from his friends, informing them, as he bade them farewell, that he expected soon to be made captain of the company to which he belonged—that our former captain had been killed in the battle of Drainesville, and that the company would not hear to any other man than himself assuming the position. (Hill 177.)

Winder certainly enjoyed telling tall tales, as the 8th Pennsylvania Reserves did not even fight at Dranesville, and the Confederate force was considerably smaller than 5,000. Hill's anecdote about Winder, however, shows the extent to which Union soldiers in Virginia were riveted by the victory at Dranesville in late December 1861. After all, this engagement was a much-needed win at a time when the North was recovering from defeats at Bull Run and Ball's Bluff, and any man who fought there was likely viewed by other soldiers with esteem or awe. Winder played on that sentiment.

I've also taken a recent research interest in drinking and army life during the first winter of the war. (In fact, the other day I wrote about excessive alcohol consumption in the Confederate winter camps around Centreville.) Hill's story covers the bases when in comes to the use of adult beverages at Camp Pierpont. Hill notes that "[t]he sale of liquor in the army being prohibited, it was frequently vended by sutlers and others 'on the sly.'" (Hill 181.) The veteran recounts a trick that Winder played on a soldier who was desperately looking for some rye:

On reaching the pike we stopped for a few minutes by a sutler's establishment, around which was collected quite a crowd. While there we heard one soldier ask another, in a whisper, if he could inform him where "something to drink" could be procured. (Hill 181.)

Winder told the poor lad, who happened to be from Smith's division, that drink could be procured from a nearby tent. When the solider went to ask for whiskey, it turned out that Winder had sent him to a colonel's tent. The officer chased the enlisted man through camp, but he managed to get away and presumably made it back to Camp Griffin.

Whiskey advertisement from Feb. 22, 1862 edition of Harper's Weekly (courtesy of sonofthesouth.net).

Hill was luckier in meeting his own needs:

On arriving in camp, I was informed, by my messmates, that a "box" had been sent to one of them from home, containing, among other things, two half-gallon tin cans, tightly sealed, one marked in big letters—"preserved Peaches," the other, "Currant Jelly." Now, the one marked "preserved peaches" contained whiskey; that marked "currant jelly" contained whiskey, too. Thus one gallon of the " poison" had walked slyly into camp, beneath the very noses of provost-marshals, officers of the day, etc.

Haman, Dick, Ort, and Enos had been imbibing, and were already right merry when I entered our domicile. They urged me to take "something." Well, I do not think it any harm to take a little now and then while in camp, especially in damp and muddy weather, so I did take a "little" three or four times. By and by all became boozy; Haman and Dick called in everybody that passed by, made everybody drink several times till nearly every man in the company felt right happy. (Hill 185.)

That night, excessive drinking led to a fight, and one of Hill's messmates was almost shot, but Hill managed to grab the musket from the aggressor. An officer eventually intervened and put the culprit in the guard house to sober up. Hill's stories, aside from being just plain entertaining, provide insights into the role that alcohol played in winter camp.

I look forward to reading through other parts of Our Boys, and I will be certain to share with readers any other insights from the book concerning life at Camp Pierpont. And wish me luck on my search for a first edition!

Note
*There seems to be some degree of confusion over Hill's actual first name. Our Boys lists the author as "A.F. Hill" on the title page and elsewhere. Google Books indicates that A.F. Hill is "Alonzo F. Hill." However, the National Park Service database, which is also available on Ancestry.com, indicates that A.F. Hill from Co. D, 8th Pennsylvania Reserves is "Ashbol F. Hill," while a Pennsylvania genealogy site has A.F. Hill from Co. D listed as "Archibald F. Hill."

Please Pardon the Interruption

2012-01-24T06:20:00.000-05:00

If I ever figure out how Google Reader works, I will be a happy man. For some reason the final version of the post that I published accidentally last night before it was complete does not show up as a new entry in the Reader feed. To see the final article, "Winter in the Confederate Camps Around Centreville, Part II: Sickness, Leave, and Reenlistment," just click here or look at the original feed, which contains the updated version. Sorry again for the confusion.

Winter in the Confederate Camps Around Centreville, Part II: Sickness, Leave, and Reenlistment

2012-01-24T06:05:00.014-05:00

Weather was not the only enemy that the Confederate soldiers confronted during the first winter of the war in Centreville. The cramped, unsanitary conditions in camp were the perfect breeding ground for disease. The men suffered from measles, mumps, typhoid fever, pneumonia, and other illnesses. As Tom Goree, an aide to Gen. James Longstreet, wrote to his relatives at the start of January 1862, "[a] great many of our troops are off on sick furlough, many are sick here and not in condition for a fight. . . ." (in Cutrer 66). Doctors struggled to treat the large numbers of sick, and disease claimed many lives as the winter progressed.

Because the soldiers usually hailed from rural areas where they were less exposed to germs than those who lived in cities, they had never developed immunity to diseases, and the infection rate was even higher than it might otherwise have been. (Glatthaar 50-51.) As Gen. John B. Gordon recalled in his memoirs:

There was much sickness in camp. It was amazing to see the large number of country boys who had never had the measles. Indeed, it seemed to me that they ran through the whole catalogue of complaints to which boyhood and even babyhood are subjected. They had everything almost except teething, nettle-rash, and whooping-cough. I rather think some of them were afflicted with this latter disease. (Gordon 49.)

Gen. John B. Gordon was a lieutenant colonel of the 6th Alabama at the start of 1862 (courtesy of Library of Congress). Gordon himself dealt with a severe bout of diarrhea throughout February and March 1862.

While sickness diminished the army's effective strength, the Confederates dealt with other threats to their preparedness. On January 14, 1862, Gen. Joseph E. Johnston, the commander of the Department of Northern Virginia, wrote to Secretary of War Judah P. Benjamin:

Since the supply in the neighborhood was exhausted the Quartermaster's Department has been unable to furnish full forage. Hay and fodder are rarely to be had, consequently our horses are in wretched condition. (OR, 1:5, 1028.)

Goree likewise worried that "many of our horses are very poor, and almost too weak to draw heavy artillery." (in Cutrer 66.)

Given the monotony of camp life, the cold and muddy weather, and the prevalence of disease, it is not surprising that some men decided to take leave without permission. Soldiers from nearby towns were particularly susceptible to the lure of family and friends back home. The 8th Virginia, for example, was comprised of men from Leesburg, Virginia, about 25 miles from Centreville. Several soldiers of the 8th disappeared so that they could spend time in their home town, away from the misery of winter in camp. The situation apparently became so bad that the regimental commander published an order in the Richmond, Leesburg, and Warrenton papers:

All officers, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers, belonging to the 8th Virginia Regiment, who have not been detailed, by special order emanating from General Headquarters, and who are not actually disabled by sickness for duty, will immediately join this Regiment.

It is an outrage now, become too apparent, that whilst the brave and faithful are suffering all the hardships incident to camp life, the trifling and self-indulgent, are to deselect to their duty, as to absent themselves from their companies, thus throwing all of the work upon the few good soldiers who maintain their posts, to the scandal and disgrace of the fair name of the 8th Virginia Regiment, won on the fields of Manassas and Leesburg. (Richmond Daily Dispatch, Jan. 25, 1862.)

The Confederate government offered soldiers a legitimate alternative to taking unauthorized leave. Most men had volunteered for twelve months terms, which would expire in the spring. Gen. Johnston estimated that about two-thirds of his command was composed of "one year" regiments. (OR, 1:5, 1058.) Facing a potential manpower crisis, the Confederate Congress passed the so-called Bounty and Furlough Act in December 1861. The law offered soldiers a fifty dollar bounty and a maximum 60-day furlough, with transportation expenses covered to home and back, if they would reenlist for two additional years, or the duration of the war. Soldiers could even switch branches of the service, or change companies.

The law worried Johnston, who thought that the promise of a furlough would drain his ranks to dangerous levels. He argued to Benjamin in January that it would "be unsafe to allow any large number of men to leave here; and without sustaining such a loss I do not see how the object of the law can be accomplished." (OR, 1:5, 1037.) Benjamin urged Johnston to understand that "the eager desire for a furlough during the inclement season will form the strongest inducement for your men, and thus afford the best guarantee of you having under your orders a large force of veteran troops when active operations recommence." (OR, 1:5, 1045.) Johnston was told to "go to the extreme verge of prudence in tempting your twelve-month's men by liberal furloughs, and thus secure for yourself a fine body of men for the spring operations." (OR, 1:5, 1045.)

Excerpt of the Bounty and Furlough Act from The Statutes at Large of the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America (1864) (courtesy of Google Books).

The camps around Centreville were predictably abuzz with talk of reenlistment and the associated inducements. Some men rushed to reenlist, while others struggled with the decision and decided to wait things out. In the 1st Maryland, Randolph McKim was apparently the first to sign up again, even though "not many followed his example." (Howard 65.) According to messmate McHenry Howard, McKim reenlisted "not for the sake of the furlough, but animated by high patriotic motives." (Howard 65.) To hear McKim tell the story, however, the furlough might have had a little something to do with it. He wrote:

Words cannot express the delight a soldier felt at the prospect of a return to "civilization" for the space of thirty days. To have the opportunity of a daily bath, or at least a daily "wash up"; to change one's clothes; to sleep in a bed; to hear no "reveille" at four in the morning; not to be disturbed in the evening by the inevitable "taps"; to sit down at a table covered with a white cloth; . . . . — yes, to feast on the "fat of the land " before the land had grown lean and hungry, as it did in another twelvemonth; to bask in the smiles of the noble women of the Confederacy; to enjoy once more their delightful society; to be welcomed and feted like a hero wherever you went by the men as well as the women. . . .(McKim 62-63.)

In mid-February, Goree told to his uncle that "[t]he men are re-enlisting much more readily than I supposed they would. Before spring, I think that the majority of the 12-mo's men will re-enlist." (in Cutrer 74.) Johnston, trying to preserve some semblance of military strength, limited the furloughs to the "rate of 20 per cent. of the men present for duty." (OR, 1:5, 1065.) Johnston, however, remained concerned that the army was "much weakened by loss of officers from sickness and soldiers on furlough. . . ." (OR, 1:5, 1075.) Soon the Confederacy would take another approach to raising and maintaining an army. Virginia enacted a state draft law in February 1862, followed by the new Confederate Congress' Conscription Act in April.

The Confederates would remain in Centreville until March 1862. The men endured many hardships, including weather and sickness, although they managed to find some comfort in little things like reading, writing letters, or playing cards. Whiskey made life a little more tolerable, even if it led to trouble. More than a few men got to visit home under the new bounty and furlough law, while others decided to take a leave of absence without asking. The upcoming spring campaign would try the soldiers in battle as many of them had never been tried before. Perhaps camp life wouldn't seem so bad after all when matched up against the horrors of warfare on the Peninsula and beyond.

For Part I of this series, see here.

Sources

Aside from the OR the following sources were useful in compiling this post:

"Civil Liberties in Virginia during the Civil War," Encyclopedia Virginia; Thomas W. Cutrer, Longstreet's Aide: The Civil War Letters of Major Thomas J. Goree (1995); "Desertion (Confederate) During the Civil War," Encyclopedia Virginia; Charles L. Dufour, The Gallant Life of Roberdeau Wheat (1985); Ralph Lowell Eckert, John Brown Gordon: Soldier, Southerner, American (1989); Joseph T. Glatthaar, "Confederate Soldiers in Virginia, 1861," in William C. Davis & James I. Robertson, Jr., Virginia at War 1861 (2005); John B. Gordon, Reminiscences of the Civil War (1904); McHenry Howard; Recollections of a Maryland Confederate Soldier and Staff Office Under Johnston, Jackson, and Lee (1914); Robert Howison, "A History of the War," Southern Literary Messenger, Vol. 38, No. 3 (March 1864); John J. Kundahl, Confederate Engineer: Training and Campaigning with John Morris Wampler (2000); Lawrence R. Laboda, From Selma to Appomattox: The History of the Jeff Davis Artillery (1994); James M. Matthews (ed.), The Statutes at Large of the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America (1864); Randolph H. McKim, A Soldier's Recollections: Leaves from the Diary of a Young Confederate (1921); Richmond Daily Dispatch, Jan. 25, 1862; Emory Upton, The Military Policy of the United States, 64th Cong., 2nd Session, Senate Doc. No. 329 (1916); Lee A. Wallace, Jr., 17th Virginia Infantry (1990).

Oops...Please disregard the recent post

2012-01-23T21:41:00.002-05:00

As some of you may have noticed, I accidentally published Part II of the story on the Confederate winter camps around Centreville before it was ready for prime time. I have no idea how to recall it from Google Reader, and it has already been sent to email subscribers. I will be posting the finished product tomorrow. Sorry for the confusion. Ah technology!

Winter in the Confederate Camps Around Centreville, Part I: Weather, Shelter, and Daily Life

2012-01-18T19:32:00.014-05:00

As readers may have noticed, I've spent a considerable amount of time on the Union camps around Langley and Lewinsville during the first winter of the war. This week I've decided to shift my focus to take a closer look at the Confederate side of the story. As I have written in previous posts, the bulk of the Confederate Army in Northern Virginia, around 40,000 men, withdrew to the Centreville area in mid-October 1861. Here the men settled down for what was to become a very long and quiet winter.

By all accounts, the Confederate soldiers around Centreville faced harsh winter conditions as 1862 got underway. The men surely needed the woolen socks that they received from home over Christmas! As a correspondent for the Richmond Daily Dispatch dramatically described his trip to the Confederate camps:

The weather, oh the weather! Cold stormy weather, chilly winds moving through leafless tress, sweeping in boreal blasts along barren mountain and meadow; fitful showers drizzling destruction on the fair snow; thick fog stealthily looming up from the semi thawing earth; gurgling troubled streams swelling o'er dessicate fields; sad and timid stars lured by "the momentary blue sky;" struggling frowning clouds giving dismal glimpses of the pale sky moon; dying campfires emitting spasmodic sparks and a great gloomy silence prevailing all around are the chief features that marked my journey from our out-posts line to [Centreville]. . . . (Daily Dispatch, Jan. 24, 1862.)

The men were seemingly obsessed with the fury that Mother Nature had sent their way. Another correspondent for the Daily Dispatch remarked how "[r]ain, snow, sleet, mist, fog, mud, and the state of the weather generally, have for the time being, monopolized conversation to the exclusion of that everlasting topic 'the advance and the expected battle.'" (Daily Dispatch, Jan 27, 1862.) John B. Gordon, at the time a Lt. Col. of the 6th Alabama, recalled that "[t]he winter was a severe one and the men suffered greatly—not only for want of sufficient preparation, but because those from farther South were unaccustomed to so cold a climate." (Gordon 49.)

"Centreville, Va. Confederate winter quarters, south view" (courtesy Library of Congress). This picture was taken when the Union Army occupied the area in March 1862.

The future general was a little off the mark when it came to the soldiers' preparedness. As cold weather descended on Northern Virginia, the men constructed log huts to provide at least some shelter from the elements. These crude structures were the subject of a well-known period photograph. (See above.) By the end of 1861, the Confederates had built about 1,500 huts. Not everyone was equally gifted when it came to the use of a saw. McHenry Howard of the 1st Maryland described his messmate's efforts to erect a hut at their camp near Fairfax Station:

Each company constructed a row of cabins, fronting on a wide street between two companies, the officers' houses at the end of each street and facing down it. In my mess of about eleven there was not one who had done any manual work before the war and we felt rather helpless in our inexperience. But by watching others, at least half of whom were countrymen, and getting some help, we managed to get out the trimmed logs, notch them at the ends and set up the four walls of our residence. . . . (Howard 61.)

Howard was not ashamed to admit that completing the roof "was too much for us and we hired comrades to do it." (Howard 61.)

"Rebel Winter-Quarters at Centreville, Virginia. With Bull Run in the Distance," Harper's Weekly, March 29, 1862 (courtesy of sonofthesouth.net). Like the photograph above, this sketch depicts the camp as it looked after the Confederate evacuation.

The Richmond Daily Dispatch reporter felt that the cabins "have quite an air of neatness and home comfort, with their stick and plaster chimneys, and their one window of six and four lights, and their new plank door." (Daily Dispatch, Jan. 27, 1862.) He informed readers that "[t]o supply the windows, of course every deserted house between Centreville and the outside of the lines had to furnish its quota." (Daily Dispatch, Jan. 27, 1862.) In one instance, an "old lady" had spent the afternoon with a friend, only to return and find no windows in her house. (Daily Dispatch, Jan. 27, 1862.) The soldiers believed that because "no smoke was coming from the chimney" it was a "deserted property" and they simply helped themselves to the windows. (Daily Dispatch, Jan. 27, 1862.)

The men in the camps around Centreville passed the days in a variety of ways when not drilling or on picket duty. Howard's messmate, Randolph H. McKim, sent his mother a letter on January 27, 1862 which provides an intimate glimpse into the soldiers' daily life in the camps:

Wouldn't you like to peep in on us some evening as we sit around our stove amusing ourselves until it is time to retire? We are a happy but a boisterous family, as the neighbors next door will tell you. Our amusements are various — reading, singing, quarreling, and writing. We employ the twilight in conversation, the subject of which is the "latest grape-vine" (i.e., rumor), or a joke on the Colonel, or when we are alone, our domestic concerns. We amuse ourselves with the many-tongued rumors which float about on the popular breeze, that England or France has recognized the Confederacy, or that the Confederates have gained a new victory, etc., etc. Then there are frequent domestic quarrels, free fights, passes with the bayonet, and hand to hand encounters, to vary the monotony of our peaceful life here. As soon as night sets in the candles are lit and we draw round the stove and take down our books, or else someone reads aloud till the newspaper arrives, when other occupations are suspended, and we listen to the news of the day. Then someone proposes a song and "Maryland, my Maryland" is generally the first. (McKim 52-53.)

McKim, who later became an army chaplain, also began to hold prayer meetings with faithful soldiers in his regiment. He even managed to procure a tent for the express purpose of hosting the religious services and installed "rude benches" for 25 to 30 men, although this "would hardly give seats to as many as would come." (McKim 60.)

Many Confederate soldiers turned to the bottle rather than the Lord. Alcohol could relieve the boredom of life in camp, but also led to trouble. In one episode that occurred towards the end of 1861, the rough-and-tumble Louisiana Tigers brawled with members of the 21st Georgia who had stolen their bottle of whiskey. All of the drinking worried men of the cloth. As the chaplain of the 23rd North Carolina wrote in February 1862:

If we ever meet with a defeat in this army, it will be in consequence of drunkenness. Young men that never drank at home are using spirits freely in camp. I fear that while Lincoln may slay his thousands, the liquor-maker at home will slay his tens of thousands. (in Jones 268.)

The editor of a Southern paper blamed the drunkenness during this period of inactivity on the officers, who were both "profane and hard drinkers." (in Jones 268.) He believed that if the next battle was lost, it would be because "whisky whipped our men." (in Jones 269.) Gambling became another common distraction in the camps and was as equally condemned by those of religious persuasion. The author of Christ in Camp observed that even officers would "win from the private soldier his scant pay, which he ought to have sent home to his suffering family." (Jones 270.) Luckily for the men's spiritual health, the idleness of camp life would end by March, when the Confederates moved out of Centreville.

In the next installment on life in the Confederate camps, I take a look at sickness and desertion.

Sources
Biblical Recorder, Feb. 19, 1862; Charles L. Dufour, Gentle Tiger: The Gallant Life of Roberdeau Wheat (1985); John B. Gordon, Reminiscences of the Civil War (1904); McHenry Howard, Recollections of a Maryland Confederate Solider and Staff Officer Under Johnston, Jackson, and Lee (1914); John William Jones, Christ in Camp (1904); Terry L. Jones, "A Tiger Execution," New York Times: Disunion, Dec. 13, 2011; Charles Mauro, The Civil War in Fairfax County: Civilians and Soldiers (2006); Randolph H. McKim, A Soldier's Recollections: Leaves from the Diary of a Young Confederate (1921); Richmond Daily Dispatch, Jan. 22, 1862; Richmond Daily Dispatch, Jan. 24, 1862; Richmond Daily Dispatch, Jan. 27, 1862.

Hell on DC-Area Roads, Civil War-Style

2012-01-12T07:00:00.003-05:00

Commuting in the Washington, DC metro region is certainly no walk in the park. My daily drive of nine miles home from the city can take up to an hour or more on any given day. Washington consistently wins top honors for having the worst traffic in the country. And bad weather like snow turns the roads into a sheer commuter nightmare. The study of history, however, often puts things in perspective, and that certainly was the case when I came across a Civil War-era account of a trip over roughly the same route I follow everyday.

In January 1862, Hugh Young, the editor of the Wellsboro (Pa.) Agitator, came to Washington City. He intended to pay a visit to the Pennsylvania Reserves at Camp Pierpont in Langley. Going to the Old Dominion in those days required a military pass, so Young headed first to the Provost Marshal's Office. Here, "with the assistance of a line . . . vouching for our loyalty" from Speaker of the House Galusha Grow of Pennsylvania, he procured "a pass into the land of Dixie."

Young headed next to the Langley Stage Office at the Clay Hotel to find transportation across the Potomac to the camps. From the hotel situated on Pennsylvania Avenue between 3rd and 4 1/2 Streets,* a "diligence" or "long covered wagon with hard seats" ran the eight miles to Langley twice a day for a fare of one dollar. The editor boarded the wagon with his traveling companion and around a dozen others. Now the fun really began.

As Young described the journey:

. . . soon we were on the road to the Chain Bridge. And such a road! Properly speaking, it was a canal filled to the depth of six to twelve inches with a sloshy mud, through which the horses waded with a slow and patient gait.**

Section of 1862 Union Army map of N.E. Virginia and the Vicinity of Washington showing likely route taken by Young from the Clay Hotel in Washington to Langley, Virginia (courtesy of Library of Congress). A modern view of approximately the same route can be found here.

Along the way, soldiers stopped the wagon to examine the passengers' passes, likely causing additional delay. The last check occurred at the entrance to the Chain Bridge. Incredibly, the editor recognized the soldier as a Simon Doorlacher from Wellsboro, who was serving with the Tioga Invincibles, or Company H of the 6th Pennsylvania Reserves. After crossing Chain Bridge, the wagon headed up the Leesburg-Georgetown Turnpike and traveled a few more miles to Langley, where it was already "quite dark." All told, Young seemed pleased that the trip had taken "just four hours."

"Washington, D.C. Chain Bridge over the Potomac; Chesapeake and Ohio Canal in foreground (courtesy of Library of Congress)

My own route home is very similar, but starts a little further west at 17th and G Streets, N.W. I avoid the heart of the city and Georgetown by taking the Whitehurst Freeway and drive along Canal Road until I hit Chain Bridge. Rt. 123 on the other side takes me to a point just beyond Langley. This route can be nerve-wracking and time-consuming, but I have nothing on the editor of the Agitator. The next time I feel myself becoming annoyed and impatient with my commute, I will think back 150 years and remember that things could be much worse.

Notes
*Today, 4 1/2 Street, N.W. does not intersect with Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. The hotel was likely located around the present-day site of the Federal Courthouse.

**The diligence probably traveled through the streets of Washington City, most likely Pennsylvania Avenue, and into Georgetown. From there, it may have taken the carriage road along the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal to Chain Bridge. John G. Barnard, former chief engineer to the Army of the Potomac, described this carriage road as "excellent" in his report on the defenses of Washington. (Barnard 2.) The editor of the Agitator may have disagreed with him on this point!

Sources
John G. Barnard, A Report on the Defenses of Washington to the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army (1871); Johnson's Map of Georgetown and the City of Washington, 1862; Washington National Republican, Mar. 4, 1862; Wellsboro (Pa.) Agitator, Jan. 29, 1862.

The Presentation of the Colors to the Victors of Dranesville

2012-01-10T06:14:00.002-05:00

The month of January 1862 was cold, damp, and miserable for the Pennsylvania Reserves encamped at Langley. The men huddled inside their crude huts as the snow and rain fell and the ground outside turned into mud. The winter weather even interfered with the daily routine of army life. As a soldier from the 7th Pennsylvania Reserves wrote to the Philadelphia Press, "owing to the unfavorable weather with which we have been visited, drill and other duties have been almost suspended." Nothing, however, not even the elements, could get in the way of bestowing honors on the victors of Dranesville.

The Pennsylvania Reserves had become the darling of the political and military establishment ever since the battle. At the end of the December, Pennsylvania Governor Andrew Curtin visited the Reserves at Camp Pierpont and declared that the regiments involved at Dranesville would have the name of the battle inscribed on their standards. (See here for a recent post on the governor's visit.) The flags were soon sent to Washington to be painted with the battle honors.

Flag of the 6th Pennsylvania Reserves with a barely visible "Dranesville" inscription (courtesy of Pennsylvania Capitol Preservation Committee)

Flag of the 9th Pennsylvania Reserves with a faded "Dranesville" inscription (courtesy of Pennsylvania Capitol Preservation Committee)

A couple weeks later, on January 11, the entire division participated in the presentation of the colors to the men who had won the day at Dranesville. All fifteen regiments, "in full uniform," formed and marched out to the parade ground, which was "in a wretched condition, occasioned by the rains of the previous day." ("Letter from Camp Pierpont," Phila. Press, Jan. 20, 1862.) A fifteen-gun salute was fired by the Reserves' artillery, and various regimental bands "returned the compliment." ("Letter from Camp Pierpont," Phila. Press, Jan. 20, 1862.) Speaker of the House Galusha Grow of Pennsylvania traveled to Langley for the occasion and met the Reserves on the parade ground. As the soldier from the 7th Pennsylvania Reserves described the scene:

. . . the color companies attached to the different regiments in [E.O.C.] Ord's brigade took an advanced position, when the flags on which were neatly inscribed the word "DRANESVILLE," in honor of the late victory, were presented by [Grow] -- the ceremony winding up with a few complimentary remarks from that gentleman. The cavalry and artillery that accompanied the brigade were also on the ground, and were presented with new flags similarly inscribed.*

Rep. Galusha Grow, Speaker of the House, 1861-63 (courtesy of Wikipedia)

The regiments then filed past Grow and the other notables gathered on the parade ground. Overall, the soldier from the 7th considered that "the affair passed off admirably" despite the muck and mire. Perhaps the review lifted more than a few spirits in the middle of the harsh winter. The glow of Dranesville, however, would grow dimmer as the new year progressed and the war's toll grew to unimaginable proportions.

Note
*Ord's brigade was comprised of the 6th, 9th, 10th, and 12th Pennsylvania Reserves. All of these regiments were engaged at Dranesville. The 1st Pennsylvania Rifles ("the Bucktails"), although not part of Ord's brigade, also participated in the battle, and it is likely that they also received the inscribed flag during the ceremony.

Sources
"Letter from Camp Pierpont," dated Jan. 14, 1862, Philadelphia Press, Jan. 20, 1862; O.R. Howard Thomson & William H. Rauch, History of the "Bucktails" (1906).

A Visit to President Lincoln's Cottage

2012-01-04T20:09:00.000-05:00

My birthday falls a couple days after Christmas, so I usually have the fortune of being on vacation then and can take full advantage of the day off. This year, I had intended to tour Ball's Bluff out near Leesburg. Unfortunately, the forecast called for torrential downpours, and I had no desire to tromp around the battlefield in the rain and mud. This trip would have to wait until clearer skies. Instead, I decided on a visit to President Lincoln's Cottage in northwest DC. My father-in-law, also known as "the Colonel," accompanied me on the outing.

The Gothic Revival style cottage, part of the Soliders' Home, served as Lincoln's residence from June to November 1862-1864. Think of it as a Civil War-era Camp David. The cottage was built by Washington banker George Riggs in 1842. The National Trust for Historic Preservation spent $15 million restoring the home, which opened to the public in 2008. The historic property is located on the campus of the current-day Armed Forces Retirement Home at the corner of Upshur St., N.W. and Rock Creek Church Rd., N.W. The tour of the cottage requires a ticket, and advanced purchase is recommended. I reserved our tickets on-line before going.

History of Lincoln's Cottage and the Soldiers' Home

The story of the Soldiers' Home dates to the antebellum era, when key military and political leaders pushed for the establishment of a residence for retired and disabled soldiers. Gen. Winfield Scott, who was general-in-chief of the Union Army at the start of the Civil War, exacted a tribute of $150,000 from Mexico during the Mexican War and set aside $100,000 of this money for a soldiers' home. Robert Anderson, future commander of the Federal garrison at Ft. Sumter, was also instrumental in the effort to provide for the nation's elderly and disabled soldiers. Senator Jefferson Davis, who later became President of the Confederacy, was the primary mover on Capitol Hill. He introduced legislation to create a "U.S. military asylum," which finally became law in March 1851.

North side of President Lincoln's Cottage. A statue of Lincoln and his horse is located to the left of the photograph.

The government purchased the cottage and surrounding 256 acres from Riggs in 1851 for use as the Soldiers' Home. Three additional buildings were constructed on the campus prior to the Civil War. All four of these buildings survive today. James Buchanan was the first President to reside at the Soldiers' Home. (Incidentally, he stayed in a different cottage from Lincoln's.) Located three miles from downtown Washington on the third highest point in the city, the Soldiers' Home offered a cool and tranquil getaway from the oppressive humidity and maddening bustle of the city.

Wartime view of the south side of the cottage from Mary Todd Lincoln's personal photo album (courtesy of National Park Service). As Mrs. Lincoln told a friend in July 1862, "We are truly delighted with this retreat."

Current view of the south side of the cottage

Lincoln visited the Soldiers' Home not long after his inauguration, but the turbulent events of the first summer of the war got in the way of staying there in 1861. The following year, Lincoln and his family took up residence in the cottage. At the Soldiers' Home, Lincoln sought distractions from the stresses of everyday life, and often enjoyed reading, playing with his son Tad, and entertaining visitors. The war, however, was never very far away, and Lincoln could not escape his presidential responsibilities for long.

Close-up view of the life-sized sculpture of Lincoln and his horse in front of the cottage's north side

Historical marker in front of the Lincoln statue pictured above

Each day, Lincoln commuted to the White House in the morning and returned later in the evening. A cavalry escort accompanied Lincoln on his daily ride, but the President objected to such protection and was sometimes uncooperative with his security detail. The 150th Pennsylvania Regiment, Co. K, served as a presidential guard and encamped on grounds of the Soldiers' Home when Lincoln resided there. In July 1864, Lincoln and his family were evacuated from the Soldiers' Home as Confederate Gen. Jubal Early approached Ft. Stevens, about two miles from the cottage. This precautionary measure still did not stop Lincoln from riding out to observe the ensuing battle.

Lincoln took advantage of his time at the Soldiers' Home to reflect on the issues facing the nation, including the momentous policy of emancipation. Lincoln likely worked on revisions to the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation at the cottage over the course of the summer of 1862. The President also held meetings at the cottage to discuss military affairs, including the removal of Gen. George B. McClellan from command. The President apparently visited the Soliders' Home for one last time on April 13, 1865, just one day before he was assassinated at Ford's Theatre.

Tour of Lincoln's Cottage

The Colonel and I started our tour of the cottage at the Visitor Education Center, which features four informative permanent exhibits covering the history of the Soldiers' Home, Lincoln as commander-in-chief, wartime Washington, and the Lincoln family at the Soldiers' Home. Not surprisingly, the display on Lincoln's presidency places a heavy emphasis on emancipation, and the exhibits do a thorough job of walking visitors through the entire story of emancipation, including such topics as contraband, the First and Second Confiscation Acts, and the 13th Amendment. This effort at public education goes beyond the simplistic "Lincoln freed the slaves" story that so many tourists likely learned in school.

Visitor Education Center, located across from President Lincoln's Cottage. (Photography is prohibited inside the Visitor Education Center and Lincoln's Cottage, so I was unable to get interior shots.)

As an enthusiast of local history, I was also pleased to discover a temporary exhibit on historic prints of the nation's capital during the Civil War. The maps and engravings offer visitors a way to visualize what Washington was like at the time of Lincoln's presidency. (This exhibit only runs through January 15, 2012, but the National Trust should consider making it permanent.) We did not have time to stop by "Lincoln's Toughest Decisions Gallery," which allows visitors to interact with digital letters and other documents to decide how they would have advised Lincoln as a member of his Cabinet.

After viewing a short audiovisual presentation at the Visitor Center, we headed to the cottage for our guided tour. The building contains 34 rooms, but we saw only a fraction of them during the hour-long tour. The National Trust has opted on a minimalist approach to furnishing, which leaves the visitor to reflect more on the spirit of the place than on historical trappings. The guide tied the cottage into the larger picture of Lincoln's life and presidency, including his beliefs on equality of opportunity and slavery. Once again, there was an emphasis on emancipation, and the guide even highlighted the role of U.S. Colored Troops in winning the war. The National Trust also supplemented the tour with multimedia technology. Unfortunately, on the day I was visiting, a glitch in a video projection distracted a bit from the flow of the tour, but overall the technology was well-integrated into the guide's narrative.

As we left the cottage, I felt that I had come away with a better understanding of the place that the Soldiers' Home occupied in Lincoln's presidency. The National Trust really has done the country a valuable service in preserving and interpreting this treasure for future generations. Visitors to our nation's capital, as well as local residents, should not miss the opportunity to check out this historic site.

Sources and Additional Information

President Lincoln's Cottage maintains a website with an excellent overview of the history of the Soldiers' Home and Lincoln's time there. Additional information, including hours of operation and directions, can also be found on the website. Tickets for the tour can be purchased here.

Parking is located on the grounds of the Armed Forces Retirement Home, a welcome relief from the challenges of parking on DC city streets.

For additional information on Lincoln and the Soldiers' Home, check out these sources:
The Lincoln Institute, "Soldiers' Home," Mr. Lincoln's White House; National Park Service, "President Lincoln's Cottage at the Soldiers' Home," Discover our Shared Heritage Travel Itinerary: American Presidents; National Park Service, "President Lincoln's Cottage: A Retreat," Teaching with Historic Places Lesson Plans; National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, U.S. Soldiers' and Airmen's Home.

Governor Curtin Comes to Town

2011-12-29T08:57:00.003-05:00

Pennsylvania Governor Andrew Curtin traveled to Washington at the end of December 1861. The main purpose of Curtin's visit was to discuss his state's military preparedness, including "the best means of defending Pennsylvania from a foreign enemy." (Phila. Press, Dec. 27, 1861.) The trip would also afford Curtin the opportunity to visit the Pennsylvania Reserves, who had recently captured national attention for their victory over Jeb Stuart at Dranesville.

The governor, a loyal supporter of President Lincoln, immediately attracted attention in the nation's capital. At Willard's on Pennsylvania Avenue, two or three Pennsylvania regimental bands serenaded the governor. Curtin "was then called out, and addressed the audience, referring to the part Pennsylvania [had] taken in the war." The governor extolled the state's "patriotism and faithfulness to the Union" in providing such a "large number of troops. . . all in very fine condition" (Phila. Press, Dec. 30, 1861.) The governor "manifested the greatest enthusiasm in the success of the troops" at Dranesville, and assured the Pennsylvania regiments present at the hotel of "his desire to secure to them every comfort in his power." (Phila. Press, Dec. 30, 1861.)

Gov. Andrew Curtin of Pennsylvania (courtesy of Wikipedia)

On Sunday, December 29, Curtin crossed the Potomac to visit the Pennsylvania Reserves at Camp Pierpont in Langley. It was a "delightful" winter day. (Phila. Press, Dec. 30, 1861.) The governor must surely have felt a sense of pride as he moved among the troops. After all, Curtin was instrumental in the establishment of the Reserves in the days following Ft. Sumter, and their win at Dranesville had helped to boost morale on the Northern home front.

The division hospitals were the governor's first stop. There Curtin "spoke a kind word to each of the soldiers wounded" at Dranesville. (Phila. Press, Dec. 30, 1861.) The governor then rode to a hill outside of Langley, where he reviewed the entire division, accompanied by his political rival and fellow Pennsylvanian, Secretary of War Simon Cameron. Gen. George B. McClellan, commander of the Army of the Potomac, was still recovering from a very severe illness back in Washington and was not present.

The Press reported that the Reserves were caught unaware of Curtin's visit and only received notice of the review at noon. However, by 1 p.m, the entire division formed on the review ground and was ready to parade before the dignitaries. According to the Press, the Reserves "performed the various evolutions with the precision and regularity of veterans. . . . Their recent victory at Dranesville [had] inspired them with new courage and unbounded confidence in their officers." (Phila. Press, Dec. 30, 1861.)

Following the military maneuvers, Curtin's carriage pulled up in front of the soldiers. Brig. Gen. E.O.C. Ord, who had served as the immediate commander at Dranesville, introduced the governor. Curtin stood and addressed his fellow Pennsylvanians. The governor made no apologies for paying a visit to camp on the Lord's day. In fact, he told the Reserves that "it could be no desecration of this sacred day for me to come out and look at the faces of the brave men who are illustrating the power of the nation to suppress insurrection and break down the conspiracy which now threatens our Government." The governor announced that he had ordered the name of the Battle of Dranesville inscribed on the Reserves' standard. Noting the "thrill of pleasure and of pride" that was felt in Pennsylvania upon learning of the victory at Dranesville, Curtin offered words of gratitude:

In the name of Pennsylvania, I thank you; I thank you for the honor you have reflected upon the Old Keystone State; I thank you for your courage. Thousands of people at your homes rejoice over the result. Thousands more will follow you, if need be, in this war; and at all times when our Government is in peril Pennsylvania, from the Delaware to Lake Erie, every man in the state, every dollar of our material wealth, all our blood and treasure, stand upon the side of right and truth, and they will, as ever, be loyal to the Constitution and to an organized, legitimate Government.

Curtin wished the men future success in battle and concluded his oration:

I commend you to the care of these generals, who lead you, and the Government that protects you in your rights. I go back to Pennsylvania refreshed by this interview, and prouder than ever I have been of the gallant spirits comprising the Reserve Corps. Pennsylvania expects every man to do his duty. With that single word falling upon your ears, I bid you farewell.

The soldiers cheered their governor, and then sent up additional hurrahs for Secretary Cameron and the generals of the Pennsylvania Reserves.

The next day, Cameron placed political rivalries aside and hosted a dinner for Curtin at his private residence. Several dignitaries were present, including Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, Secertary of State William Seward, Senator Benjamin Wade of Ohio, and Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts. During the dinner, President Lincoln himself made an appearance. The President's drop-by at a Cabinet member's social event apparently broke an unwritten rule of Washington etiquette. However, as the Pennsylvania Daily Telegraph reasoned, "President Lincoln desired to do the gallant and devoted men of Pennsylvania an honor through his Secretary of War and our Governor." According to Sumner, much of the conversation focused on the all-consuming Trent affair, although the contribution of the Pennsylvania Reserves at Dranesville likely came up at some point that evening.

The Daily Telegraph reported that Curtin was "eminently successful in his official mission" to Washington. The governor returned to Pennsylvania, where he continued his efforts on behalf of the Administration and the Union war effort. Meanwhile, the Reserves could take pride in their own contributions and the recognition that they had received from their esteemed governor. December had certainly been a month to remember for the soldiers encamped at Langley.

Sources
The Lincoln Institute, Mr. Lincoln's White House, Biography of Andrew G. Curtin; Pennsylvania Daily Telegraph (Harrisburg, Pa.), Dec. 31, 1861; Philadelphia Press, Dec. 27, 1861; Philadelphia Press, Dec. 30, 1861; Edward L. Piece, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 4 (1893).

Christmas in the Camps Around Washington

2011-12-21T12:34:00.006-05:00

As Christmas fast approaches, many of us Civil War enthusiasts may wonder what the holiday was like 150 years ago during the first winter of the conflict. The Washington area was home to thousands of young men who had never been away from home for Christmas. The soldiers had to celebrate as best as they could, combating homesickness while trying to experience just a little holiday cheer. Lucky for us, many accounts remain of what Christmas was like for the Union soldiers encamped across the Potomac from the nation's capital.

The Philadelphia Press reported that the weather in Washington that first December 25 was "very un-Christmas like." During the early part of the week leading up to Christmas, the region "was threatened with a heavy storm and fall of snow," but "the threat past away in bluster, and the morning came upon us with all the beauty and associations of a Pennsylvania May-day." The correspondent had a "theory" that it was "impossible to enjoy this great holiday without a sheet of snow over the earth to beautify and brighten it -- and a hard frozen, ridgey road over the house-tops, for the easy-travelling of Kriss-Kringle. . . ." He observed, "except that . . . the hills over in Virginia looked brown and dreary, it would have been accepted and recorded as a pleasant day in spring."

Official Washington had closed down for the holiday, the hotels did a brisk business, and the streets were filled with sight-seers. The correspondent was pleased to report that "[o]ur boys over the river had quite a jovial time, all things considered." Perhaps with a bit of exaggeration, the Press noted that "[t]here was a relaxation of discipline, and none of the monotonous drilling and guard duty." The soldiers also tried their hand at holiday decorating. According to the Press, "[t]he cedars and pines were stripped of their branches, and the tents and camp-lanes were improvised into pretty pastoral retreats." (Martha Stewart, eat your heart out!)

Most importantly, the Union troops took some time to celebrate on December 25. Then, as today, eating played a central role in the festivities. As war correspondent Charles Carleton Coffin recalled in his book Following the Flag, "Christmas came. The men were in winter quarters, and merry times they had, — dinners of roast turkey, plum-pudding and mincepies, sent by their friends at home." (Coffin 42.)

The men of the 3rd Pennsylvania Reserves at Camp Pierpont in Langley also partook in holiday meals with victuals from the home front:

And the boys were not forgotten by those they held dear, for many were the Christmas boxes received, filled with roast fowls, cake and sweetmeats, and many happy hearts there were in camp that day. Innumerable little dinners were given by comrades of boyhood days, and if the turkey or chicken was not so hot, the cakes and other delicacies not so fresh and nice as at home, the repast was sweetened by the thought they came from dear home. (Woodward 56.)

Surely the delivery companies did a brisk business in the days leading up to Christmas. The Pennsylvania Daily Telegraph (Harrisburg, Pa.) reported that "[i]t is estimated that five thousand turkeys, already roasted, went down to the soldiers on the Potomac, by Adams' Express, about Christmas time, together with other etceteras necessary to make them go down appetizingly."

The men rounded out their holiday with numerous activities:

After dinner [the soldiers] had games, sports, and dances, chasing a greased pig, climbing a greasy pole, running in a meal-bag, playing ball, pitching quoits, playing leap-frog, singing and dancing, around the camp-fires through the long Christmas evening. (Coffin 42.)

The 3rd Pennsylvania Reserves held the normal dress parade. However, at the conclusion of the drill, a captain "stepped forward and presented their colonel with a pair of holsters containing a magnificent pair of naval revolvers, which, in a neat and appropriate speech, he presented to the colonel in behalf of his brother officers." (Woodward 56.) The colonel accepted the gift and "replied in a few neat and eloquent remarks, which were received with great enthusiasm by the officers and men." (Woodward 56.)

"The bright side of the war - holiday festivities of the 44th New York Volunteers at their camp, Hall's Hill, Virginia," Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, Jan. 18, 1862 (courtesy of George Mason University)

The 44th New York was encamped around Hall's Hill in present-day Arlington. The men found an interesting way to celebrate the holiday by organizing "a burlesque parade" (pictured above):

All of the officers gave over their commands to the men. Bob Hitchcock, a member of the band, whose avoirdupois was about 300 pounds, was duly promoted and mustered as Colonel of the parade. He was dressed in a manner becoming his high rank. He was mounted upon a horse that surpassed in inferiority the famous Rozinante [Don Quixote's horse]. He rode with his face turned toward the horse's tail so that he might at all times watch his command. The horse was embellished with a pair of trousers on his fore legs, and a pair of drawers on his hind legs. . . . The men were uniformed in most dissimilar and fantastic garbs. As a whole the rank and file easily surpassed Falstaff and his famous command. The commands given and the manner of their execution were unprecedented and quaint. The tactics of Scott, Hardee and Casey would be searched in vain to find precedent for those impromptu evolutions. The dress parade which followed was unique in its dissimilarity from anything promulgated in army regulations. No words can describe it. Frank Leslie's Illustrated paper only faintly depicted a short section of it but it lingers in the memory like a bright spot in that winter's experience of army life. (Nash 56.)

Some civilians in Washington wanted to visit the soldiers in camp on Christmas day, perhaps to see relatives and friends, or simply to show appreciation and offer gifts. The Press reported that "[t]here was a very general desire to cross over into Virginia, but the provost marshal was stringent in his regulations, and comparatively few were gratified." Soldiers, on the other hand, seemed a bit luckier. According to the Press correspondent, "[a] great many soldiers were in town, the Avenue and diverging streets presenting a soldierly appearance." Some of these men even had the opportunity to visit the "halls, corridors, chambers and rotunda" of the Capitol.

As the men reflected on the holiday, they may have shared the sentiment expressed in an editorial appearing in the Pennsylvania Daily Telegraph on December 24:

The Christmas of 1861 sees the world full of strife and our own land full of rebellious contentions and traitorous designs. . . . If man has failed in the performance of his duty to man. . . . Christmas comes to us shorn of none of its holy glory or diminished in no degree in any of its sublime promises. It is still the anniversary of the Savior's birth, an epoch in the world's history unequalled by any other for glory, grandness, and Heavenly love. . . . It must be the Christmas of the soul, though our hearts are sorrowful. It must be a Christmas for those at home, though many homes are now made desolate by the absence of their ornaments; and we trust, too, that while men are arrayed in battle, the Christmas of the year will be made glad for the children of the land.

As the soldiers around the nation's capital looked to the year ahead, they could only guess as to where they would be next Christmas. Camp was no substitute for home, but at least the soldiers had made the most of the holiday. Now the men would return to army life, hoping that next year, they would be gathered around the fire with loved ones.

Sources

Charles Carleton Coffin, Following the Flag (1886); Eugene Arus Nash, A History of the Forty-Fourth Regiment, New York Volunteer Infantry (1911); Pennsylvania Daily Telegraph (Harrisburg, Pa.), Dec. 24, 1861; Pennsylvania Daily Telegraph (Harrisburg, Pa.), Jan. 7, 1862; Philadelphia Press, Dec. 27, 1861; Evan Morrison Woodward, History of the Third Pennsylvania Reserve (1883).

For a look at the Pennsylvania Reserves at Christmas, check out this post from last year.

The Confederates Return to Dranesville

2011-12-19T06:26:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow marks the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Dranesville. As readers are well aware, I have covered the engagement here and at greater length in an article for the Civil War Trust. Dranesville shattered the relative calm that had descended on Northern Virginia by December 1861. Because I have already discussed the battle itself, I thought that I would dedicate a couple posts to what happened in the Union and Confederate ranks following the engagement.

Dranesville was a tactical Union victory, but that didn't stop Brig. Gen. Jeb Stuart from calling the battle a "glorious success" for the Confederates. (OR, 1:5, 494.) After all, the Confederate commander had saved his foraging party from falling into the enemy's hands. Stuart's self-styled triumph, however, had not come without a cost. Among his four infantry regiments, one battery, and assorted cavalry units, Stuart lost 43 killed, 143 wounded, and eight missing. The Union suffered only seven killed and 61 wounded.

Following the two-hour fight on December 20, Stuart's force withdrew from the battlefield towards the Alexandria, Loudoun, & Hampshire Railroad. When it became clear that his men were out of harm's way, Stuart pushed onward to Frying Pan Church. There, the Confederates took care of their wounded from the engagement. Meanwhile, the 18th Virginia and 9th Georgia were dispatched from the main camp at Centreville to join Stuart at the church. The regiments arrived at some point early in the morning.

Frying Pan Church, where Stuart cared for his wounded following the battle. The church, located along present-day Centreville Road in Fairfax County, was built between 1783 and 1791. The Baptist congregation included both whites and blacks. The site is preserved and maintained by Fairfax County. (See here for more information.)

As dawn broke on December 21, Stuart intended to return to Dranesville. He soon had the 9th Georgia and 18th Virginia organized and on the way. As a soldier from the 18th Virginia recalled:

We marched briskly along, it being-quite cold, and we therefore felt the more inclined to exert ourselves to give warmth to our bodies. We had no idea of going so far when we started, but were willing to follow Gen. Stuart anywhere, even to the banks of the Potomac. Onward, still onward we went, winding our way up and down circuitous and zigzag roads, which, though wearisome, were in excellent condition, being entirely free from the stiffing influence of dust. (Richmond Daily Dispatch, Dec. 30, 1861.)

Stuart sent his cavalry ahead to ascertain the presence of the enemy. The scouts reported that the Union had abandoned Dranesville and that several Confederate wounded were left in town. The Union commander, Brig. Gen. E.O.C. Ord, had lacked a sufficient number of ambulances and was unable to take all of his wounded prisoners with him to Camp Pierpont in Langley.

Gen. Jeb Stuart (courtesy of National Park Service)

Stuart, desiring to collect his wounded and dead, pushed his men to Dranesville and arrived around 11 a.m. Outside of town, in a house not far from the scene of the previous day's action, Stuart's men located between eight and ten wounded Confederate soldiers. According to the soldier from the 18th Virginia, in front of the home "stood several charmingly looking ladies, who very soon became the paramount attraction":

They were kindly attending our wounded . . . . They say the Yankees were very kind to our wounded, in bringing them to the house; they also left with them a good many bandages, to be used in dressing their wounds. . . . These ladies with their mothers had come up from their comfortable homes, bringing with them beds and bed clothes. They also prepared soups and such like delicacies suited to the conditions of the wounded. (Richmond Daily Dispatch, Dec. 30, 1861).

Stuart ordered his men to place the wounded in ambulances for the return to Centreville. Two of the men were severely injured, and it soon became clear that they could not survive the long trip back. Stuart reported that "at their own desire and at the surgeon's advice" the two soldiers "were left in charge of the ladies" in Dranesville (OR, 1:5, 492.)

The Confederate general also heard wild rumors about the battle from local inhabitants. The Union force had consisted of "fifteen regiments of infantry, several batteries, and seven companies of cavalry." (OR, 1:5, 493.) In fact, Ord had just four regiments of infantry, one battery, and two squadrons of cavalry, but at the time, Stuart was not entirely certain of the size of Ord's force. (Some locals may have seen the brigades of John Reynolds and George Meade, who had arrived too late to take part in the fight, and overestimated the number engaged on the 20th.) The residents of Dranesville also informed Stuart that Ord had left with twenty wagon loads of dead and wounded!

Stuart set about the grisly task of collecting the dead from the battlefield. The soldier from the 18th Virginia witnessed the carnage. He wrote:

I was horror-struck by the ghastly appearance of the dead, as they lay all besmeared with their own blood, which in the agents of death they had gotten all over their faces, having as soon as shot clapped their hands to the part affected and drawn across their faces; shots of a more deadly character, I never saw. (Richmond Daily Dispatch, Dec. 30, 1861.)

Once the wounded and dead were loaded in wagons, Stuart set out for the Confederate lines at Centreville around 4 p.m. The colonel of the 18th Virginia gave his men the option of stopping for the night, or going the entire way back to camp. His men agreed to continue the march. As the soldier from the 18th Virginia wrote to the Daily Dispatch:

[S]ome of our men complained bitterly of sore feet, made so by traveling so much on this hard frozen ground. Some one or two were so lucky as to get a ride on horseback. Others were obliged to remain the over-night, and come in the following (Sunday) morning. No order as to regularity of marching could be maintained, each getting along as best he could. My Captain, myself, and several others were amongst the first to get to camp — how glad were we to get there. We found hot coffee and warm fires. So, drinking the coffee and toasting our feet, we retired for the night. (Richmond Daily Dispatch, Dec. 30, 1861.)

Back in Centreville, the Confederates attended to their wounded and buried their dead. The 11th Virginia, which had fought at Dranesville, was brigaded with the 17th Virginia. The men of the 17th attended the internment of the 11th's dead, "prompted by the friendly feeling that had existed between the two commands ever since the organization of the brigade." (Warfield 66.) As Private Edgar Warfield remembered:

The act brought forth from Colonel [Sam] Garland of the Eleventh a beautiful letter, which was read on dress parade, expressing his grateful appreciation of the soldierly friendship which induced our command to unite with them in paying this last tribute of respect to their dead comrades. (Warfield 66.)

The Confederates recovered from their setback at Dranesville and prepared to celebrate the Christmas holiday. The battle had been an unsettling experience for many soldiers, including those who visited the scene of the fight on the 21st. But as 1861 drew to a close, much worse awaited Confederate and Union soldiers alike in the upcoming year and beyond.

Sources

Aside from the OR, the following sources were useful in compiling this post:

National Register of Historic Places Registration Form for Frying Pan Meetinghouse; Richmond Daily Dispatch, Dec. 30, 1861; Edgar Warfield, Manassas to Appomattox: The Civil War Memoirs of Pvt. Edgar Warfield, 17th Virgina Infantry (1996 ed.).

Civil War Trust: Battle of Dranesville Article

2011-12-14T07:13:00.000-05:00

The Civil War Trust has just published a web page entirely dedicated to the Battle of Dranesville. The engagement, which took place on December 20, 1861, pitted Jeb Stuart's Confederates against soldiers from the Pennsylvania Reserves and resulted in a Union victory. I am honored that the Civil War Trust asked me to contribute the lead article to their Dranesville page. (A special thanks goes out to Rob Shenk, the Trust's Director of Internet Strategy and Development.) Writing this piece allowed me to explore many tactical aspects of the little-known battle. I also uncovered several interesting stories related to Dranesville. Along with the article, the Civil War Trust has published some modern-day photographs of locations connected to the battle. Sadly, little remains of the actual battlefield, which has been marred by suburban development. I'd encourage you to go to the Civil War Trust's site and check out the Dranesville page, and while visiting, learn more about how you can help preserve Civil War battlefields.

Postscript

On a related note, last year I wrote a general overview of the Battle of Dranesville and also took a closer look at "friendly fire" episodes during the engagement.

Military Justice at Camp Pierpont: The Court-Martial of Colonel Taggart

2011-12-13T06:52:00.002-05:00

During the fall of 1861, Col. John H. Taggart, head of the 12th Pennsylvania Reserves, faced the serious charge of "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman." Taggart's court-martial got underway at Camp Pierpont on December 4, 1861. Brig. Gen. E.O.C. Ord, who was Taggart's brigade commander, served as president of the military tribunal. Taggart, confident that he had acted within the bounds of the law, pleaded "not guilty." Meanwhile, the men of the 12th Pennsylvania waited anxiously for news about the fate of their commander.

Born in Georgetown, Maryland in 1821, Taggart moved with his widowed mother and sister to Philadelphia when he was eight. The future colonel started his career in the newspaper business, first as a typesetter, and later as a reporter. In 1860, Taggart bought a share of the Sunday Mercury. When the Civil War erupted, he received a captain's commission and raised a militia company in Philadelphia known as the "Wayne Guards," which was accepted for service with the Pennsylvania Reserves. Taggart took his men to an assembly point at Camp Curtin in Harrisburg in June. While at camp, Taggart tried to discharge an enlisted man who was suffering from apparent seizures. The disgruntled soldier lunged at Taggart with a knife, but the captain scared him away with a revolver. The solider was later captured and sent home from the company. The Pennsylvania Daily Telegraph added a dramatic flourish, describing the episode as a "Desperate Attempt to Assassinate an Officer."

Regimental flag of the 12th Pennsylvania Reserves (courtesy of ourancestry.com)

While at Camp Curtin, Taggart was elected as the colonel of the 12th Pennsylvania. Following the Union defeat at First Bull Run, the 12th was dispatched to Tenallytown, D.C., where the regiment joined the rest of the Pennsylvania Reserves under Brig. Gen. George A. McCall in August. The trip and subsequent stay in Tenallytown led to Taggart's encounter with military justice a few months later.

The charge against Taggart consisted of four specifications. The first specification alleged that on August 11, Taggart "did shamefully beat, choke, and kick one Miner Moyer, a private in Company B. . . in a car on the Washington Branch of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad." (Army of the Potomac, General Orders No. 55.) The second specification likewise accused the colonel of "brutally" beating and threatening Private George Davis of Company C on the same day "at a water station" on the Washington Branch. (General Orders No. 55.) According to the third specification, Taggart on August 30 used "blasphemous and threatening language towards one George M. LeBar, teamster of Company B" at Camp Tenally. (General Orders No. 55.) Finally, a fourth specification alleged that at Camp Tenally on September 27, Taggart "obtain[ed] money from the company officers of his regiment by false promises, and by agreeing to conditions with which he afterwards refused to comply." (General Orders No. 55.)

Later in December, the court-martial found Taggart "not guilty" on all specifications and "honorably" acquitted him. (General Orders, No. 55.) The evidence had demonstrated that the charges were unfounded and that Taggart's actions were entirely justified under the circumstances. In one instance, soldiers were discharging their weapons on the railroad cars while traveling from Baltimore to Washington, and "it was necessary to use violent measures to reduce them to obedience of orders." (Sypher 127.) As to another allegation, the tribunal deduced that "some five or six of the men left the ranks to enter an orchard, and when asked to return to their companies, refused to do so, and force was employed to maintain subordination." (Sypher 127.) The court-martial considered all of the accusations to be "frivolous and vexatious." (General Orders No. 55.)

Col. John H. Taggart after the war (courtesy of Historic LaMott, PA)

Federal commander George B. McClellan reviewed the record and weighed in on the affair. As Little Mac's adjutant wrote on December 14:

The commanding general is surprised that the charge and specifications against Colonel Taggart were ever brought to trial, resting as they do upon evidence which is so complete a vindication of his conduct. It appears that the men whom, in the enforcement of good order and military discipline, he was obliged to punish, were contumacious and insubordinate—were, some of them, engaged in pillaging and pilfering, in which they persisted after admonition, and others were guilty of firing their guns in the cars to the terror of the passengers, contrary to positive orders. In order to reduce them to obedience it was necessary to act with promptitude and energy. They resisted his authority, and if much severer punishment had been necessary to restore order, it would have been fully justified. (General Orders No. 55.)

McClellan confirmed the results of the court-martial. Taggart was to "resume his sword and his duties." (General Orders, No. 55.)

Word of Taggart's acquittal spread through Camp Pierpont. According to the December 19 , 1861 edition of the Philadelphia Press, "[t]he men under his command, on being apprised of the fact, made the welkin ring with their plaudits, the sounds reverberating through the hills and valleys of the 'sacred soil' of Virginia." Moyer, Davis, and LeBar likely refrained from the celebration.

Not long after the verdict, Taggart led his men to victory at the Battle of Dranesville. He continued with the 12th Pennsylvania throughout the Peninsula Campaign and resigned in July 1862. After a stint as a war correspondent with the Philadelphia Inquirer, he was appointed as the chief preceptor of the "Free Military School for Applicants for the Command of Colored Troops" in Philadelphia. The school successfully trained whites to serve as officers in the United States Colored Troops (U.S.C.T.). In 1865, Taggart was appointed as the Collector of Internal Revenue for the First District of Pennsylvania. After the war, he became a correspondent in Washington for several newspapers and went on to own the Philadelphia Sunday Morning Times (later Taggart's Times). Taggart died in 1892.

Sources
Martin D. Hardin, History of the Twelfth Regiment Pennsylvania Reserve Volunteer Corps (1891); Pennsylvania Daily Telegraph (Harrisburg, Pa.), June 24, 1861; Philadelphia Press, Dec. 19, 1861; J.R. Sypher, History of the Pennsylvania Reserves (1865); U.S. Army of the Potomac, Index of General Orders 1861 (1862).

Collecting Forage, Building Huts, and Marching in Little "Grand Reviews": Camp Pierpont, December 1861

2011-12-07T05:57:00.004-05:00

As December 1861 got underway, thousands of soldiers from Pennsylvania called Camp Pierpont in Langley their home away from home. Federal commander George B. McClellan had sent Brig. Gen. George A. McCall's division to Langley back in October as part of an advance into Northern Virginia. Now McCall's division had the privilege of occupying the far right of the Union lines, not far from the banks of the Potomac River. But with such responsibility also came the monotony of camp life, consisting mainly of drills, picket duty, and all around bad food, not to mention disease. The harsh winter weather also loomed just around the corner. Things were pretty quiet along the Potomac, although the men occasionally had the chance to experience something a little more interesting.

A Few Excursions to the Environs of Dranesville

The Pennsylvania Reserves required forage, and McCall knew perfectly well that a ready supply awaited him on the secessionist farms lying in the no-man's land between the Union and Confederate armies. At the start of December, he dispatched two expeditions to the area near Dranesville, about ten miles down the Leesburg-Georgetown Turnpike (today's VA-193) from Langley. The first expedition on December 3, with the brigade of Brig. Gen. John F. Reynolds in the lead, succeeded in carrying away 50 wagons full of forage.

A few days later, on December 6, Brig. Gen. George G. Meade headed to the farm of "bitter secessionist" John Gunnell, two and half miles northeast of Dranesville. (OR, 1:5, 455.) Meade was to collect forage and arrest two of Gunnell's nephews, who were "reported . . . to have shot two stragglers of [Nathaniel] Banks' division, and left them for the hogs to devour." (OR, 1:5, 456.) The brigade of Brig. Gen. E.O.C. Ord followed behind, just in case.

Gen. George G. Meade, commander of the Second Brigade of the Pennsylvania Reserves and later head of the Army of the Potomac (courtesy of civilwarhome.com)

Meade's brigade set out early in the morning from Camp Pierpont. An anonymous soldier from the 11th Pennsylvania Reserves described what happened at Gunnell's in a letter to the Ebensburg Alleghanian:

Companies A and D . . . were detailed to take charge of the farm and loaded the wagons of which latter articles we had about sixty. The boys immediately fell to with a will and in a comparatively short space of time every wagon was loaded down with wheat, corn and potatoes. In addition we captured eleven head of horses, a pair of oxen and wagon, thirty-eight hogs, averaged two hundred pounds each, two buggies, a splendid carriage and a lot of excellent light harness. Two negro slaves, the property of said Gunnell were also taken in tow and brought into camp. They were exceedingly glad to be afforded opportunity to effect their liberty and are now, I understand, employed as cooks in some of the regiments.

As prisoners, Meade's men brought back Gunnell's nephews and three other "rank secessionists." (OR, 1:5, 456.)   The entire expedition returned to Langley by around six that evening.

Meade was not fully satisfied with his day's work. The general had experienced more than a few disciplinary issues with his men, who "got into their heads that the object of the expedition was the punishment of a rebel, and hence the more injury they inflicted, the more successful was the expedition." (Meade 234.) As he lamented to his wife, "it was with considerable trouble they could be prevented from burning everything" that was not carried away. (Meade 234.) Meade, whose conciliationist sensibilities were offended, was "ashamed of our cause." (Meade 234.)

McCall painted a somewhat different picture. In his official report, he informed McClellan about "the very exemplary conduct of all the troops on this occasion" and "commend[ed] from personal observation the good discipline maintained." (OR, 1:5, 456.)   Perhaps McCall was still bristling from "a very severe letter" he received from McClellan in November commenting on the poor state of the discipline in his division and wanted to avoid even the suggestion of lax behavior of the part of his men. (Meade 226.)

Winter Quarters

Back in camp, the Pennsylvanians prepared for the season ahead. As the unknown soldier from the 11th wrote to the Alleghanian, "[t]he weather here is becoming pretty cold and winter-like, but considering that
. . . the climate is not far different from that of Pennsylvania and in fact of the Alleghenies, we should not expect it to be otherwise." The troops ensured that they would be well protected from the elements by constructing crude log huts topped with tents.   According to solider from the 11th, "some of them boast of the possession of stoves; others compromise on homemade fire places called 'California stoves.' Between the two we are right comfortably situated."

Photograph of a Union winter camp showing typical log huts, similar to those described in the letter to the Alleghanian (courtesy Library of Congress)

The Grand Review

McCall's entire division participated in a military review in front of Johnston's Hill near Langley on December 12. The Philadelphia Press noted that since the Grand Review at Bailey's Crossroads on November 20, "there has been no such military display on the line of the Potomac." Many officers from other divisions attended, although it is uncertain whether McClellan himself was present. The regimental bands "by their inspiring music, gave patriotic zest and liveliness to the occasion." (Phila. Press, Dec. 14, 1861.) The Press could not help but notice that the soldiers' movements "were marked with the precision of old and long-drilled regulars." Apparently McCall had instilled some degree of discipline, at least for the purposes of parading. The review ended after two hours, and "all who witnessed it pronounced it a brilliant success." (Phila. Press, Dec. 14, 1861.) In a little more than a week, some of these same soldiers would be sent on another expedition to Dranesville, and would score even greater accolades.

Sources

Ebensburg Alleghenian, Dec. 26, 1861; Meade, George Gordon, ed., The Life and Letters of George Gordon Meade, Vol. 1 (New York, 1913); Philadelphia Press, Dec. 14, 1861.

A few other good accounts of the foraging expeditions to Dranesville can be found here and here. In an upcoming post, I also hope to explore the secessionists of Dranesville in more detail.

Print of Lewinsville in December 1861

2011-11-29T07:25:00.005-05:00

Aside from antique books, I also enjoy collecting old prints. My collection naturally focuses on the Civil War era, although I have been known to stray off subject from time to time. Last month I attended the McLean Antiques Show, but did not make any purchases like last year. One vendor was selling hand-tinted engravings of the 1862 Battle of New Orleans and the engagement between the U.S.S. Monitor and the C.S.S. Virginia. The prices seemed too high, and I opted against making a purchase. Other than the prints, nothing else even came close to catching my fancy, and I ended up returning home empty-handed. However, I could not let my disappointment get the best of me. Remembering that I had my eye on a few interesting and affordable prints on eBay, I decided to buy one as a consolation prize.

A couple of weeks ago, I received my purchase, an original print of "The Village of Lewinsville, Virgina, Now Occupied by United States Troops" from Old Prints and Maps, an on-line store. The engraving comes from the December 14, 1861 edition of Harper's Weekly. I generally like to purchase old newspapers and magazines in their entirety and had somewhat mixed emotions about contributing to the practice of cutting them up for the purpose of selling individual images. This print had sentimental value, as I live right down the street from the location depicted in the engraving, so I made a break from standard policy.

Engraving of Lewinsville from Harper's Weekly (image courtesy of the seller). The newspaper described Lewinsville as a "miserable, broken-down village, very Virginian in aspect." A copy of the entire December 14, 1861 Harper's Weekly can be viewed at sonofthesouth.net.

The print depicts a few Union soldiers near the rural crossroads of Lewinsville, Virginia, which had come into Union hands only a few months before. The village was also the site of a couple minor encounters between Union and Confederate troops in September 1861. Lewinsville is now part of the suburban community of McLean in Fairfax County.

The intersection shown in the print is likely the convergence of today's Great Falls Street and Chain Bridge Road. (For a current map, see here.) Local historian Edgar Hon places the Union troops on the south side of the crossroads, with Great Falls Street to the left, and Chain Bridge Road running along the length of the engraving.

Both Hon and Carole Herrick, another local historian, believe that Harper's Weekly likely took liberty with the actual depiction of the town as it appeared at the time. I tend to agree. In particular, the graveyard of the Lewinsville Presbyterian Church, which was established prior to the Civil War, should be located on the northeast corner of the crossroads, but is missing. Moreover, the various structures depicted on the engraving do not appear to align with those shown on an 1862 Union Army map of Northeastern Virginia and a subsequent version in the Atlas to Accompany the Official Records. But even these maps contain contradictions. Short of photographic or written evidence that I have not yet seen, we may never know what Lewinsville looked like exactly in 1861.

I am now having the print framed, and before long, it will occupy a space on my office wall. Regardless of any inaccuracies, I really like this print. The bleakness of the image conveys the sense of foreboding calm that settled over the Union lines in the fall and winter of 1861 before the carnage of future battles and campaigns. The print also serves as a constant reminder of Lewinsville's rurual and Civil War past. Sometimes pictures are worth a thousands words, and a find like this one explains why collecting antique prints is so satisfying.

Sources:
Carole Herrick, Images of America: McLean (2011); Edgar R. Hon in the Yearbook of the Historical Society of Fairfax County, Vol. 29 (2003-04).

Thanksgiving 1861 in Washington and the Camps Across the Potomac

2011-11-22T06:02:00.001-05:00

At the start of the Civil War, Thanksgiving had not yet become a national holiday. Earlier Presidents issued Thanksgiving proclamations, but this trend did not continue after James Monroe's Administration. Instead, each state set aside a day to give thanks. In 1861, the majority of states, including New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont, fixed Thursday, November 28, as Thanksgiving. Massachusetts and Maine established a date of Thursday, November 21.

The governors' Thanksgiving proclamations were inevitably marked by talk of war. In Pennsylvania, Governor Andrew Curtin beseeched God that "our beloved country may have deliverance from those great and apparent dangers wherewith she is compassed, and that the brave and loyal men now battling in the field for her life may have their arms made strong and their blows heavy." Curtin also prayed that the "rebellious people" would "see the error in their ways" and "obediently walk in His holy commandments, and in submission to the just and manifest authority of the Republic." (Phila. Press, Oct. 25, 1861.) Governor Edwin Morgan of New York began his proclamation by recalling that "[a]mid the tramp of armies, the sound of fratricidal strife and lamentation for the fallen, we still behold the merciful arm of the Ruler of the Universe made bare for our protection." The governor reminded his fellow New Yorkers:

We believe that, in the wondrous plan of God, if we but humbly bow before Him and acknowledge our National sins, Infinite Wisdom will work out from this great tribulation a marked and permanent good . . . that this noble Union, the work of men inspired by the loftiest patriotism, the wonder of the world and the glory of this nation, will be preserved.

The government workers in Washington may have had less lofty thoughts in mind as the holiday approached. According to the November 21, 1861 edition of the Philadelphia Press, although the "City Councils" had selected November 28 as a day of thanksgiving in the District of Columbia,"the Departments will not be closed." The paper noted, however, that "mercantile business generally throughout the city will, it is said, be suspended after noonday." President Lincoln soon came to the rescue of government employees. On November 27, he issued the following order:

The Municipal authorities of Washington and Georgetown in this District, have appointed tomorrow, the 28th. instant, as a day of thanksgiving, the several Departments will on that occasion be closed, in order that the officers of the government may partake in the ceremonies.

The workers in Washington took full advantage of the day off. As the Press reported, "the stores are closed, the churches are filled, and the streets present a holiday appearance." Then, as now, the inhabitants of the nation's capital did not pass up the opportunity to imbibe. The Press noted that "[t]he saloons and barrooms [were] well patronized."

Even with all the festivities, the war was never too far away. Rumors abounded that Thanksgiving Day. According to the Press, some people believed that "our advanced guard has taken up the line of march towards Fairfax and Centreville." Others spoke of the flight of Confederate sympathizers from Alexandria. The Press rightfully considered all of these tales "absurd."

"Thanksgiving-Day in the Army. After Dinner: The Wish-Bone," by Winslow Homer (courtesy of sonofthesouth.net)

Across the Potomac River, the Union soldiers in the camps around Lewinsville and Langley, near present-day McLean, observed the holiday as best they could. Some men made out pretty well given the normal state of affairs in camp. According to a private from the 2nd Vermont at Camp Griffin, "in most companies enough extra rations had been disposed of to buy potatoes, fresh pork, chickens, turkeys, and other such luxuries as could be got, and all ate their fill." (in Zeller 50.) The men assembled later in the evening and "cooked their oysters, drank cider, and smoked a 'mild Havana,'" while reminiscing and telling stories. (in Zeller 50.) All told, this soldier considered that "it was a day of joy, and thanksgiving to us Vermonters." (in Zeller 50.) Others, who spent the day on picket duty, or whose regiments were less well supplied with victuals, may have taken exception.

The famed Bucktail Regiment (1st Pennsyvalnia Rifles) of the Pennsylvania Reserves passed a fun Thanksgiving at Camp Pierpont. According to an officer's account in the December 11, 1861 Philadelphia Press, "the soldiers enjoyed themselves eating oysters and shooting at a target." As might be expected, the crack marksmen held a contest to show off their skills with a gun. The prizes consisted of "a turkey, two bbls. of apples, and twelve pairs of socks, which had been presented to Colonel [Thomas] Kane by an old lady ninety years old." The winners of the apples split their bounty with other men from their companies. The socks got divided among three privates. According to the prideful officer, "many of the shots would have plunked a rebel's eye at one hundred yards."

The next day would bring a return to the normal routine of camp life. At least for a little while, the soldiers from Pennsylvania, Vermont, and other states had enjoyed the holiday and perhaps gotten a break from the everyday diet of hardtack and salt pork. Surely they would rather have been at home with loved ones, and many men must have fervently hoped that they would be back with family in a year's time. Meanwhile, the business of war, both in the nation's capital, and in the hills and fields across Northern Virginia, would continue.

Sources:

Graz Historical Society, Graz, Pennsylvania, "Thanksgiving 1861--Preparation," Civil War Blog; Abraham Lincoln, Order for Day of Thanksgiving, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 5 (1953), Plimouth Plantation, "Thanksgiving History;" "Thanksgiving Day; Proclamation," New York Times, Oct. 3, 1861; Paul G. Zeller, The Second Vermont Volunteer Infantry Regiment, 1861-1865 (2002).

All Pennsylvania news articles can be found on the extensive Pennsylvania Civil War Era Newspaper Collection maintained by the Libraries of Penn State University.

The Grand Review at Bailey's Crossroads: Glowing Reports and a Public Reassurance

2011-11-16T06:25:00.000-05:00

This upcoming Sunday marks the 150th anniversary of an impressive display of Union military might. On November 20, 1861, Maj. George B. McClellan, commander of the Army of the Potomac, staged a "Grand Review" of between 50,000 and 70,000 Union soldiers from seven divisions at Bailey's Crossroads, Virginia. President Lincoln, Secretary of War Simon Cameron, and other dignitaries, along with 20,000 to 30,000 spectators, witnessed McClellan's organizational prowess unfold on the open fields a few miles outside of Washington. Readers will recall that only a few months before, Bailey's Crossroads was the site of a picket war between the two armies.

Maj. Gen. George McClellan, as depicted on 1861 sheet music (courtesy of Indiana State Museum)

Last year, I wrote a few posts about McClellan's Grand Review, so I won't cover old ground here. For a complete story of the review, check out this post. I also discussed Gen. George G. Meade's the less-than-enthusiastic reaction to the review. Others have shared my interest in the topic. A group known as the Lincoln at the Crossroads Alliance recently sponsored a sesquicentennial reenactment of the Grand Review at Ft. McNair. (Staging at the original location would have been a logistical nightmare!) I had planned to attend, but other obligations got in the way.

The review was the largest ever held on the North American continent up to that time. Not surprisingly, Northern newspapers provided glowing accounts of the spectacle. According to the headline in the November 21, 1861 edition of the New York Times, the review was a "Magnificent Military Pageant." The Philadelphia Press called the event "indescribably grand." (Nov. 21, 1861 ed.) The Press reported that Prince de Joinville, a member of French nobility accompanying McClellan, was "in raptures over the grand review, alleging that he never saw anything compared to it in the old world, when the regularity, promptitude, and harmony of the movements are taken into consideration." (Nov. 23, 1861 ed.)

For all the praise, however, there surely were skeptics out there, or so the Beaver (Pa.) Weekly Argus thought. As the Argus elaborated on November 27:

The Eastern Papers of this week were filled with the details of the ceremony, which, however, possesses little interest for the general reader except as showing what a splendid army we have in the field.

As some of our friends may not see the necessity of these reviews, we clip from the Scientific American, the following sensible remarks in vindication of the policy of the General-in-Chief:

"This system of reviewing troops is somewhat novel in our army operations, and many who are not familiar with its objects regard such demonstrations as unmeaning. Gen. McClellan's experience in the Crimea in '55 fully convinced him of the importance of such reviews. Frederick the Great, Napoleon, Wellington, and all the great military commanders were in the habit of holding frequent grand reviews, and the system is kept up in all European nations. It is very inspiring, not only to the troops, but also to the officers."

The "Young Napoleon" surely would have approved of this rationale for holding the Grand Review. If anything, the event showcased for the Union leadership and the Northern public what McClellan could do to organize and drill an army. Now he just had to demonstrate that he could defeat the Rebels, and for an answer, the nation would have to wait until springtime.

Note on Sources:
All Pennsylvania news articles can be found on the extensive Pennsylvania Civil War Era Newspaper Collection maintained by the Libraries of Penn State University.

The 17th Virginia Gets a New Brigade Commander and Settles Into Camp

2011-11-11T06:54:00.004-05:00

This blog has traced the history of the 17th Virginia Infantry throughout the first year of the Civil War. I have taken a particular interest in this regiment given that it was composed of men from across Northern Virginia, including Fairfax County. By way of a quick recap, the militia companies that eventually formed the 17th gathered in Alexandria not long after the Virginia Convention voted to secede on April 17, 1861. They left town when Union forces invaded Virginia the next month. Assigned to Gen. James Longstreet's brigade, the 17th Virginia played a leading role at Blackburn's Ford on July 18. Following First Manassas, the 17th moved forward to Centreville and then Fairfax Court House. The regiment served with Longstreet's advanced forces around Falls Church and at Mason's and Munson's Hills during August and September. In mid-October, the regiment fell back to Centreville as part of a general withdrawal of Confederate troops.

Autumn 1861 brought change at the top for the 17th Virginia. Even before moving to Centreville, the men of the regiment lost their brigade commander. In mid-October, Longstreet received a promotion to major general. After drilling his men one final time on October 12, Longstreet said his good-byes, and the soldiers responded with a loud cheer for the general who had led them through the Manassas Campaign and the recent picket war. (Wallace 23.) The next day Longstreet issued General Order No. 17, in which he "express[ed] his sincere thanks to the officers and soldiers of the command for the kindly patience, the soldierly fortitude, and the cheerful obedience which they have invariably exhibited during the many hardships and privations of a long and trying campaign." (Warfield 61.) He concluded that "[t]he command of a brigade second to none is well worthy the boast of any general, and even regret may well be felt at promotion which removes it a step, at least, from him." (Warfield 61-62.)

Gen. Charles Clark of Mississippi replaced Longstreet, but his tenure at the top was short-lived. On October 22, not long after the 17th moved to Centreville, the Confederate War Department organized the Department of Northern Virginia out of the forces currently operating in the area stretching from the mouth of the Potomac River to the Shenandoah Valley. The new department's Potomac District was composed of divisions under the command of Earl Van Dorn, Gustavus W. Smith, Longstreet, and Edmund Kirby Smith. Longstreet's old brigade, including the 17th Virginia, was placed under Gen. Richard S. Ewell and was eventually assigned to Longstreet's new division.

Gen. Richard S. Ewell, the 17th Virginia's new brigade commander (courtesy of Wikipedia)

The 17th Virginia passed the time in Centreville "drilling, mounting Quaker guns, standing picket duty, and doing our part in the details set to the work of throwing up breastworks," but not all was so uneventful. (Warfield 63.) In late October, Virginia Governor John Letcher visited Centreville to present the flags of the Commonwealth to the Virginia regiments encamped there. As Letcher handed a flag to the 17th, he urged the regiment to "[t]ake it, and when you go into Alexandria drive out the invaders of our soil." (Wallace 24.) The 17th Virginia's commander, Col. Montgomery Corse, promised to plant the flag "on the ramparts of Ft. Ellsworth" in Alexandria, or "the blood of the Seventeenth shall flow freely in the attempt." (Wallace 24.) The next day the 17th Virginia participated in a grand review of Virginia troops by the governor as spectators crowded the surrounding hills to catch a glimpse of the spectacle.

Confederate winter quarters at Centreville, VA (courtesy of Library of Congress). This photograph was taken in March 1862 after the Confederates had abandoned the area.

According to Private Edgar Warfield of the 17th, "the night of November 1 we experienced one of the most terrific storms of wind, rain, and hail that we had to contend with during the war." (Warfield 64.) Warfield recalled:

The storm continued throughout the night. Every tent in the camp except two was thrown down and the contents were scattered. The storm did not cease until the afternoon of the 2nd, and during that time the men were without shelter, thoroughly drenched, and unable to cook their meals. (Warfield 64.)

Conditions improved by the end of the month, when the 17th began to construct log cabins in preparation for winter.* The men of the regiment cut trees and brought them to camp in the quartermaster's wagons. One soldier considered this work "the hardest I ever performed." (Wallace 24.) The small log huts, like those pictured above, served as home for the soldiers during the harsh, cold days ahead.

A battle flag of the 17th Virginia, marked with engagements from the 1862 Peninsula Campaign (courtesy of the Fairfax Rifles)

November ended with the presentation of the famed Confederate battle flag to the 17th Virginia and the other regiments at Centreville. Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard, in characteristic bombast, told the men: "Under its untarnished folds, beat back the invader and find nationality, everlasting immunity from an atrocious despotism, and honor and renown for yourselves, or death." (Warfield 65-66.) But first, the army had to survive the winter weather, and all the misery that camp life could bring.

Notes
*Throughout October and November 1861, Confederate commander Joseph E. Johnston bickered with the War Department over the provision of assistance in building winter quarters. Johnston saw the War Department as neglectful of his pleas, while Secretary of War Judah P. Benjamin accused Johnston of turning away help. In the end, the soldiers appear to have taken matters into their own hands. See OR, 1:5, 891, 896-97, 934, 941-42, 948-49, 951; see also this post at Living in the Past concerning the dispute.

Sources
Alfred Roman, The Military Operations of General Beauregard in the War Between the States, 1861 to 1865, Vol. 1 (1884); Lee A. Wallace, Jr., 17th Virginia Infantry, from the Virginia Regimental History Series (1990); Edgar Warfield, Manassas to Appomattox: The Civil War Memoirs of Pvt. Edgar Warfield, 17th Virginia Infantry (1996 ed.); Jeffry D. Wert, General James Longstreet: The Confederacy's Most Controversial Solider (1994).

My German Ancestors: A Discovery About Family History

2011-11-08T06:20:00.003-05:00

This past summer, I got hooked on watching Who Do You Think You Are? This hour-long TV program on NBC explores the family histories of modern celebrities like Steve Buscemi and Ashley Judd. The show actually got me thinking more about my own family, and I finally joined Ancestry.com and began to dig a little deeper. Given my interest in history, I am surprised I had waited this long to start doing extensive on-line genealogical research.

Generally speaking, I knew that most of my ancestors on both sides had come to the United States during the great wave of immigration in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They belonged to those tired, poor, and huddled masses of Italians, Germans, and Eastern Europeans looking for a better life in America.

I decided to start my search with the Baumgarten clan. My Dad's father had passed away when my Dad was just a kid, so many Baumgartens have only faint knowledge of the family history. Within a day or so, I discovered that the Baumgartens had come to America's shores prior to the Civil War, and even before the mass influx of Germans in the 1850s. I was floored to learn that part of my family had arrived in the United States so much earlier than I originally thought. And now I had my own personal connection to the period of American history that interests me the most.

I suppose I shouldn't have been so surprised. After all, by 1860, around 1.3 million German immigrants lived in the United States. They populated cities like Pittsburgh, where my family settled, and St. Louis. Around 200 German language newspapers and magazines were published across the United States. (Source: Library of Congress, Chronology: The Germans in America.)

My Great Great Grandfather John Baumgarten was born in Pennsylvania in 1850. His parents were both from Germany. My Grandfather, Francis, and Great Grandfather, Frank, were living with John at the time of the 1920 Census. Going back fifty years, I learned that in 1870, John resided with an "R." Baumgarten and his wife, Elizabeth, in Birmingham, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. "R." turned out to be Reinhard (or Reinhart) Baumgarten, who was born in Pennsylvania in 1839 to Joseph and Bertha, two German immigrants. Reinhard eventually made his way to Ashland, Kentucky, where he died in 1911. The exact relation between Reinhard and John is uncertain, but Reinhard is definitely the family link to Kentucky that I have heard so much about.

View of Pittsburgh from 1857, when John was only a young boy of about seven. (Courtesy of Wikipedia) Pittsburgh was a center of antebellum industry in the United States and later supplied the Union during the war.

Of course, calculating Reinhard's age during the Civil War, I immediately began to search Union Army records to see if he had enlisted or was drafted. I turned up no military service records for Reinhard, but just yesterday I located the 1863 draft registration for a "Reinhart Bomgarding" in Pittsburgh. The age and place of residence for this person match those for Reinhard. I have a feeling that "Bomgarding" may be a clerk's mistaken effort to spell "Baumgarten." (Belive me, even today my family name is misspelled in a variety of curious ways.) If this person is not one in the same, then I do not yet have the faintest idea as to Reinhard's involvement with the war and the draft. In any event, Reinhard shows up again in a January 1865 application for a U.S. passport that he sought for travel to Europe. Whether he made a trip overseas is unknown at this time.

While looking for Reinhard's service record, I came across a William Baumgarten, who enlisted in Co. K, 102nd Pennsylvania Infantry in Pittsburgh in March 1864. William was born in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania in 1845 to Joseph and Martha Baumgarten. The 102nd Pennsylvania was attached to the Sixth Corps of the Army of the Potomac. William fought at the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, and Petersburg. He was wounded three times during the Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1864 and was mustered out of service in June 1865.

"Pittsburgh (Pa.), from Seminary Hill," 1864. (Courtesy of University of Pittsburgh)

I am uncertain of a family connection to William, although I'd certainly like to claim an ancestor who served! William's father has the same name as Reinhard's father, but the mothers' names are different. Both men were close in age and were from Pittsburgh. Incidentally, an 1867 directory for the City of Pittsburgh indicates that a William and Reinhard worked at Baumgarten & Brothers Grocers in Birmingham, a neighborhood of Pittsburgh. This fact may be a coincidence, or perhaps the two men are indeed the same Reinhard and William and are brothers. My research has just begun, and it may be many years before I have the time and other resources to get the full story of John, Reinhard, William and the other Baumgartens.

All of these findings got me thinking. So often people speculate as to what their ancestors thought 150 years ago. Absent letters or diaries, or even oral history, our attempt to understand our ancestors' thoughts and feelings is a difficult one. The questions are many, but the answers are few. John Baumgarten grew into a teenager during the Civil War. What did he think about the war at such a young age? How did his immigrant parents view the war? Did they support the Union or were they apathetic about the conflict? What did John, his parents, and Reinhard think about slavery? Why did Reinhard decide not to answer Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers like so many of his fellow Pennsylvanians? What did he think about the draft and the draft riots? Why was he seemingly so removed from events in America that he wanted to travel abroad during the last winter of the war? Did my Grandfather Francis ever hear stories about the wartime from his Grandfather John?

These answers are now, and likely forever, lost to history. I can only read about the German-American community during the Civil War and try to understand how the conflict may have affected the Baumgartens of Pittsburgh. Regardless, I now feel deeply connected to the history of 19th century America and the Civil War in a way that I had not before. Even if I don't know everything about my ancestors, they serve as a strong personal link to a world long gone.

Commemorating the War in Public Spaces: Virginia and Massachusetts

2011-11-01T06:24:00.003-04:00

For some people, the thought of a stereotypical Southern town may evoke images of an old bronze statue of a Confederate soldier keeping watch over a quaint courthouse square. This picture would not be far off the mark, at least as far as Virginia is concerned. According to the Washington Post, scholars consider Virginia to have the "densest concentration" of so-called Confederate common-soldier statues. However, during a recent trip to the Berkshires in Massachusetts, I was reminded that the South certainly does not have a monopoly when it comes to such relics of the post-Civil War era.

Following our nation's fratricidal conflict, both sides sought to commemorate the sacrifices that their soldiers and sailors had made. Monuments, erected mostly in public spaces during the late 19th and early 20th century, were a way for communities and veterans' groups to ensure that no one would ever forget the local men who had fought and died in the late war. Today, Confederate war memorials survive as an enduring part of the Southern landscape, although not without controversy linked to the taint of slavery. But for every statue or monument in a Southern town, there is a counterpart in a Northern hamlet, waiting to be discovered. In this post, I'd like to share with readers just a small sample of Civil War memorials that I've come across in Virginia and Massachusetts.

One of the most visible monuments in Northern Virginia is the statue of a lone Confederate soldier looking down Washington Street in Old Town Alexandria, his backed turned to the nation's capital. The sculpture, known as "Appomattox," was erected in 1889 by the Robert E. Lee Camp of the United Confederate Veterans and honors Alexandrians who died while serving the Confederacy. No matter how many times I get to Old Town, I like to pause to reflect on this statue, which seems so anachronistic in today's Northern Virginia of young, upwardly mobile, and diverse transplants. (I previously wrote about the statue's role in Civil War memory and explained why it makes sense to preserve such monuments, however uncomfortable they may make us feel today.)

Confederate Statue (1889), Alexandria, Virginia

In Leesburg, Virginia, another Confederate soldier watches over the Loudoun County Courthouse. Early in the last century, the Loudoun County Chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy and local Confederate veterans led a fundraising drive to erect the monument. Unveiled in 1908, the monument honors Confederate soldiers from Loudoun County. The statue was sculpted by Frederick William Sievers, who is better known for his Virginia Memorial at Gettysburg.

Confederate Monument (1908), Leesburg, Virginia

One of my first exposures to Civil War memorials in Massachusetts came during a family trip to Nantucket in 2009. I snapped a photograph of the memorial there while touring the island with my wife. The town erected this simple memorial in 1875 as a tribute to the local whalers and farmers who had fought and died for the Union. The memorial reminds us that even a remote place like Nantucket felt the war's impact in a very real way.

Civil War Memorial (1875), Nantucket, Massachusetts

This past October I traveled to Great Barrington, Massachusetts, a charming small town in the heart of the Berkshires. There too I found a Civil War monument dedicated to local citizens who had fought for "liberty and union." The impressive monument, unveiled in front of the City Hall in 1876, is topped by a bronze statue of the goddess Victory. Great Barrington took its obligation to the town's native sons very seriously and kicked in about $5,000 to erect the monument. Private citizens contributed the balance. The effort to place a monument also spurred the construction of the new City Hall at the time.

Civil War Monument (1876), Great Barrington, Massachusetts

Inscription on the Great Barrington Civil War Monument

Union and Confederate soldiers may have fought for different causes, but war monuments both North and South have much in common. These memorials represent communities' means of honoring locals who served and died during the conflict. They stand as a vivid reminder that the Civil War once reached into every corner of the nation. People today may rush past these monuments, or view them as historical curiosities, or try to politicize them through a modern lens, but at one time, they represented the very real emotions of generations who were touched by war in some personal way. The next time you walk through Old Town, or vacation in New England, stop before these memorials and listen. They have a lot to tell us about war and remembrance.

Sources
Tara Bahrampour, "Despite Virginia's Role in Electing First Black President, Confederate Soldier Statues Hold Their Ground," Washington Post, March 21, 2009; The Historical Marker Database, Entry on the Confederate Statue, Alexandria, VA: The Smithsonian Institution Research Information System, Smithsonian American Art Museum, Art Inventories Catalog, "Civil War Monument 'Victory'"; Eduard Stackpole, "The Forgotten Town in the Sea is Rediscovered: The Beginning of Nantucket's Great Revival--1870," Historic Nantucket, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Fall 1988); Charles James Taylor, History of Great Barrington (1882); Thomas Balch Library, Leesburg, VA, Leesburg Confederate Monument Collection, 1901-1908 (PDF file);

The Sickliest Soldiers in the Army: The Vermont Brigade at Camp Griffin

2011-10-27T06:51:00.004-04:00

Fall colors dot the landscape this time of year across Northern Virginia. But feeling a little scratch in my throat, and hearing co-workers cough and sniffle, I am reminded that fall also brings colds and flu. Our contemporary sickness, however, is nothing compared to what young soldiers experienced during the first autumn and winter of the Civil War. The Union Army camps around Washington were breeding grounds for disease, which spread rapidly from one person to the next in unsanitary and crowded conditions.

The Vermont Brigade suffered from a relatively high rate of illness during its stay at Camp Griffin near Lewsinville, Virginia from October 1861 to March 1862. The outbreak of diseases became noticeable starting in November 1861, as typhoid and other fevers, measles, pneumonia, and diarrhea spread through Camp Griffin. State authorities in Vermont soon became aware of the epidemic, and the governor dispatched Dr. Edward E. Phelps to investigate. In December, he observed:

. . . of the men of the five regiments, numbering 4,939 on the ground, no less than 1,086, or about one-fourth, were excused from duty in consequence of sickness. Of these, 201 were sick in hospital, 245 sick in their tents, and 550 able to be up and about though unfit for duty. (Benedict 237.)

Dr. Phelps considered that the rate of illness was possibly due to the fact that "the regiments had been too long stationary in their camps, on soil which had became saturated with noxious elements." (Benedict 238.)

By January 1862, the Army of the Potomac's medical director, Charles S. Tripler, reported:

[T]he Vermont regiments in [Gen. W.T.H.] Brooks's brigade give us the largest ratio of sick, of all the troops in this army, and that ratio has not essentially varied for the last three months. They suffered in the first place from measles. Since then they have been and are the subjects of fevers, remittent and typhoid. (in Benedict 238-39.)

The reasons provided by doctors for this high ratio is laughable by 21st century standards. Because food and clothing were allegedly adequate at the time, Tripler attributed the disease among the Vermonters to some ill-defined "nostalgic element" that affected them "unfavorably." (in Benedict 239.) The confidence of the Union Army's doctors in the Vermonters' constitution never rose very high. In an 1863 report on conditions during his time as medical director, Tripler noted that "[t]he frequent alarms in some portions of our lines were considered by some of the medical officers as a cause of disease. This was particularly the case in front of some of the Vermont troops in Brooks' brigade." (OR, 1:5, 83.) So much for Yankee toughness.

Disease affected the various regiments of the Vermont Brigade differently. Benedict's account of Vermont in the Civil War records that before the end of November 1861, the 6th Vermont had around one-third unfit for duty due to disease, with forty felled by sickness each day. (Benedict 211.) Tripler reported that in January 1862, "the Fifth Vermont, 1,000 strong, had 271 sick; the Fourth, 1,047 strong, had 244 sick; while the Second, 1,021 strong, had but 87, and the Third, 900 strong, had but 84." (OR, 1:5, 92.)

The exact cause of the variation in rates of disease within the same brigade is the subject of speculation. The 4th Vermont, which suffered from a great proportion of sick, was encamped near a brook that received runoff from ground where the cavalry had kept about one thousand horses. (Benedict 160-61.) When the 4th Vermont moved to a better spot in December, the disease rate began to drop. Benedict attributed the lower overall rate of illness in the 2nd Vermont to the "more healthful location" of its camp and the "excellent care taken of the men by its colonel and his medical staff." (Benedict 100.)

Hospital tents in the vicinity of Washington, DC (courtesy of Library of Congress)

The dreadful conditions in camp had a profound impact on the men. They never quite knew whether they would be next to fall ill. As one soldier of the 2nd Vermont remarked upon the appearance of smallpox, "I hope and pray that we shall not be visited by this awful disease." (in Zeller 52.) And pray some of the men did. The 6th Vermont, surrounded by the death and suffering associated with disease, held well-attended prayer meetings every evening.

The state and federal authorities took various steps to remedy the dire situation faced by the Vermont Brigade. Tripler felt that removing the sick Vermonters from the view of their fellow soldiers would boost morale and lessen susceptibility to illness. The medical director therefore sent convalescents to Philadelphia to free up room for the Vermont Brigade in the general hospitals around Washington. Five additional surgeons were sent to the brigade, log cabins were built to replace hospital tents, and soldiers were supplied with adequate clothing. Officers also worked to improve camp sanitation. In all, these palliative measures helped to decrease the sick rate by the time the Vermonters moved out of Camp Griffin in March 1862.

Sources
Aside from the OR, the following sources were helpful in compiling this post: George Grenville Benedict, Vermont in the Civil War, Vol. 1 (1886); C. Keith Wilbur, M.D., Civil War Medicine (1998); Paul G. Zeller, The Second Vermont Volunteer Infantry Regiment, 1861-1865 (2002).

A Civil War Magazine That Rocks

2011-10-24T21:41:00.000-04:00

The first edition of The Civil War Monitor made quite a splash in the blogosphere a few weeks ago. Persuaded by the likes of fellow bloggers, many of whom write for one of the magazine's dedicated blogs, I decided to subscribe to The Civil War Monitor. Sure, I could have glanced at the first edition on-line and written my review, but there is something about holding an actual copy and turning pages, the old-fashioned way. My first issue arrived in the mail last week while I was away on business, and I finally had a chance to look through it. Let's just say that I was not disappointed. This magazine rocks.

The Civil War Monitor is a combination of smart, sophisticated, and hip. Printed on high-quality paper, the magazine feels as substantial as its content. The typeface and graphic design bring the look of the Civil War into the 21st century. (Perhaps this was also the motivating factor behind the recent remake of Civil War Times.) Consider the spread on "Voices," which splashes across the page a plethora of captivating and sometimes disturbing quotes on the start of the war. Or check out "By the Numbers," a series of simple pictographs depicting the resource differences between North and South. These types of features resemble a news magazine layout, making the Civil War an almost contemporary experience. The "Travels" section on Gettysburg goes beyond the sites to offer suggestions on lodging and food which could rival Conde Nast Traveler. The foodie in me liked that The Civil War Monitor strayed from the usual chain restaurants and recommended a winery, a Thai restaurant, and a coffee house. Think of it as Yuppie meets the Civil War! And there appear to be no ads for those kitchy Lost Cause items, although I don't know if this was a conscious decision on the part of the publisher.

Premier edition of The Civil War Monitor (courtesy of the magazine's website)

The Civil War Monitor, my friends, is not just about the "look." Most importantly, the magazine offers in-depth, well-written articles on various aspects of the Civil War, including military history, memory, and politics. These articles even contain end notes, lending the magazine the air of a scholarly journal. One particularly insightful article by PhD student Brian Matthew Jordan focuses on Union ex-POWs and remembrance. I could spend hours alone reading and thinking about the pieces in this premier issue.

Book reviews round out The Civil War Monitor. Rather than examining individual books, the three reviews in this edition discuss "Essential Reading on the Coming of the Civil War," "Recent Battle Books," and "The Books That Built Me." The critics do not mince words. Robert Krick, for instance, dismisses books about Glendale and Fair Oaks as affording "not even a minuscule scrap of new information." It is welcome to see such honest, insightful reviews.

A companion website compliments the print edition of The Civil War Monitor and provides access to photo essays, two main blogs, and other features. The magazine also offers a very active Facebook page and Twitter feed. Such a solid on-line presence indicates the publisher's decision to harness the power of both old and new media to reach a broad audience of Civil War enthusiasts.

I strongly recommend that readers of this blog subscribe to The Civil War Monitor. The magazine will satisfy your inner Civil War craving. And your significant other just might ask you, "Since when did the Civil War become so cool?"

Back to Where They Started After Manassas: Johnston Moves the Army to Centreville

2011-10-13T06:17:00.001-04:00

As I wrote in a series of recent posts, the Confederates left their advanced positions in Northern Virginia at the end of September 1861 and fell back to Fairfax Court House. Commander Joseph Johnston, along with Generals P.G.T. Beauregard and G.W. Smith, had recommended an offensive action to Jefferson Davis on October 1, but the Confederate President nixed any plans for a grand invasion across the Potomac. Johnston was left to contemplate his next move.

The commanding general recognized the vulnerability of his army's position at Fairfax. As Johnston recalled in his Narrative after the war, "[t]he semicircular course of the Potomac, and roads converging from different points on it to our position, made it easy for the Federal army to turn either of our flanks without exposing its own communications." (Johnston 77.) Johnston worried that the Union Army's growing capabilities rendered the Fairfax line "more hazardous" than before. (Johnston 77.)

According to Alfred Roman's biography of Beauregard, Johnston first suggested that the army establish a new position at Manassas, but Beauregard, "fearing the bad effect upon the army and the people of a retreat to the point held by us before our late victory, proposed Centreville instead." (Roman 154.) Given concerns that Centreville "was somewhat commanded by a succession of heights too distant to be embraced within the Confederate line," Beauregard also offered to take charge of establishing defensive positions. Johnston's Narrative does not discuss Beauregard's role in selecting Centreville, and Roman's book, which is likely Beauregard's ghostwritten autobiography, may give Old Bory too much credit.

Johnston finally issued the order for the army to move to Centreville in mid-October.* The position was less exposed than Fairfax and sat not far from the critical railroad junction at Manassas. The divisions of James Longstreet and Earl Van Dorn occupied the ground between Union Mills and Centreville, with the position at Union Mills anchoring the Confederate right. Gen. Smith's division was sent to the heights above the Warrenton Turnpike near Centreville, while "Stonewall" Jackson's soldiers were held in reserve to the rear of the town. (Jackson himself would soon take charge of the Valley District of the Department of Northern Virginia and head out to the Shenandoah.) Gen. Jeb Stuart's cavalry force patrolled the countryside in advance of the Centreville line.

Detail of the Centreville area from an 1862 Union Army map (courtesy of the Library of Congress). The circle at the top indicates Centreville and the hills to the north of Warrenton Turnpike. The circle at the bottom shows the location of Union Mills, the right of the Confederate line. Manassas Junction is at the bottom left of the map.

Johnston immediately set to work on the defenses at Centreville, but not all was as formidable as it appeared:

The engineers were directed to fortify the summit of the hill near this village— that, by holding it, the strongest and salient point of the position, with two or three thousand men, the army itself might be free to manoeuvre. As we had not artillery enough for their works and for the army fighting elsewhere, at the same time, rough wooden imitations of guns were made, and kept near the embrasures, in readiness for exhibition in them. To conceal the absence of carriages, the embrasures were covered with sheds made of bushes. (Johnston 78.)

"Centreville, Va., Fort on heights, with Quaker guns," photograph taken in March 1862 after Union occupation (courtesy of Library of Congress).

Private Edgar Warfield recalled the withdrawal of the 17th Virginia to Centreville:

It was with real regret that we left Fairfax. We had spent many pleasant hours at the place, and it was so near home for many of us. But such is a soldier's lot. Previous to leaving camp details were named from several regiments to move telegraph wires and take them to Centreville. The next morning [October 17] found us pitching our tents on our new camp grounds on the heights near the village of Centreville. (Warfield 63.)

The Confederates settled in for a long fall and winter. During the months after First Manassas, many soldiers, including the 17th Virginia, moved eastward to Fairfax Court House and beyond. This ground had been taken with no real bloodshed, but had also been given up without a fight. Now, the views of the unfinished Capitol dome from Munson's Hill were but a memory, and the Confederates sat not far from the very battlefield where they had beaten the Union Army back in July.

Note
*Most accounts indicate that the Confederates fell back sometime between October 16-19. Johnston and Longstreet, for example, mark the event as occurring on October 19, while an October 18 letter home from Longstreet aide Tom Goree indicates that the army headed to Centreville sometime before the 19th. Private Edgar Warfield's memoirs state that his regiment received Johnston's order on the night of October 16 and arrived the next morning at Centreville.

Sources
Thomas W. Cutrer, Longstreet's Aide: The Civil War Letters of Thomas J. Goree (1995); Joseph E. Johnston, Narrative of Military Actions During the Late War Between the States (1874); James Longstreet, From Manassas to Appomattox (1896); Alfred Roman, The Military Operations of General Beauregard in the War Between the States, 1861 to 1865, Vol. 1 (1884); Lee A. Wallace, Jr., 17th Virginia Infantry, from the Virginia Regimental History Series (1990); Edgar Warfield, Manassas to Appomattox: The Civil War Memoirs of Pvt. Edgar Warfield, 17th Virginia Infantry (1996 ed.); Jeffry D. Wert, General James Longstreet: The Confederacy's Most Controversial Solider (1994).

The Union Army Moves into Camp Around Present-Day McLean

2011-10-05T22:29:00.002-04:00

This month marks the 150th anniversary of the Union Army's occupation of Lewinsville and Langley, part of present-day McLean, Virginia. When first writing this blog, I devoted considerable attention to Camps Griffin and Pierpont, which were established in October 1861 around Lewinsville and Langley. Camp Griffin served as the winter quarters for Gen. "Baldy" Smith's division, including the famed Vermont Brigade and a brigade under the command of Gen. Winfield Scott Hancock. Gen. George A. McCall's Pennsylvania Reserve Volunteer Corps established its base at Camp Pierpont. I have also written a lot about McCall's HQ at Langley Ordinary, as well as Smith's HQ at Salona.

Modern-day view of Langley Ordinary, site of Gen. McCall's HQ from October 1861-March 1862. The building is located on Georgetown Pike in Langley, Virginia.

While I am away from the blog for a few days, I wanted to direct readers to some posts I have done on the two camps and related topics:

*For a general discussion of Camps Griffin and Pierpont, including the movement of the Union Army to Lewinsville and Langley in October 1861, check here, here and here.

*For some period photographs of Camp Griffin, take a look here and here.

*The picket war around Lewinsville grew hot in mid-October 1861. See a post I wrote on the skirmishing here.

*Readers will find more about the Pennsylvanians at Langley here.

*For the whole series of posts on the camps, click on the "Camp Griffin" and "Camp Pierpont" labels in the left hand margin under "Topics of Interest."

*Last October I had the opportunity to visit the historic Salona property. My photos can be found here.

*Gen. George McClellan stayed at Salona in October 1861. I wrote a post about the visit last fall.

*Gen. McCall's HQ at Langley Ordinary has been a subject of a few posts. Check here for a tour of Civil War-era Langley, including the Ordinary. See this post for a story about the preservation of the structure.

This fall I plan to post more information about Camps Griffin and Pierpont that I uncovered while doing additional research. There are just so many topics to explore more fully, including camp life and the impact of the war on locals. In the meantime, as we commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Union occupation of my adopted hometown, I invite you to take a look at the work I've done so far if you haven't seen it yet, or if you just want to refresh your memory as we look back to October 1861.

Jefferson Davis Visits Fairfax, Confers with the Top Brass, and Reviews the Army: Sept. 30-Oct. 3, 1861

2011-10-02T21:54:00.000-04:00

As I discussed in a recent post, Confederate commander Joseph E. Johnston wrote to Judah P. Benjamin, the acting Secretary of War in Richmond, urging that Benjamin, a representative, or President Jefferson Davis come to Fairfax Court House to confer about a possible offensive. Benjamin responded to Johnston on September 29, 1861, telling him it was "extremely difficult. . . to determine whether or not we can furnish you the further means you may deem necessary to assume the active offensive." (OR, 1:5, 883.) The secretary in part blamed Johnston for the government's inability to assess the situation: "We have not in the Department a single return from your army of the quantity of ammunition, artillery, means of transportation, or sick in camp or in hospitals, to enable us to form a judgment of what your necessities may be." (OR, 1:5, 883.) Benjamin told Johnston that he had "earnestly requested the President to visit your headquarters in person, and to learn on conference with you the true position of your army in all respects, and the possibility of a prompt offensive movement." Davis "consented to this," and Benjamin hoped that Davis would reach Johnston's camp within a day or two. (OR, 1:5, 883.)

Arrival in Fairfax

The Confederate President boarded the train to Richmond early on September 30 and arrived at Fairfax Station late in the afternoon. Civilians and soldiers lining the route to Fairfax Court House cheered the President as he passed by, and Davis tipped his hat to the admirers. Due to an apparent "misunderstanding," the army never procured a house in Fairfax for the President to use during his visit. (Davis to Varina Davis, Oct. 2, 1861 in Crist & Dix 352.) Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard, however, came to the rescue and brought the President to stay at his headquarters. Generals Johnston and Gustavus W. Smith called on Davis that evening to pay their respects, but "no official subjects were alluded to in that interview." (OR, 1:5, 884-85.)

Jefferson Davis, photo by Matthew Brady, c. 1858-60 (courtesy of Library of Congress).

The October 1 Conference

The next day, October 1, Davis "rode many miles visiting the encampments." (Davis to Varina Davis, Oct. 2, 1861 in Crist & Dix 352.) A couple companies of the 16th Mississippi also took Davis on a reconnaissance mission near the Union lines, which now occupied the high ground around Falls Church that the Confederates had just recently abandoned.

The night of October 1, Davis conferred with Generals Johnston, Beauregard, and Smith at headquarters. Much ink has been spilled on this famous "council of war," at which Davis and the top commanders in Virginia discussed the possibility of assuming the offensive and invading the North. First and foremost, I counsel readers to check out the entire text of Smith's January 31, 1862 memorandum on the conference in the OR. (See OR, 1:5, 884-87.) The memorandum was also signed by Beauregard and Johnston. Davis himself claims to have seen this document for the first time in 1880. (Davis 450.) The accounts by Davis, Johnston, and Roman are also worth reading. (See the sources below for links.) Sherman over at Living in the Past has done a great job of describing the meeting and the subsequent controversy between Davis and his generals over the conference. (See here.) The Civil War Daily Gazette also has a good post on the subject. (See here.)

At the conference, Smith was the first to broach the subject that had compelled Davis to come to Fairfax in the first place. He asked, "Mr. President, is it not possible to put this army in condition to assume the active offensive?" (OR, 1:5, 885.) A discussion ensued. All those present at the conference agreed that "the military force of the Confederate States was at the highest point it could attain without arms from abroad; that the portion of this particular army present for duty was in the finest fighting condition; that if kept inactive it must retrograde immensely in every respect firing the winter, the effect of which was foreseen and dreaded by us all." (OR, 1:5, 885.)

Davis was again asked, "Is it not possible to increase the effective strength of this army, and put us in condition to cross the Potomac and carry the war into the enemy's country? Can you not by stripping other points to the last they will bear, and, even risking defeat at all other places, put us in condition to move forward?" (OR, 1:5, 885.) The generals argued that "success here was success everywhere, defeat here defeat everywhere." (OR, 1:5, 885.) Gen. Beauregard had been pushing a more aggressive strategy for quite some time now, and most certainly wanted to ensure that Davis accepted his plan to invade Maryland and threaten Washington.

Davis got to the point. He wanted to know how many men were needed to take the offensive. Smith said 50,000; Johnston and Beauregard stated a more conservative 60,000. The latter two also claimed that the supplies in Northern Virginia were "entirely inadequate for an active campaign in the enemy's country even with our present force." (OR, 1:5, 886.) Davis opposed the suggestion to transfer soldiers to Virginia. After all, the President was under pressure from all parts of the country to defend the Confederacy. Davis regretted that he could furnish no reinforcements at the time, and even if he could, he had no weapons to arm them.

The generals seemed resigned that "there was no other course left but to take a defensive position and await the enemy." (OR, 1:5, 886.) Davis toyed with the idea of "partial operations" into Maryland to strike a "sudden blow" against Union troops on the lower or upper Potomac. The generals saw too many risks in such a plan and largely rejected the idea. However, they threw a bone to Davis, agreeing that "if any opportunity should occur offering reasonable chances of success, the attempt would be made." (OR, 1:5, 887.) The two-hour conference thus dashed Beauregard's dream of a decisive blow across the Potomac.

Review of the Army

The Confederate President woke up to rain on October 2. Davis wrote to his wife that "if the weather permits, I shall resume my labors and to-morrow hope to return." (Davis to Varina Davis, Oct. 2, 1861 in Crist & Dix 352.) The President also expressed disappointment with what he had seen so far: "The condition of things here is not as good as I expected and the position has nothing but its comfort to recommend it." (Davis to Varina Davis, Oct. 2, 1861 in Crist & Dix 352.) I have not yet found a record of what the President did that day, but the rain may have caused a disruption in Davis' schedule.

The next afternoon, the President reviewed the Confederate troops quartered in the area. Soldiers from several brigades lined the road for about a mile and a half, stretching from Fairfax Court House towards Germantown. Gen. James Longstreet's men, including the 17th Virgina, participated in the spectacle. Tom Goree, an aide to Longstreet, described "quite a display" in a letter to his sister a few days later:

The President & Genls Johnston, Beauregard & Smith, with their aids [sic] & escort, road along the line in front, whilst our bands as they passed were discoursing excellent music. The President would salute each flag as he passed it. After he passed the line, he then took a position, and the line formed into column and passed him, the officers saluting as they passed. (in Cutrer 47.)

Following the review, Longstreet and his staff headed to Beauregard's headquarters to meet with Davis. According to Goree, the President "spoke of the honorable positions we had occupied in the advance" and "asked if we could give him a view of the Potomac." (in Cutrer 47.) Goree, all to aware of the recent evacuation of Munson's and Mason's Hills, replied that "we could have done so, a few days since, but could not now." (in Cutrer 47.) Davis, full of bluster, replied that "I hope that in a short time we will force a view of it, at the Long Bridge." (in Cutrer 47.) How the Confederate President expected that to happen in light of the conference of October 1, he did not say.

Davis boarded a train that night and returned to Richmond. The President's trip had given Johnston the answer he needed. The cautious commander had made the right decision after all in withdrawing his men from their advanced position. Now Johnston would turn to establishing a purely defensive position, and even Fairfax felt a bit too forward for his purposes.

Sources

Aside from the OR, the following sources were useful in compiling this post:

Lynda L. Crist & Mary S. Dix (eds.), The Papers of Jefferson Davis, 1861, Vol. 7 (1991); Thomas W. Cutrer, Longstreet's Aide: The Civil War Letters of Thomas J. Goree (1995); Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Vol. 1 (1881); Joseph E. Johnston, Narrative of Military Actions During the Late War Between the States (1874); Alfred Roman, The Military Operations of General Beauregard in the War Between the States, 1861 to 1865, Vol. 1 1884); Lee A. Wallace, Jr., 17th Virginia Infantry, from the Virginia Regimental History Series (1990); Edgar Warfield, Manassas to Appomattox: The Civil War Memoirs of Pvt. Edgar Warfield, 17th Virginia Infantry (1996 ed.).

A Word from the Management: Some New Formatting and a Busy October

2011-09-30T09:57:00.003-04:00

Here at All Not So Quiet Along the Potomac I try to stick to a schedule of two posts per week, or more if I am lucky. This upcoming month promises to be a busy one for me on both the professional and family fronts. I also need to work on another Civil War-related project that will take some of my limited free time in the evenings. All this means that I will likely be posting with less frequency throughout the month of October. Hopefully things will slow down just a little so that I can get back to a more normal schedule for November.

You may also have noticed that I've made a few relatively subtle changes to the blog. After each post, there is now a tool bar that will enable easier sharing with your friends, family, or colleagues. I've also added a drop-down archive and have reorganized the order on the left-hand margin of the blog. (Note too the Civil War Trust badge, which I've been meaning to install for a while now!) You will see that the post field is a bit wider, so that the text is not scrunched into a narrow column. The different width will also allow me to post larger sized pictures. As always, I welcome feedback about the blog, whether content or format.

Thanks for reading!

Ron

The Confederates Evacuate the Advanced Line, Part II

2011-09-28T06:14:00.002-04:00

The order came on the evening of September 27, 1861. Confederate commander Joseph Johnston worried that his current position left his army exposed and vulnerable. Unless the government in Richmond was prepared to provide the men and materiel for an offensive action, Johnston saw little value in remaining so far forward. Gen. James Longstreet also reported on the twenty-seventh that he received information that his advanced position would be attacked by "a very strong force in a few days." (OR, 1:51:2, 317.) Perhaps this is all Johnston needed to hear. Rather than risk a possible engagement along the forward line, the commander sent his men packing. The Confederates occupying Munson's, Mason's, and Upton's Hills, Falls Church, and other advanced positions were told to fall back towards Fairfax Court House.

The withdrawal played out during the course of the night. According to Longstreet's aide, Tom Goree, "before midnight we had abandoned all the splendid positions (Mason's, Munson's & Upton's Hills) . . . which we held in front of the enemy and in sight of the Potomac & Washington." (in Cutrer 47.) The Confederate Army had surrendered the high ground without a fight.

The 17th Virginia was doing duty in Falls Church when the order came. The regiment marched about three miles outside of town and camped for the night, only to return the next day. The 17th finally left the town for Camp Harrison in Fairfax Court House on the twenty-ninth. A couple soldiers posted a note on the gate to The Falls Church addressed to prospective Union occupiers:

Having been resident denizens of Falls Church for some time, we to-day reluctantly evacuate, not because you intimidate by your presence, but only in obedience to military dictation. We leave you a fire to cook potatoes, also to warm by, as the nights are now uncomfortable on account of their chilling influence. (in Wallace 22.)

Goree wrote that the Confederates regretted leaving the advanced positions, "not only on account of being so pleasantly situated, but we all liked the excitement which our proximity to the Yankees produced." (in Cutrer 47.) He wrongly speculated that "the move was a strategic one, made to try and induce the Yankees to make an advance on us and give us battle in an open field." (in Cutrer 47.)

"General McClellan Occupying the Confederate Position at Munson's Hill," from a period engraving (courtesy of NYPL Digital Gallery). The Union commander wasted no time in crossing the Potomac and riding out to the front upon learning that the Confederates had withdrawn from the area around Munson's Hill.

Goree's boss was not far off the mark as to Union intentions. Around the time the Confederates were marching towards Fairfax, Maj. Gen. George McClellan, commander of the Federal Army of the Potomac, ordered Brig. Gen. Israel Richardson to advance from his position around Bailey's Crossroads and seize Munson's and Upton's Hills from the Confederates. Troops from Brig. Gen. Irvin McDowell's division were to support the right flank of Richardson's brigade. On September 28, Federal soldiers stormed the empty Confederate works on Munson's and Upton's Hills without a fight. The capture of Mason's Hill soon followed. As McClellan wrote to his wife on September 29, "The moral effect of this advance will be great & it will have a bad influence on the troops of the enemy. They can no longer say that they are flaunting their dirty little flag in my face, & I hope they have taken their last look at [Washington]." (Sears 104.) The Confederates, meanwhile, had to determine their next move, but the chances for a fall offensive were not looking so good.

Sources
Russel H. Beatie, Army of the Potomac: McClellan Takes Command: September 1861-February 1862(2002); Thomas W. Cutrer, Longstreet's Aide: The Civil War Letters of Thomas J. Goree (1995); Bradley E. Gernand, A Virginia Village Goes to War: Falls Church During the Civil War (2002); James Longstreet, From Manassas to Appomattox (1896); George B. McClellan, McClellan's Own Story (1887); "Munson's Hill Evacuated by the Rebels," New York Times, Sept. 29, 1861; "The Occupation of Mason's Hill," New York Times, Oct. 2, 1861; Stephen W. Sears (ed.), The Civil War Papers of George B. McClellan: Selected Correspondence 1860-1865 (1989); Lee A. Wallace, Jr., 17th Virginia Infantry, from the Virginia Regimental History Series (1990); Jeffry D. Wert, General James Longstreet: The Confederacy's Most Controversial Solider (1994).

Freeman Store and Museum Included on the Virginia Landmarks Register

2011-09-27T11:54:00.005-04:00

Readers may recall that I have talked about the Freeman Store in Vienna, Virginia a few times in previous posts. (See here and here, for example.) At the time of the Civil War, the building was known as Lydecker Store. The store served as a polling place for the May 23, 1861 vote on the Virginia Ordinance of Secession. Lydecker's was one of three precincts in Fairfax that voted against secession.

Thanks to the Fairfax Civil War Facebook page for making me aware that the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) has placed the store on the Virginia Landmarks Register. The press release can be found here and the application can be found here. The DHR will now forward the application to the National Park Service for a decision on whether to include the Freeman Store on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

I would invite readers to take a look at the application, which contains a wealth of information about the store during the Civil War. I am also honored that my blog was cited in support of the history included in the application.

Congrats to the Town of Vienna and Historic Vienna, Inc.! An NRHP listing can't be too far away! And to readers who haven't visited, I would recommend stopping by this site the next time you are in the area.

The Confederates Evacuate the Advanced Line, Part I

2011-09-26T06:11:00.002-04:00

As September 1861 drew to a close, Confederate Gen. Joseph E. Johnston pondered his next move. His line stretched from around Flint Hill through Fairfax Court House and Fairfax Station to Sansgter's Crossroads. The advanced forces of the Confederate Army sat astride Munson's and Mason's Hills, within a few miles of the Union lines and Washington. The exposed position of the advanced elements worried Johnston, and only a few weeks before, he had vetoed Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard's suggestion for a general advance closer to the Federal capital.

Gen. Joseph E. Johnston (courtesy of Library of Congress)

On September 26, Johnston wrote to Confederate Secretary of War Judah P. Benjamin in Richmond. The general noted that his objective in occupying his present position in Northern Virginia was "to remove the troops from the unhealthy atmosphere of the valley of Bull Run and to be ready to turn the enemy's position and advance into Maryland whenever the strength of this army would justify it." (OR, 1:5, 881.) However, "the numbers and condition of this army have at no time justified our assuming the offensive. To do so would require more men and munitions." (OR, 1:5, 882.) Johnston put the choice starkly before the Secretary:

We are not now in a strong defensive position either to fight a battle or to hold the enemy in check. The position was occupied for a different purpose. It is now necessary to decide definitely whether we are to advance or fall back to a more defensible line. There are very grave and serious objections to the latter course, and the idea even should not be entertained until after it is finally determined to be impracticable to place this army in such condition as would justify its taking at an early day the active offensive. (OR, 1:5, 882.)

The general took aim at the Confederate government's ability to organize for an advance:

The difficulty of obtaining the means of establishing a battery near Evansport and length of time required for the collection of those means have given me the impression that you cannot at present put this army in condition to assume the offensive. (OR, 1:5, 882.)

Johnston, for all his doubts, gave the Secretary a chance to prove him wrong:

If I am mistaken in this, and you can furnish those means, I think it important that either his excellency the President of the Confederate States, yourself, or some one representing you, should here upon the ground confer with me in regard to this all-important question. (OR, 1:5, 882.)

The response from the War Department could not come soon enough. Johnston's anxieties about the state of Confederate preparedness troubled him, and it was only a matter of hours before Johnston would take action to deal with his army's vulnerabilities.

Lewinsville, Round 2: The Confederates Encounter "Baldy" Smith's Men Once Again

2011-09-21T06:25:00.005-04:00

Last year I wrote about a skirmish that occurred in Lewinsville a couple weeks after the better-known encounter there on September 11, 1861. (See here.) While researching the September 25 engagement, I noticed the lack of sources telling the Confederate side of the story. In fact, the OR does not appear to contain any official Confederate reports on the skirmish. I was left wondering about the identity of the Confederate units who attacked Brig. Gen. "Baldy" Smith's men near the tiny Northern Virginian hamlet. Following additional research, I recently uncovered more about Confederate involvement in this minor and relatively bloodless action. So, for my 150th anniversary post, I'd like to take a closer look at the Confederates who participated in the skirmish at Lewinsville.

Around nine in the morning of September 25, Smith led a Union force of 5,100 infantry, 16 guns, and 150 cavalry on a reconnaissance and foraging mission to Lewinsville. Smith deployed his men and guns along the road from Langley to Lewinsville and directed the quartermaster to start loading his wagons with forage. Not long afterwards, a body of Confederate cavalry appeared just east of Lewinsville. Capt. Thaddeus Mott's artillery opened fire on the troopers and drove them away. In all likelihood, the cavalry scouts returned to the Confederate advanced line near Falls Church to warn of the Federal expedition.

The Confederates quickly prepared for battle. Gen. James Longstreet assembled a force consisting of the 1st Georgia, 9th Georgia, 2nd South Carolina, 13th Virginia, 17th Virginia, 1st Virginia Cavalry, and Capt. Thomas Rosser's Washington Artillery of New Orleans. (Gernand 94-95; see also Wallace 21.)* Three of these units -- the 1st Virginia Cavalry, 13th Virginia, and Washington Artillery -- had fought Smith's men only a few weeks earlier at the first "Battle of Lewinsville." The soldiers organized around The Falls Church and set out on the road to Lewinsville (likely today's Great Falls Street). The Confederates also loaded all of their wagons and sent them to Fairfax Court House, presumably to avoid capture of supplies in the event of a Union victory. As Longstreet's aide, Tom Goree, told his mother a couple days later, the Confederates were "expecting to have a very severe fight." (in Cutrer 45.)

By three in the afternoon, Smith had gathered an incredible 90 wagon loads of forage. The general recalled his skirmishers and sent the wagons back to the Federal lines. At about 4 p.m., just as Smith's men were preparing for their return to camp, the Confederates struck. Smith described the opening of the skirmish in his official report:

[W]e could see advancing over the hills from the Falls Church road what seemed to be a large regiment, marching rapidly in close column and others deployed as skirmishers, with the apparent intention of turning our flank. At the same time they opened fire with seemingly one gun on our extreme left, but at too great distance for any effect, which ceased entirely. . . . Their cavalry was seen in small bodies, moving through the corn fields and woods to our left and on the Lewinsville road. (OR, 1:5, 216.)

Rosser, likely realizing that his guns were having little impact, moved them into position to the right of the Union force "at about 2,500 yards," where he opened fire on Mott's section at Mackall's House. (OR, 1:5, 216.) Federal artillery under Mott and Capt. Charles Griffin answered the Confederate guns. Some of the Union rounds fell among the infantry gathered at the graveyard of the Lewinsville Presbyterian Church. The two sides exchanged about 30 rounds before the skirmish ended with little, if any, participation by the infantry. Smith recalled that "we could see their dust as they retreated on the Falls Church road." (OR, 1:5, 216.) Smith's men moved slowly back to camp, where they arrived about seven that evening.

Thomas L. Rosser, commander of the Confederate artillery at Lewinsville, who rose to become a cavalry general (courtesy of Wikipedia).

The Confederates, however, had not left the scene entirely. Rosser hauled one gun to a hill overlooking the crossroads at Langley and around dusk fired four or five shots. Smith sent a scout to investigate, but by the time he arrived, the Confederates were gone. First Sergeant W.H. Andrews of the 1st Georgia remembered that the Confederates returned to Falls Church "as proud as if we had really been in a battle of some consequence." (in Gernand 95.)

Smith reported that one man was wounded "slightly in the arm" by a bursting shell. (OR, 1:5, 217.) Tom Goree wrote to his mother on September 27 that the Union Army "got some of the best of this fight, as they killed one of our men, and took another prisoner, who rode up to them mistaking them for friends." (in Cutrer 45.) Andrews' account differs in that he recalled that two men, both from the 2nd South Carolina, were killed during the skirmish. In all, casualties had been light, just as in the encounter of September 11.

Clearly the armies were restless, and many soldiers must have felt the anticipation of a big battle approaching. Within a period of just two weeks, Confederate and Union forces had clashed at Lewinsville, a village not far from Longstreet's advanced line. The second skirmish involved even greater numbers than the first. As Goree wrote on September 27, "I think, Mother, that the fight will come off somewhere in a very few days. We will either advance or the enemy will." (in Cutrer 45.) The young aide was probably not alone in his sentiments as the two armies headed into the first autumn of the war.

Notes
*According to a first-hand account by First Sergeant W.H. Andrews, his regiment, the 1st Georgia, marched to Lewinsville with the 9th Georgia, 2nd South Carolina,13th Virginia, "Col. [Jeb] Stuart's Regiment of Black Horse Cavalry" (1st Virginia Cavalry), and Rosser's battery. (Gernand 95.) Wallace's history of the 17th Virginia places the 17th at Lewinsville along with the 2nd South Carolina and two guns of the Washington Artillery. (Wallace 21.)

Sources
"Another Important Reconnoissance [sic] Near Washington," New York Times, Sept. 26, 1861; Thomas W. Cutrer, Longstreet's Aide: The Civil War Letters of Thomas J. Goree (1995); Bradley E. Gernand, A Virginia Village Goes to War: Falls Church During the Civil War (2002); Lee A. Wallace, Jr., 17th Virginia Infantry, from the Virginia Regimental History Series (1990).

Addendum, September 26, 2011
Thanks to reader Dudley Bokoski for pointing out a reference to the September 25 skirmish at Lewinsville in a report from Gen. James Longstreet in which he blamed Col. Joseph Kershaw of the 2nd S.C. for not striking a decisive blow. (See OR, 1:51:2, 314.) As Longstreet said, "I am inclined to think that the failure of the effort is due entirely to Colonel Kershaw's getting on a different road from the one I intended he should have taken. Had he been up to time there is no doubt but there would have been one more Bull Run affair. As things miscarried, the enemy discovered us in time to get a good start." Unfortunately, neither Kershaw's nor Stuart's reports of the skirmish survive.

Frank Leslie's and a View of the Area Near Chain Bridge

2011-09-15T21:44:00.001-04:00

Part of my Civil War hobby involves collecting Civil War era books and newspapers. I have found that newspapers in particular are an affordable way to own an actual piece of Civil War history. Some relatively well-preserved editions can be purchased for as little as $40, which isn't bad when considering how old they are. A short while ago, I decided it was time to take a look again at what was available on eBay. Unable to resist, I ended up purchasing a January 18, 1862 copy of Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper.

January 18, 1862 edition of Frank Leslie's. The top illustration depicts Federal troops moving along the Louisville & Nashville R.R. and the Louisville & Nashville Turnpike in Kentucky, while the bottom one shows Confederate guns firing on Dam No. 5 near Williamsport, Maryland in December 1861.

This edition of Frank Leslie's may strike readers as covering a relatively quiet period in the war out East. There is a brief discussion of the Confederate movement on Dam No. 5 on the Potomac, but other than that, not much of significance had happened. Out West, things were a little more active, and the paper takes a look at Gen. Don Carlos Buell's movements in Kentucky. (The Battle of Mill Springs would actually take place the day following the publication of the paper.)

Sure, I could have purchased editions of Harper's Weekly or Frank Leslie's from far sexier times. But the main reason I bought the paper has to do with the following illustration:

The title of the lithograph is "New Military Road Near the Chain Bridge, Virginia," based on a sketch by the newspaper's "special artist with the Grand Army of the Potomac." (Click image for a larger view.) The illustration depicts a Federal wagon train descending the Leesburg & Georgetown Turnpike (today's Chain Bridge Road/VA-123). Chain Bridge is off to the left at the bottom of the hill and not depicted here. Ft. Marcy was located not far uphill from the site of the engraving. The new Military Road (now N. Glebe Road), which led to Ft. Ethan Allen, veers to the right at the bottom of the hill and crosses over Pimmit Run. The scenery looks today very much like it did then. I'd insert a modern shot, but the late summer foliage is still too thick to make a good comparison. A contemporary map of the area can be found here.

I had seen a few reproductions of this image in books and am now glad to be the owner of an original copy. I cross over this very ground on my way to Chain Bridge every weekday morning. This lithograph carries me back to a time when the roads around Northern Virginia served as vital transportation networks for the Union Army. And it reminds all of us that what may now be mundane commuter roads were once worthy of national attention.

Beauregard Writes to Jefferson Davis About the Affair at Lewinsville

2011-09-12T21:52:00.000-04:00

The skirmish at Lewinsville was rather small and inconsequential in the scheme of things, but that didn't stop army commanders from putting their own spin on it. Union Gen. George McClellan certainly took the opportunity to tell his bosses that the victory meant "no more Bull Run affairs." Likewise, Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard wrote to President Jefferson Davis in Richmond on September 13, 1861. He boasted:

On the 11th instant we had quite a brisk affair d'avant poste at Lewinsville, between about three hundred men and two pieces of artillery on our part, and on that of the enemy three regiments and eight pieces of artillery, which resulted in their complete rout, with the known loss of about one dozen men killed, wounded, and prisoners. "Nobody hurt" on our side, not even a horse!*

The claim of a "complete rout" was certainly exaggerated. Gen."Baldy" Smith's men, under Col. Isaac Stevens, were already getting ready to head back to camp when they were attacked by Col. Jeb Stuart, and the Union force's withdrawal from Lewinsville under fire was a pretty orderly affair.

The home that served as Beauregard's headquarters in Fairfax Court House (courtesy of Library of Congress)

Beauregard added that Gen. Joseph E. Johnston's report on the skirmish, which was forthcoming, "does so much credit to Colonel Stuart, of the cavalry." Beauregard praised both Stuart and Gen. James Longstreet as "two very promising officers." (Stuart, during this time, was operating as part of Longstreet's command in the Munson's Hill/Mason's Hill area.) Beauregard informed Davis of his intention to move Longstreet's whole brigade to Falls Church and Gen. Richard Ewell's brigade to Annandale, where they could "support, at a moment's notice, the forces at and about Munson's and Mason's hills." Beauregard himself had just moved his headquarters to Fairfax Court House, "so as to be nearer the scene of operations."

Beauregard was expecting a full-scale Union attack, and the recent Union reconnaissance at Lewinsville had done little to disabuse him of such notions. He warned Davis:

I am under the impression, from all I can learn, that the enemy, whenever ready, will make a strong demonstration in our front, and then endeavor to turn this place, either by Dumfries, on the lower Potomac, or by Leesburg, on the upper Potomac; in either case we ought to be prepared to strike him from Camp Pickens [Manassas] as a centre, for which purpose we must have collected at that point a large depot of provisions and ammunition.

Beauregard used the threat of a possible Federal advance to plug his ideas for army reorganization. He wrote that the Confederate Army of the Potomac "ought to be under one head, with also one head to each of the two corps of said army; for the general-in-chief of such a large force has too much to engross his time and attention, to be able to discharge also the important duties of chief of a corps d'armee." Davis was to give these suggestions "serious and immediate consideration, as I believe no time is to be lost in this matter."

Beauregard finished his letter with a post script to Davis: "General McClellan is said, by the prisoners, to have been present at Lewinsville." The general must surely have cracked a smile at the image of the Union army commander presiding over the rout of his own forces. The reality, of course, was much different, but McClellan did ride out to meet the Union forces as they returned to camp from Lewinsville.

I have not seen a copy of Davis' response to Beauregard's letter, if there ever was one. In a few short weeks, however, the Confederate President would travel to Fairfax and confer with his leading generals on issues of organization and strategy. In the meantime, the Confederates would continue to wait and watch along the advanced line near Falls Church and Annandale.

Note
*The Union force of 1,800 men consisted of the 79th New York, four companies of the First Regiment U.S. Chasseurs, two companies of the 2nd Vermont, two companies of the 3rd Vermont, five companies of the 19th Indiana, four guns of Captain Charles Griffin's battery, and a detachment of 50 regular cavalry and 40 volunteer cavalry. A section of Captain Thaddeus Mott's battery was also brought to the front and fired on the Confederates.

Source
The official correspondence cited in this post can be found in Alfred Roman, The Military Operations of General Beauregard in the War Between the States, 1861 to 1865, Vol. 1, p. 477-78 (1884).

The 150th Anniversary of the Battle of Lewinsville

2011-09-09T06:22:00.002-04:00

This upcoming Sunday marks the 150th anniversary of the so-called "Battle of Lewinsville." Living right down the street from Lewinsville, which is now a part of McLean, Virginia, I have taken a particular interest in the minor fight that occurred there on September 11, 1861. Not long after starting this blog, I began to research the Battle of Lewinsville and wrote a few posts about some interesting aspects of the engagement.

As a quick recap, on September 11, Union Brig. Gen. William F. "Baldy" Smith sent a force of about 1,800 men, accompanied by four guns, to conduct reconnaissance at Lewinsville. The soldiers, under the immediate command of Col. Isaac Stevens, left Camp Advance around 7:30 a.m. and arrived in the village about two and a half hours later. Around 2 p.m., the mission was complete, and recall was sounded. As the Union soldiers prepared for their return to camp, over 300 Confederates under the command of Col. J.E.B. Stuart launched an attack from the direction of Falls Church. Heavy artillery dueling ensued as the Union force fell back towards Washington. Smith himself arrived on the scene with two additional artillery pieces. Both sides claimed victory, and casualties were light.

As we approach the anniversary of the Battle of Lewinsville, I thought I would direct readers to a few posts that I have done on the subject:

*Last summer, I looked at the role the 79th New York "Highlanders" played at Lewinsville. The regiment's story is one of redemption following a disgraceful mutiny in August 1861. See here for a post on how the 79th lost its colors, and see here for a detailed account of the 79th in action at Lewinsville.

*Jeb Stuart won accolades for his performance at Lewinsville, where he led a small force of the 1st Virgina Cavalry, 13th Virginia Infantry, and two guns of the Washington Artillery of New Orleans against far superior Union numbers. Stuart apparently lost no men. Check out this post on how Stuart was promoted to brigadier general in part because of his bold (and some may say reckless) leadership at Lewinsville.

*Gen. George McClellan, commander of the Army of the Potomac, reacted very favorably to the Union Army's performance at Lewinsville. In June of last year, I discussed McClellan's boast to President Lincoln on the day of the skirmish.

A few books discuss the Battle of Lewinsville, but I have found some inaccuracies. One book, for example, places the engagement in Vienna, Virginia at the same site as the Confederate attack on the 1st Ohio in June 1861! (See Russel H. Beatie, Army of the Potomac: McClellan Takes Command: September 1861-February 1862, p. 7 (2002)). The best and most accurate account I have read so far is "A Civil War Action in Lewinsville, Virginia, 11 September 1861," by Edgar R. Hon in the Yearbook of the Historical Society of Fairfax County, Vol. 29 (2003-04).

Unfortunately, current visitors to Lewinsville have little way of knowing what occurred there 150 years ago. I understand that a Civil War Trails marker or a Fairfax County historical marker commemorating the Battle of Lewinsville is going to be installed in McLean. I will let readers know when I find out more, but such a marker would be a welcome sight.

A current view of the Gilbert house, where the Confederate attack on pickets of the 79th New York unfolded at Lewinsville. Jeb Stuart placed his guns to the right of the house and opened fire on the retiring Union soldiers. Known today as "Meadowbrook," the home is located in Lewinsville Park off Chain Bridge Road in McLean. The Fairfax County Inventory of Historic Sites lists the date of construction as circa 1860, although according to Carole Herrick's history of McLean, the farmhouse dates to 1847. The house was damaged during the Civil War, and in 1941, the owners made numerous additions. Fairfax Country acquired the property in 1973.

A Word About 9/11

The Battle of Lewinsville, which has always lived in the shadows of the larger engagements of the Civil War, now shares an anniversary date with the tragedy of 9/11. It is sometimes difficult for us to imagine a battle occurring in a place that has been so transformed since the mid-19th century. But think how hard it would have been for a soldier at Lewinsville to grasp that in 140 years to the day, a united America would experience one of the most violent and traumatic attacks in the nation's history. That horrible day ten years ago is still very much with us, both individually and collectively as a country. I remember distinctly standing on the top floor of my law firm in downtown DC, looking out at the smoking Pentagon across the Potomac. I remember too not knowing whether the White House, right next door, would be a target for the terrorists. The fear gripped me, and like hundreds, if not thousands, of others in Washington, I joined the exodus out of town by foot. I still get choked up just thinking about it all. As I conclude this post, I'd like to remember all those who lost their lives in the terrorist attacks of a decade ago. You are in our thoughts and prayers. America, and the world, will never forget.

Beauregard Urges a General Movement Closer to Washington: Not So Fast!

2011-09-05T22:13:00.000-04:00

As September 1861 got underway, Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard grew restless. Some advanced Confederate units were already sitting on the hills outside of Falls Church and Annandale. But Beauregard, concerned about the vulnerability of the Confederate's forward position and eager to take a more aggressive stance, made a plea to his superior, Gen. Joseph E. Johnston. On September 6, Old Bory wrote a note to Johnston:

I have been reflecting much on our advanced positions since my visit to them, and I think, under the present circumstances, we can neither give them up, nor allow them to be taken from us by a coup de main, or an attack in force, for the effect on the morale of the enemy would be tremendous. From what I saw the other day, our reserves at Fairfax Court-House, and Station (about eight miles back), are too far back to be able to come up in time to the assistance of those advanced positions; hence we must make up our minds, I think, to advance them, for the present at any rate. . . .(in Roman, 476.)

Beauregard recommended moving several brigades forward from their present positions. Most critically, he suggested that Johnston strengthen the advanced positions along the Confederate line at Munson's and Mason's Hill. As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, these two prominences had been occupied at the end of August with a relatively small force under Gen. James Longstreet and Col. J.E.B. Stuart. Beauregard wanted Longstreet, who was currently encamped at Fairfax Court House, to move his entire brigade to Munson's Hill. He recommended that one brigade be sent to Mason's Hill and another to a spot between both hills. Beauregard also urged Johnston to send one brigade to a spot near Vienna, two brigades to Falls Church, two brigades to Annandale, and one brigade to Springfield.

The hero of Ft. Sumter made sure to anticipate Johnston's objections. He recommended that other brigades "might be put at Centreville, Fairfax Court House and Station, as a second reserve. . . ." (in Roman, 476.) These soldiers "might occasionally be moved towards the Potomac to keep the enemy constantly alarmed for the safety of Washington, and to cross Maryland should he send off a large force from Washington to any point on the lower Potomac," where Beauregard anticipated a Union attack. (in Roman, 476.)

Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard (courtesy of Wikipedia).

Sitting at his writing table in Manassas, Johnston dashed off a reply to Beauregard on the same day. Beauregard's plea for a more aggressive stance did not go over well. He told Beauregard, in no uncertain terms:

I cannot perceive the advantage of placing ourselves so near the enemy's works as you propose (the line of Munson's and Mason's hills, etc.). They seem to me too strong to be attacked by us with our present means. We can rely upon sufficient supplies neither of ammunition, ordnance, nor provisions. (Roman, 476.)

Johnston worried that an general advance would "bring on a war of outposts and continual skirmishing, which would gradually improve the United States troops, and so diminish the difference now existing in our favor." (in Roman, 476.)

The commanding general thought that the Confederates had already gone far enough:

The line of Fairfax Court-House seems to me sufficiently forward for our purposes, and on it our troops are more easily supplied than on the other. An approach to Washington must be by crossing tho Potomac above. For that we want the men and artillery I have asked for. That line, even, is too far from Evansport [on the lower Potomac], which we must be in position to assist. (in Roman, 476-77.)

Johnston finished with a blunt rebuke of the recent forward movement towards Washington:

I confess that I do not like the present arrangement in front, at Munson's and Mason's hills. In authorizing their occupation I did not mean to have such posts—posts of such maguitnde—established, and now nothing but reluctance to withdraw—to go backward—prevents me from abandoning them. (in Roman, 477.)

Beauregard had his answer. A general advance towards Washington was out of the question, and even the current positions had not earned Johnston's confidence. Beauregard would have to remain satisfied with staying put for the time being.

Source:
The official correspondence cited in this post can be found in Alfred Roman, The Military Operations of General Beauregard in the War Between the States, 1861 to 1865, Vol. 1, p. 473 (1884).

General "Baldy" Smith's Soldiers Enter the Old Dominion State

2011-09-02T06:28:00.002-04:00

Long-time readers of this blog may recall that I have devoted considerable attention to the Civil War history of present-day McLean, Virginia. During the first winter of the war, two Union divisions encamped on the farmlands around Langley and Lewinsville. As we near the 150th anniversary of various happenings in and around my adopted hometown, I thought readers might be interested in the origins of the Union Army's presence around here.

In some recent posts, I've discussed how the Confederates moved ever closer to the nation's capital during August 1861. By the end of the month, Confederates were entrenched on the hills near Falls Church, where they could look across the river to Washington and the unfinished Capitol dome. The Union commander of the Army of the Potomac, Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan, was well aware of the Confederates in his midst. He had already started strengthening the initial defenses of Washington not long after taking charge of the army, but the Virginia side of the Chain Bridge -- around 10 miles from Falls Church and the Confederate line -- was not yet heavily fortified as September got underway.

The strategic situation would soon change. As McClellan wrote in his memoirs:

On the 3d of Sept., while reviewing troops east of the Capitol, I received dispatches to the effect that the enemy had appeared in force opposite the Chain Bridge and towards Great Falls; also that they were probably on the point of advancing along their whole line. After giving the necessary orders at other points I rode to Gen. [William F. "Baldy"] Smith's headquarters at the Chain Bridge, and determined to move his brigade across the river during the night and to entrench a position on the Virginia side as the surest method of saving the bridge. (McClellan, 95.)

Smith prepared his men for the march to the Old Dominion State. Starting late at night on September 3, and continuing into the early morning of September 4, the Union soldiers slipped across the Chain Bridge and climbed the steep incline of the Leesburg & Georgetown Turnpike under the cover of darkness. The regiments included the 2nd and 3rd Vermont, 19th Indiana, 33rd and 79th New York, and the 2nd and 5th Wisconsin. Smith's men stopped a mile or so past Chain Bridge and encamped on high ground not far from Langley, Virginia.

Brig. Gen. William F. "Baldy" Smith (courtesy of Wikipedia). Smith was born in St. Albans, Vermont in 1824 and graduated from West Point in 1845. He was instrumental in organizing the famed Vermont Brigade of the Army of the Potomac in 1861. Smith rose to become a division and corps commander.

Some of the soldiers thought that McClellan was moving to pounce on the Confederates at Falls Church, but they soon learned that they would be clearing the land and building earthworks and forts. The men immediately got to work constructing what were to become known as Ft. Marcy, northwest of Chain Bridge, and Ft. Ethan Allen, to the south.* Both of these strongholds were built on the property of Gilbert Vanderwerken, who owned an omnibus line in Washington and had purchased over 1,300 acres of pastureland in Virginia for his horses.

The men called their new home, "Camp Advance." The name likely originated from the fact that the brigade had moved so far forward into Virginia. (Zeller, 43.) However, according to another account, "the somewhat formidable title of 'Camp Advance' was given, under the impression that the movement meant a speedy advance upon Richmond." (Benedict, 91-92.)

Smith's men suffered from the endless rain at the start of September. As Alexander Campbell of the 79th New York wrote to his wife on September 6, "[i]t has been damp and dissegreable [sic] weather." (Johnston, 39.) The misery for some soldiers was compounded by the lack of adequate shelter. Both the 2nd Vermont and 5th Wisconsin, and perhaps other regiments, waited about two weeks until they received tents.

"Gen. Smith's Brigade--from Fort Marcy. Chain Bridge, Va.," by Arthur Lumley, Sept. 1861, sketch for Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper (courtesy of New York Public Library Digital Gallery). Based on the caption and date, this sketch appears to depict Camp Advance, or a portion of it. Smith was a brigade commander in September and was still encamped close to Ft. Marcy. In October 1861, as a division commander, Smith pushed his soldiers to a position that would likely have been farther west than is seen in this sketch. This view from Ft. Marcy to the encampments beyond is from the western side of the fort. The Potomac River and Leesburg & Georgetown Turnpike are visible to the right of the sketch.

Close up of above sketch, showing wagons moving down the turnpike with the Potomac River beyond the tents to the right. This part of the pike is today's VA-123.

Aside from digging entrenchments and felling trees, the men at Camp Advance spent their days on picket duty or on scouting missions in the surrounding countryside. Occasionally, the soldiers on reconnaissance brought back Confederate prisoners, horses, and contraband. The men assigned to picket duty also confronted possible dangers, as the Confederates were equally as curious about the Union men who had encamped just over the Chain Bridge and also sent scouting parties to the area.

Detail from an 1862 Union Army map showing the area around Chain Bridge, Ft. Marcy, Ft. Ethan Allen, and Langley (courtesy of Library of Congress). The encircled portion of the map represents the approximate position of Camp Advance based on the sketch above and first-hand accounts of soldiers from the regiments encamped there. Today, the area around the camp and Ft. Marcy is bisected by the GW Parkway.

On September 10, President Lincoln, General McClellan, Secretary of War Simon Cameron, and Pennsylvania Governor Andrew Curtin rode out from Washington to pay a visit to the soldiers at Camp Advance. The men were thrilled to see Old Abe and McClellan, and many soldiers rushed to shake hands with the dignitaries in their presence. The very next day, some of the men would be tested in battle for the first time. But for now, they were just happy to have the monotony of camp life broken by a visit from such esteemed guests.

Note

*In his A Report on the Defenses of Washington to the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, Brevet Major General John Gross Barnard notes that Smith crossed Chain Bridge on September 24, 1861 and began building the two forts. (p. 14.) The reference to the 24th shows up in several sources, including the well-known work on the defenses of Washington, Mr. Lincoln's Forts. However, this date is contradicted by numerous primary and secondary sources, which indicate that Smith entered Virginia on the night of September 3-4 and set to work on the forts shortly thereafter. Perhaps Barnard slipped a "2" before the "4," accidentally, and the mistake stuck!

Sources

Annual Report of the Adjutant General of the State of Wisconsin for the Year Ending September 30th, 1863 (1863); John G. Barnard, A Report on the Defenses of Washington to the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army (1871); George Grenville Benedict, Vermont in the Civil War, Vol. 1 (1886); Civil War in the East (website with army and unit information); The Civil War Letters of Forrest Little (website); Benjamin Franklin Cooling III & Walton H. Owen II, Mr. Lincoln's Forts: A Guide to the Civil War Defenses of Washington (2010 ed.); Terry A. Johnston, Jr., "Him on the One Side and Me on the Other" (1999) (collection of soldiers' letters);George B. McClellan, McClellan's Own Story (1887); NRHP Nomination Form for Ft. Ethan Allen; Second Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry (website with soldiers' letters); Kerry A. Trask, Fire Within: A Civil War Narrative from Wisconsin (1995); Vermont in the Civil War (website with unit information); Paul G. Zeller, The Second Vermont Volunteer Infantry Regiment, 1861-1865 (2002).

A Day in the Life of the War: The 17th Virginia Skirmishes with Soldiers from New Jersey

2011-08-30T06:27:00.002-04:00

This summer I have written a few posts tracing the movements of the 17th Virginia across Northern Virginia after the First Battle of Manassas. The regiment, part of General James Longstreet's brigade, marched from Centreville to Fairfax Court House, where the soldiers established Camp Harrison in early August 1861. The men of the 17th performed occasional picket duty along Longstreet's advanced line, which by the end of August extended to Falls Church and Mason's and Munson's Hills. The 17th Virginia got caught up in the endless series of skirmishing that took place along this part of the line, including an encounter with 3rd New Jersey on August 31. Although lasting less than ten minutes, this skirmish has received its fair share of attention, both in the OR and in Confederate memoirs.

Col. George W. Taylor, commander of the 3rd New Jersey (courtesy of Library of Congress). Taylor would later be promoted to brigadier general and lead the First New Jersey Brigade during the Second Manassas Campaign. He was mortally wounded on August 27, 1862 as he defended a section of the Orange & Alexandria Railroad.

Early in the morning of August 31, Col. George W. Taylor of the 3rd New Jersey set off with about 40 men to cut off the Confederate pickets who had been "extremely annoying to our outposts on the Little River turnpike and on the road leading from thence to Chestnut [Mason's] Hill." (OR, 1:5:1, 121.)* Taylor's men were forced to "cross a fence and a narrow cornfield." (OR, 1:5:1, 121.) A company of the 17th Virginia, however, was prepared and waiting. As Taylor reported to his commander, Brig. Gen. Philip Kearny:

While in the corn we were suddenly opened upon by a rapid and sharp fire, which our men, whenever they got sight of the enemy, returned with much spirit. Scarce two minutes elapsed when I found 3 men close to me had been shot down. The enemy being mostly hid, I deemed it prudent to order my men to fall back to the woods, distant about 30 yards, which I did. At the same time I ordered enough to remain with me to carry off the wounded, but they did not hear or heed my order except two. With these we got all off, as I supposed (the corn being thick), but Corporal Hand, Company I, who, when I turned him over, appeared to be dying. I took his musket, also the musket of one of the wounded, and returned to the woods to rally the men. I regret to say that none of them could be found, nor did I meet them until I reached the blacksmith-shop, three-quarters of a mile distant. (OR, 1:5:1, 121-22.)

Taylor was determined to retrieve his missing men from the cornfield. He quickly reinforced the part of his command under Capt. Leonard Regur with twenty-five soldiers from the picket line and sent the men to gather whatever dead and wounded they could find. Approaching the scene of the recent skirmish, Regur worried that the Confederate force had grown larger and turned his men around rather than enter the cornfield. In his report to Kearny, Taylor defended Regur's decision as "justified." (OR, 1:5:1, 122.)

The sentiment in the Confederate camp was one of victory. Private Edgar Warfield of the 17th Virginia remembered the skirmish as a "brisk fight." (Warfield, 61.) He noted that the 3rd New Jersey was repulsed "with some little loss" to the Union side. (Warfield, 61.) In the meantime, General Jubal Early had arrived in the area with the 5th North Carolina and 24th Virginia to relieve the 17th Virginia.** Early dubbed the the skirmish "a very sharp fight" in which a company of the 17th Virginia had "repulsed the enemy and inflicted a severe punishment on him." (Early, 48.)

General Kearny, the Union brigade commander, apparently had a hard time just leaving the soldiers who had fallen near Mason's Hill. Some time after the skirmish ended and Early's pickets had taken the place of the 17th Virginia, Early was told that "a flag of truce had appeared at the outside picket, where the fight had taken place in the early morning." Early rode to a home near the site of the skirmish. As he recalled:

I . . . had the person bearing the flag brought to me blindfolded. He proved to be a Dr. Coxe, surgeon of the New Jersey regiment, a detachment of which had been engaged in the above named affair. He stated that he came on the part of Colonel Tyler [sic] of the 3rd New Jersey to get the bodies of several men who were missing, and that he was informed that General Kearney [sic], who commanded on that part of the line, had directed Colonel Tyler [sic] to send the party with the flag. (Early, 49.)***

Early was at first unsure of what to do. He informed the doctor "of the irregularity of the proceeding." (Early, 49.) However, "after some conversation in which I endeavored to leave him under the impression that we had a large force in the vicinity, I gave him permission to carry off the dead bodies, two of which he had picked up outside of my picket, and two others having been brought in to the picket before his arrival." (Early, 49.)**** The burial party then arrived and retrieved the Union soldiers who had died in the morning's skirmish.

This story reminded me of how small events in a big war can still leave a very lasting impression on participants. Of all the skirmishes Early and Warfield experienced in one way or another, they never seem to have forgotten the brief firefight around Mason's Hill and the efforts that the Union Army made to ensure that the 3rd New Jersey's dead received a proper burial. It is these seemingly inconsequential actions that marked time 150 years ago this month in Northern Virginia.

Notes

*The OR records the skirmish as taking place "at Munson's Hill, on Little River Turnpike, Va." However, Munson's Hill was located next to the Leesburg & Alexandria Turnpike, not the Little River Turnpike. Mason's Hill sat astride the Columbia Turnpike, which intersected with the Little River Turnpike farther to the south. Mason's Hill was also known as "Chestnut Hill." Given the description of the roads in Taylor's report, and his use of the name "Chestnut Hill," it appears that the OR misnamed the skirmish. Confederate sources cited in this post confirm the location of the action as near Mason's Hill.

**Early stated that his regiments arrived "before light on the morning of the 31st of August," while Warfield remembered that the 17th Virginia was relieved by the two regiments "[d]uring the night of August 31." (Early, 48; Warfield, 61.) Perhaps this discrepancy is due to a lapse in time before Early's men actually moved into position to relieve the 17th. Alternatively, Warfield may have remembered the early morning darkness of the 31st as the night.

*** Warfield also recalled that the 3rd New Jersey "sent over a flag of truce for the purpose of getting their dead." (Warfield, 61.)

****The OR states that the nominal list of Union casualties "shows 2 killed and 3 wounded." (OR, 1:5:1, 122.)

Sources

Aside from the OR, the following sources were useful in compiling this post:

Jubal Anderson Early & R.H. Early (ed.), Autobiographical Sketch and Narrative of the War Between the States (1912); Edgar Warfield, Manassas to Appomattox: The Civil War Memoirs of Pvt. Edgar Warfield, 17th Virginia Infantry (1996 ed.).

The Forgotten War: Fighting Between the Lines Around Bailey's Crossroads

2011-08-25T21:59:00.003-04:00

Earlier this week, I discussed the Confederate capture of Munson's Hill around Bailey's Crossroads in Northern Virginia. Standing in the Bailey's Crossroads area today, it is difficult to imagine the constant firefighting that erupted here following the Confederate advance. Nothing remains of the rural landscape, except for an old, forgotten windmill at the intersection of Columbia Pike and VA-7. And the ground where soldiers marched and died is now occupied by big box stores and apartment buildings. Only a lone marker recalls the fighting that took place here.

By the end of August 1861, Longstreet's advanced elements at Munson's Hill were dug in only a few miles from the Union position around Hunter's Chapel (now the intersection of Columbia Pike and S. Glebe Rd.). Both sides threw out pickets well beyond the main line, which led to numerous encounters. General Jubal Early recalled that "[t]he pickets were constantly skirmishing with those of the enemy." (Early, 48-49.) Longstreet, still struck by the endless series of skirmishes many years later, wrote in his memoirs that "[w]e had frequent little brushes with parties pushed out to reconnoitre." (Longstreet, 59.)

"Munson's Hill, the Advance Post of the Rebel Army on the Potomac," Harper's Weekly, Oct. 5, 1861 (courtesy of sonofthesouth.net). The soldiers in the foreground appear to be Union scouts or pickets. The Confederate flag atop the earthworks on Munson's Hill is visible in the background. This engraving was published after the Confederates had abandoned their advanced positions in Northern Virginia.

In the days that followed Longstreet's occupation of the high ground near Falls Church and Bailey's Crossroads, the small-scale engagements between the two side became particularly heated. The Union Army began to probe the Confederate picket line almost immediately. Longstreet's aide, Tom Goree, soon wrote to his uncle and sister that "[n]ot a day passes without several skirmishes." (Goree, 40.)

"Bailey's Cross Roads, Advanced Post of the United States Army, Opposite Munson's Hill," Harper's Weekly, Oct. 5, 1861 (courtesy of sonofthesouth.net).

Five straight days of action unfolded for the 2nd Michigan on August 28, 1861, when Brig. Gen. Israel Richardson sent Capt. Louis Dillman with 250 men to Bailey's Crossroads to "occupy and hold the same against the encroachments of the enemy's forces in that vicinity."* (Report of Capt. Dillman, OR, 1:5:1, 120.) Arriving at the crossroads from Hunter's Chapel at 11 a.m., Capt. Dillman threw out his pickets. The Confederates quickly opened fire on the soldiers at the crossroads. Skirmishing lasted all day and into the night, only stopping at around 10 p.m.

The next morning, Longstreet's soldiers greeted the Michigan boys with more gunfire. The Union soldiers were slow to respond, and the Confederates sent a party of around 80 men to turn Dillman's right flank and cut him off from the main body of his regiment. The Union pickets retreated, but Captain William Humphrey arrived with 40 men and drove the Confederate forces back. The skirmishing lasted three more days and gradually decreased in intensity. Casualties for the 2nd Michigan were light. Dillman reported only one Union soldier as mortally wounded.**

While stationed at Bailey's Crossroads, a couple men of the 2nd Michigan had an opportunity to scout the Confederate position. As Dillman told Richardson:

Two privates of Company D-J. Austin and P. F. Walworth-straying from camp, passed through the enemy's lines and up to within some forty rods of the rear of their earthwork on Munson's Hill. Seeing two rebels near, they watched their chance, each picked his man, fired, and brought him to the ground. They returned safely to camp. They report seeing about 500 men around the works. There were no tents in sight, but some twelve or fifteen wagons and two pieces of artillery were lying on the back of the hill. They also report seeing a large number of field officers busy looking over their maps and charts. (OR, 1:5:1, 120.)

The 3rd Michigan was also engaged at Bailey's Crossroads for part of the same time period. On August 30, Maj. Stephen Champlin of the 3rd Michigan spotted two companies of Confederates marching from Munson's Hill towards the Union picket line to the right of Bailey's Crossroads. About 100 Confederates hit the Federal pickets, who fell back towards the cover of Dillman's command at the crossroads and a reserve force stationed halfway between Arlington Mill and Bailey's Crossroads along the Columbia Turnpike.*** Champlin took action to reverse the course of the skirmish, using both Dillman's command and soldiers from the 3rd Michigan. As he reported to Richardson after the battle:

I directed Captain Dillman to march one company of his men on the table-land to his right to a point opposite the enemy in the woods and deploy them as skirmishers, advance them across the road, and engage the enemy on their flank, while I brought up and engaged the enemy's front with the reserve stationed half way to the mill. . . and also with a portion of Capt. [S.A.] Judd's command, stationed near Arlington Mill. The order was executed, and the enemy retreated before the skirmishers, and would not and did not wait an engagement. Our pickets were re-established, and the forces of both sides are again in the same position they respectively occupied this morning. (OR, 1:5:1, 119.)

All told, no Union soldiers were killed, and only one or two were slightly wounded. Champlain saw the Confederates carrying away three men, who were either dead or wounded.

Today these skirmishes are for the most part forgotten sideshows of the Civil War. But at the time, all eyes were fixed on Bailey's Crossroads. As the New York Times reported on August 29, 1861, "[t]he Washington Star has several rumors of engagements near Bailey's Cross-roads, and from other sources general rumors are current of skirmishes having taken place. There appears, however, to be nothing reliable." The next day, the Times told readers that "[t]he reported engagements at Bailey's Cross Roads. . . appear, upon investigation, to have been simply affairs of pickets, with little if any bloodshed." Nevertheless, rumors and speculation still abounded in the anxious capital city. The paper reported that "[t]he movement is. . . regarded in some quarters as indicative of an immediate advance of our forces. . . ." Union commander George McClellan, however, was still far from undertaking a major offensive against the Rebels forces in Virginia.

Notes

*Captain Dillman's report to Col. Richardson in the OR indicates that he left Hunter's Chapel on "Thursday, August 28." However, in 1861, the 28th fell on a Wednesday, so either Dillman got the day of the week, or the date, wrong. The Atlas to Accompany the Official Records indicates that the 2nd Michigan was in position around Bailey's Crossroads starting on August 28. (See plate 5.)

A dispatch by a New York Times correspondent dated August 29, 1861 reports that "our picket forces advanced to Bailey's Cross-roads yesterday [August 28], and drove those of the Secessionists a mile and a half beyond, where, it is said the latter have taken possession of a commanding eminence, and are throwing up intrenchments [sic]. There was much firing during the day, but without fatal results." However, no mention is made of the units engaged on the 28th. A special dispatch published in the New York Times on August 29, 1861, indicates that an intense, all-day skirmish took place in Bailey's Crossroads involving the 5th Maine, the 37th and 38th New York, and "a New-Jersey regiment." The 2nd Michigan is not mentioned.

**Owing to the lack of clarity in Dillman's report, his estimates of Confederate losses are a bit confusing. On one day of fighting, he reported "6 or 8 killed and wounded," and then noted that the enemy carried off "some twelve men killed and wounded." It is uncertain whether the sets of numbers should be added together, or whether the six or eight is to be counted among the twelve. On another day of fighting, he noted that the Confederates "were seen to carry a number off the field."

***This action appears to be part of the same Confederate flanking movement described in Dillman's report to Richardson and discussed earlier in the post.

Sources

Aside from the OR and New York Times articles cited above, the following sources were useful in compiling this post:

Thomas W. Cutrer, Longstreet's Aide: The Civil War Letters of Thomas J. Goree (1995); Jubal Anderson Early & R.H. Early (ed.), Autobiographical Sketch and Narrative of the War Between the States (1912); Bradley E. Gernand, A Virginia Village Goes to War: Falls Church During the Civil War (2002); James Longstreet, From Manassas to Appomattox (1896); Charles P. Poland, Jr., The Glories of War: Small Battles and Early Heroes of 1861 (2004).

Longstreet Advances Closer to Washington: The Occupation of Mason's Hill & Munson's Hill

2011-08-22T22:11:00.004-04:00

As I have discussed in previous posts, General James Longstreet stood at the vanguard of the Confederate advance through Northern Virginia in late summer of 1861. During the end of August, Longstreet pushed a force of infantry beyond his picket line at Falls Church, Virginia and closer to the Union capital.* Assisted by Col. J.E.B. Stuart's 1st Virginia Cavalry, the soldiers drove in Federal pickets and seized two prominences that dominated the surrounding countryside -- Mason's Hill and Munson's Hill. The newly captured territory was only a handful of miles from the nation's capital. As Longstreet later recalled, "[w]e were provokingly near Washington, with orders not to attempt to advance even to Alexandria." (Longstreet, 59.) From their new position, the Confederates had a full view of Washington, including the unfinished Capitol dome rising in the distance. They also could observe the Union lines in Northern Virginia as far as Alexandria.

The soldiers set to work digging earthworks on Mason's and Munson's Hills. The heights swept the plains around Bailey's Crossroads, where the Leesburg & Alexandria Turnpike met the Colombia Turnpike.** As long as the Confederate forces were dug in atop these two hills, the Union Army dare not occupy territory closer to Falls Church and Annandale.

A view of Mason's Hill and Munson's Hill from an 1862 Union Army map, showing their proximity to Falls Church and Bailey's Crossroads (courtesy of Library of Congress). Washington sits to the northeast (upper right of the map), about nine miles away. The Leesburg & Alexandria Turnpike runs past Munson's Hill to Falls Church and beyond. At the time this map was drawn, the Union was in control of this area and had erected forts, which are shown here. Today, historical markers are located near the site of the Confederate positions on Mason's and Munson's Hills (see here and here).

The position at Mason's and Munson's Hills was normally held by a couple regiments of infantry, a battery, and Stuart's cavalry. The infantry and artillery units rotated every few days, but Stuart's men remained a permanent fixture. Longstreet remembered in his memoirs that because "the authorities allowed me but one battery. . . we collected a number of old wagon-wheels and mounted on them stove-pipes of different calibre, till we had formidable-looking batteries, some large enough of calibre to threaten Alexandria, and even the National Capitol and Executive Mansion." (Longstreet, 60.) According to Private Edgar Warfield of the 17th Virginia, Co.H, the soldiers had some fun with the stovepipe gun at the Union Army's expense. As he related in his memoirs, "[i]t was a favorite trick to run it out into the center of the road and go through the motions of loading a gun and pointing it at the enemy, who promptly stampeded, under the impression that we had a piece of artillery with us." (Warfield, 60.)

The Confederates, taking full advantage of their position on the high ground, erected signal stations on Mason's and Munson's Hills. Officers from General Wade Hampton's Legion sent messages at night from across the Potomac to Munson's Hill. The Confederates also hatched a clever scheme to relay messages to Munson's Hill from Washington. An ex-Maryland legislator, E. Pliny Bryan, was sent to rent a room in Washington from which Munson's Hill could be seen. As described by E.P. Alexander, who at the time was active in Confederate intelligence gathering and signal work:

[Bryan] was to take the bearing of the hill by compass from his window, and communicate it to us by an agreed-upon advertisement in a daily paper, which we received regularly. This would give us the bearing on which to turn our powerful telescope, loaned for the purpose by a Charleston gentleman, and in position on Munson's Hill. Then we would identify his window by finding a coffee-pot in it, and by motions of the coffee-pot, and opening and shutting the blinds, etc., he would send his messages, and we would reply, if necessary, by a large flag and by firing guns. (Cummins 93.)

The plan was on the verge of being executed in September 1861, when the Confederates abandoned their advanced positions.

Looking at the Confederate earthworks on Munson's Hill down the Leesburg & Alexandria Turnpike from Bailey's Crossroads, September 1861 (courtesy of Virginia Historical Society). The Confederate flag atop Munson's Hill was seen from as far away as Washington. This sketch was drawn by Union soldier Robert Knox Sneden.

At the end of August, the Confederates raised the Stars and Bars on Munson's Hill. The New York Times informed its readers that the large flag "was visible with a glass from the top of the shiphouse at the Navy-yard" in Washington. A similar flag was raised from Mason's Hill. The presence of the Confederates so close to Washington, flying their flag defiantly and in plain view from the capital, caused consternation among Washingtonians and in the Union ranks.

In September 1861, Longstreet moved the headquarters of his advanced forces to Home Hill in Falls Church. At the time of the Civil War, Home Hill was owned by John Bartlett, a transplant from New York. The property is now called the Lawton House and is located on Lawton Street, just off of VA-7. The photograph above shows Home Hill today.

Historical marker in front of Home Hill, recalling Longstreet's stay at the property.

During this time, the Union Army relied on aerial reconnaissance by Professor Thaddeus S.C. Lowe, who ascended in his balloon from Ft. Corcoran, Ball's Cross Roads, and Chain Bridge to observe the Confederate positions on the two hills. According to Confederate General Jubal Early, Lowe kept a balloon up "almost constantly." (Early, 49.) Confederate gunners atop Munson's Hill found Lowe an inviting target and fired shots at his balloon. Luckily for Lowe, they missed their mark.

With the armies so close to one another, and tensions running high, fighting was bound to erupt in the no-man's land between the lines. In the next installment, I examine the skirmishing that took place around Munson's Hill and Bailey's Crossroads at the end of August and start of September 1861.

Notes

*According to an August 29, 1861 letter from Longstreet's aid, Tom Goree, to his uncle and sister, this advance likely took place around August 27.
**Bailey's Crossroads was spelled "Bailey's Cross Roads" at the time of the Civil War.

Sources

Edmund H. Cummins, "The Signal Corps in the Confederate States Army," Southern Historical Society Papers, Vol. XVI, at 93 (1888).

Thomas W. Cutrer, Longstreet's Aide: The Civil War Letters of Thomas J. Goree (1995).

Jubal Anderson Early & R.H. Early (ed.), Autobiographical Sketch and Narrative of the War Between the States (1912).

Bradley E. Gernand, A Virginia Village Goes to War: Falls Church During the Civil War (2002).

Frederick Stansbury Haydon, Military Ballooning During the Early Civil War (1941).

James Longstreet, From Manassas to Appomattox (1896).

Charles P. Poland, Jr., The Glories of War: Small Battles and Early Heroes of 1861 (2004).

"Special Dispatch from Washington," dated Aug. 31, 1861, New York Times, Sept. 1, 1861 edition.

Lee A. Wallace, Jr., 17th Virginia Infantry, from the Virginia Regimental History Series (1990).

Edgar Warfield, Manassas to Appomattox: The Civil War Memoirs of Pvt. Edgar Warfield, 17th Virginia Infantry (1996 ed.).

Jeffry D. Wert, General James Longstreet: The Confederacy's Most Controversial Solider (1994).

A Railroad-Related Site in Old Town Alexandria

2011-08-19T06:21:00.002-04:00

Last Sunday while my family and I were visiting friends in Alexandria, I had the opportunity to check out another fascinating Civil War-related site in Old Town. My friend, Dave King, had mentioned the Wilkes Street Tunnel to me on a few occasions. Built in the 1850s, the tunnel connected the Orange & Alexandria Railroad (O&A R.R.) with the wharves and warehouses at the busy port of Alexandria. It is one of two 19th century railroad structures still remaining in Alexandria. The railroad tracks are long gone, but the tunnel has been preserved and is now part of a trail for bicyclists and runners. Dave and I visited the site at the corner of Wilkes and Royal Streets on our way to the main drag on King Street.

Looking down Wilkes Street towards the tunnel. Note the dark pavement which likely marks the location of the railroad bed that has since been filled in. (Unless otherwise noted, all photos are courtesy of Dave King, who was kind enough to take pictures for me because I was caught without my camera!)

A closer view of the west side of the Wilkes Street Tunnel, showing the descent below street level.

One of three historical markers on the brick wall leading to the tunnel. This marker discusses the various Alexandria railroads. The marker concerning the Wilkes Street Tunnel, including its Civil War history, is faded and barely readable.

A marker showing the U.S. Military Railroad roundhouse in Alexandria, which was actually located at Duke and S. Henry Streets.

The O&A R.R. was chartered by the Virginia General Assembly in 1848 in an effort to stimulate trade with western Virginia. Construction began in 1850, and in May 1851, the railroad christened the Alexandria section of track with an inaugural run between the north end of Union Street to the Wilkes Street Tunnel. By 1854, the O&A R.R. extended to Gordonsville, Virginia, where it connected with the Virginia Central Railroad. That same year, the O&A R.R. received permission from the General Assembly to run from Charlottesville to Lynchburg, Virginia. In 1860, the railroad finally reached Lynchburg, where it joined the Virginia & Tennessee Railroad. The company paid the Virginia Central for the use of track rights between Gordonsville and Charlottesville.

An even closer view of the opening of the west side of the Wilkes Street Tunnel.

The interior of the Wilkes Street Tunnel. The City of Alexandria refurbished the tunnel in 2007-08 and added the steel beam reinforcements overhead. (See here for more details on the project.)

The O&A R.R. figures prominently in the history of the Civil War. Following the invasion of Virginia in May 1861, the Union seized control of the railroads in Alexandria, including the O&A R.R. The O&A R.R., which generally fell under Federal control close to Washington and north of the Rappahannock River, played a critical role in moving supplies for the Union Army, and Alexandria became the hub. A steady flow of U.S. Military Railroad trains passed through the Wilkes Street Tunnel on their way to and from the wharves along the Potomac. The Confederates controlled and operated other portions of the railroad. During the course of the war, sections of the railroad fell into and out of Union hands, or were abandoned when the armies moved elsewhere. Manassas Junction, where the O&A R.R. and Manassas Gap Railroad met, played a key part in both the First and Second Manassas Campaigns.

The east side of the Wilkes Street Tunnel.

U.S. Military Railroad construction workers in front of the Wilkes Street Tunnel (courtesy of Ft. Ward Museum and Historic Site)

Once again, Alexandria does not disappoint. What I think is going to be just another run to get ice cream with friends and family, turns into yet another historical discovery. Although the Wilkes Street Tunnel is a small and out-of-the-way site, it is a place well worth visiting. Trust me. You will feel the past all around you as you walk through the tunnel and emerge on the banks of the Potomac.

Note on Sources:

For more information on the early history of the Wilkes Street Tunnel, check out this page from the website of Historic Alexandria.

Alexandria: 1861-1865, in the Images of America Series, by Charles A. Mills and Andrew L. Mills contains many period photographs of the railroad in Alexandria during the Civil War.

Information on the O&A R.R. can be found on this extremely detailed site run out of Northern Virginia Community College.