Civil War Views: Battery Martin Scott

This week's "Civil War Views" takes another look at the strategic Potomac River crossing of Chain Bridge. The defenses around the bridge became the subject of many wartime photographs and sketches. Aside from a lower battery at the Washington end of the bridge, another gun emplacement, known as Battery Martin Scott, occupied the heights immediate above. The battery was initially composed of two 32-pounders and one 8-inch seacoast howitzer mounted en barbette. Two 6-pounder rifled guns apparently replaced these three artillery pieces.

A few months ago, I discovered that the New York Public Library has made available a collection entitled, Sketches for Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper : 138 original drawings of the Civil War by staff artists, 1861-1864. This set of drawings contains many fascinating images of Washington and environs during the early days of the Civil War. Among the drawings is this sketch by Arthur Lumley of Battery Martin Scott:

"High Battery at the Chain Bridge" (courtesy of New York Public Library)

As my friend and fellow blogger Craig Swain has pointed out, the three guns depicted here aren't very precise renderings of the actual armaments at the battery. Below the battery, the wooden span of Chain Bridge crosses the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal and the more distant Potomac River. A mule team pulls a boat along the canal. The gun position offers a commanding view of the Virginia shoreline and hills. Incidentally, Forts Marcy and Ethan Allen protected the approaches to Chain Bridge on the Virginia side. They cannot be seen here, but sat on the hills opposite the battery.

Lumley's sketch appears as an engraving in the November 9, 1861 issue of Frank Leslie's:

(courtesy of archive.org)

The paper said the following about the illustration of Battery Martin Scott:

WAR is a fearful and wonderful teacher of topography. Places and objects which a few months ago were known only to travellers, or those dwelling on the spot, are now "familiar as household roads." Washington and its adjacent localities  are to the majority of readers now as well known to them as to their denizens. Among the more prominent spots is the Chain Bridge, which crosses the Potomac river at the Little Falls, about five miles above Washington City. It is the direct route from the camp at Tenellytown and Georgetown to Lewinsville and Langley, and is consequently a position of much importance. Our readers will perceive that the National Government has erected a powerful battery on the Maryland side, so as to sweep with utter destruction any hostile force. Now that the Federal Capital is safe, we trust Kentucky, Missouri and Tennessee will be rescued from the rebel hordes, whose presence is unwelcome to the people of those States as it is humiliating to the National cause. (at 389-90.)

Today, I'd venture to speculate that once again, few outside the Washington area know the Chain Bridge! But Lumley's sketch reminds us of  the importance of such places over 150 years ago. So the next time you cross the river there, whether because you commute across the bridge daily, or because you are on a vacation in the area, think back to the sketch and engraving as you look up at the bluffs overlooking the Potomac.

Source

Benjamin Franklin Cooling III & Walton H. Owen II, Mr. Lincoln's Forts: A Guide to the Civil War Defenses of Washington (2010 ed.);  Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, Nov. 9, 1861; OR, 1:21:1, 911.

Some Vintage Adverts and a Word About an Old Newspaper

My research over the last couple of weeks has led me to some on-line newspaper collections. The Library of Congress maintains the historic newspaper database, Chronicling America. This digitized collection contains a few Civil War-era newspapers for the Washington, DC area. I have found these papers useful in learning more about the 19th century landowners in and around Lewinsville and Langley, Virginia. Of course, I have also stumbled upon some fun advertisements during the course of my research. These ads provide a fascinating glimpse into daily life around the nation's capital prior to the war.

Take, for instance, the following lost and found ad from the October 7, 1856 edition of the Washington Evening Star:

Lewis D. Means owned property in Langley that the Union Army eventually seized for use as a contraband farm. However, at some point during the 1850s, he resided in Washington City and ran a tavern and drove yard. This ad mentions his "Drover's Rest, near Georgetown." Thomas A. C. Jones, the steer's owner, made some sort of arrangement with Means to ensure that his prized possession found its way back home. Jones lived near Prospect Hill, which was to the west of Langley along the Leesburg-Georgetown Turnpike. Apparently the roads of Northern Virginia were filled with enough men herding cattle that a farmer could lose his steer among them!

And how about a little something for "back to school"? The following ad appeared in the September 1, 1860 edition of the Evening Star:

This school was located near Peach Grove (essentially today's Tyson's Corner) and likely operated from the Strawberry Vale Manor, which was built around 1780. The educational program offered "young ladies" classes in a variety of subjects, including music, art, and languages. This ad appeared in the paper alongside many other classifieds for women's academies; such institutions became prevalent in the United States during the 19th century. I'd be curious to learn about the composition of the student body. For example, how many young women, if any, were sent all the way to Peach Grove from Washington or Georgetown? The Board of Trustees of the Strawberry Vale Institute includes Lewis Means and several other men who were apparently enlightened enough to believe in women's secondary education. (I'll be talking about Dr. McVeigh in a future post.)

News on Newspapers!

The Alexandria Gazette and the Alexandria Local News are vital primary sources for anyone researching the Civil War in Northern Virginia and Washington. Unfortunately, Chronicling America does not provide digital access to copies of the Gazette before 1887. The Fairfax County's Historical Newspaper Index is searchable for Gazette articles from the Civil War era, but digital copies are not available. Instead, a researcher must trek to the Virginia Room at the City of Fairfax Regional Library to print articles from microfilm, or order the hard copies, which can take a few weeks.

Imagine my excitement the other day when I learned that the Arlington Public Library provides on-line access to copies of the Gazette from 1808 to 1876. Use of the database is free of charge, but requires an Arlington Public Library card. Those living, working, or attending school in Arlington Country are eligible to receive a card, as are residents from reciprocal jurisdictions like Alexandria, DC, and Fairfax County. I have already found a treasure trove of Gazette articles related to my research on the contraband camps. This is just another example of how the digital revolution has brought historical archives to the home.

Sources

N.A.R.A., U.S. Federal Census Returns for the District of Columbia, 1860 (available at ancestry.com); National Women's History Museum, "1800s: Secondary Education for Women," The History of Women and Education (website).

McClellan Arrives, Surveys the State of Washington's Defenses, and Takes Action

At the end of July 1861, Major General George B. McClellan, fresh from victories in western Virginia, arrived to take command of the Union Army around Washington.  The recent loss at Manassas was on McClellan's mind.  As he later wrote, "[t]he result of the first battle of Manassas had been almost to destroy the morale and organization of our army, and to alarm government and people."  (George B. McClellan, Report on the Organization and Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac, p. 44 (1864).)  McClellan saw himself as just the person to save the Union.  In a July 27, 1861 letter to his wife, Mary Ellen, McClellan bragged that "I see already the main causes of our recent failure -- I am sure that I can remedy these & am confident that I can lead these armies of men to victory once more."

Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan (courtesy of Library of Congress)

As the new commander, one of McClellan's first tasks was to survey the existing defenses around Washington.  He told Mary Ellen in the same letter that he would "start tomorrow very early on a tour through the lines on the other side of the river -- it will occupy me all day long & a rather fatiguing ride it will be -- but I will be able to make up my mind on the state of things."  Other such inspections continued into August.  On the second, he informed Mary Ellen that he had "looked at some of the works" in Virginia.

McClellan's inspection of the lines around the nation's capital led him to one conclusion -- "[t]he national capital was in danger. It was necessary, besides holding the enemy in check, to build works for its defense, strong and capable of being held by a small force."  (Report, p. 44.)  In Virginia, he noted "the troops were stationed at and in rear of Fort Corcoran, Arlington, and Fort Albany, at Fort Runyon, Roach's Mills, Cole's Mill, and in the vicinity of Fort Ellsworth, with a detachment at the Theological Seminary."  (Report, p. 50.)  However,  "[t]here were no troops south of Hunting Creek, and many of the regiments were encamped on the low grounds bordering the Potomac,—seldom in the best positions for defense, and entirely inadequate in numbers and condition to defend the long line from Fort Corcoran to Alexandria."  (Report, p. 50.)  Things were no better on the Maryland side, where "upon the heights overlooking the Chain Bridge, two regiments were stationed, whose commanders were independent of each other."  (Report, p. 50.)  Moreover, "[t]here were no troops on the important Tenallytown road, or on the roads entering the city from the south."  (Report, p. 50.)  Camps "were located without regard to purposes of defense or instruction" and "the roads were not picketed." (Report, p. 50.)

McClellan recognized the sheer vulnerability of the capital to a Confederate attack:

In no quarter were the dispositions for defense such as to offer a vigorous resistance to a respectable body of the enemy either in the positions and numbers of the troops, or the number and character of the defensive works. Earthworks in the nature of "tetes-de-pont" looked upon the approaches to the Georgetown aqueduct and ferry, the Long Bridge, and Alexandria by the Little River Turnpike, and some simple defensive arrangements were made at the Chain Bridge. With the latter exception, not a single defensive work had been commenced on the Maryland side.  (Report, pp. 50-51.)

The new commander worried that "[t]here was nothing to prevent the enemy shelling the city from heights within easy range, which could be occupied by a hostile column almost without resistance."  (Report, p. 51.)

Photo of John G. Barnard, after promotion to Brigadier General (courtesy of Library of Congress)

McClellan wasted no time in addressing the situation.  He "at once gave the necessary instructions" to his Chief Engineer, Major John G. Barnard, "for the completion of the defenses of the capital."  (Report, p.62.)  Before long, Barnard had soldiers at work on strengthening the Arlington line of defense.  What followed in the coming months and years would make Washington the most heavily fortified city in the Western Hemisphere.  McClellan is often the focus of criticism and downright scorn, but his instrumental role in organizing the defenses of Washington should not be overlooked.

Spreading the Word About Local Civil War History: The Patch Platform

This past June, Erica Hendry, editor of the Vienna Patch, contacted me about submitting my blog posts to the Vienna Patch's blog platform.  According to the main Patch website, the Patch platform consists of a series of on-line local news and information sites "run by professional editors, writers, photographers and videographers who live in or near the communities [they] serve."  They are supported by a team in the Patch's New York City headquarters.  I have been a reader of the local Northern Virginia Patches for quite some time and find them to offer thorough and well-written stories on local news and events that I just can't find in the Washington Post.

I gladly accepted Erica's offer to submit posts on the Vienna Patch.  In my mind, running posts on the Patch is like having a syndicated column in a local newspaper.  The editor may make minor corrections, or reject objectionable, inaccurate, or inflammatory material (no worries here!), but the post as published is basically the same one as written and submitted.  In addition, I retain the rights to my material. 

So why this additional platform?  Writing for the Patch will enable me to reach other audiences that I may not necessarily have reached by publishing just on Blogger.  Some people have an interest in the Civil War or local history, but would not necessarily read stand-alone blogs.  The Patch may also help drive content on my blog, as I look for stories that may appeal to the audiences in Vienna, Georgetown, or other nearby areas.

I won't be submitting all my blog posts to the Patch, but when I examine a topic that may be of interest to local readers, I will run that post on the Patch.  My first post in the Vienna Patch appeared just the other day and examines the looting and pillaging that occurred in Northern Virginia when General Irvin McDowell passed through on the way to Bull Run.  (Readers will remember I ran this same post here a couple of weeks ago.)  For the most part, the post on the Patch will be the same as the one that I place here, with a few modifications to fit the Patch format.

Erica also introduced me to other Patch editors in DC and Northern Virginia.  So far, the Georgetown Patch, run by Shaun Courtney, has picked up All Not So Quiet Along the Potomac.  The website recently published a post I did about the Aqueduct Bridge, which ran between Georgetown and Arlington. 

This opportunity shows just how various forms of on-line communication can work together to spread the word about our nation's history.  I certainly look forward to sharing my insights on local Civil War history with the readers of the Patch.

Aqueduct Bridge over the Potomac: Yesterday and Today

My wife and I decided to take a walk along the Chesapeake & Ohio (C&O) Canal in Georgetown this past Memorial Day.  Our little attempt at exercise gave me the perfect opportunity to check out the remains of the Aqueduct Bridge, which are located next to the canal path in the vicinity of present-day Key Bridge.  Readers may recall that I have mentioned the Aqueduct Bridge in numerous posts over the past year.  This bridge was one of three river crossings into Virginia from the D.C. side of the Potomac at the time of the Civil War.

The Aqueduct Bridge dates to the antebellum period, when Alexandria comprised part of the federal District of Columbia.  Alexandria, a port city, desired to benefit from the trade that was moving along the C&O Canal to rival Georgetown.  In 1830, a group of Virginia merchants formed the Alexandria Canal Company.  They sought to extend the C&O Canal to the Virginia side of the Potomac River, and from there, to Alexandria.  The Aqueduct Bridge, known as the Alexandria Aqueduct or Potomac Aqueduct, was designed to carry the canal across the river. Construction on the bridge and the Alexandria Canal began in the early 1830s and was completed in 1843.  The bridge, an engineering marvel of the 19th century, cost a staggering sum of around one million dollars.  With the extension of the C&O Canal to Cumberland, Maryland in 1850, the Aqueduct Bridge played a key role in bringing coal from western Maryland to the the port at Alexandria. 

The Aqueduct Bridge featured prominently at the start of the Civil War.  Virginia voters officially approved secession on May 23, 1861, and in the early morning hours of May 24, Union soldiers moved to occupy Alexandria and Arlington Heights.  A Federal column including the 5th, 28th, and 69th New York crossed the Aqueduct Bridge into Virginia.  Not long afterward, the Union Army constructed Forts Corcoran, Bennet, and Haggerty to guard the approaches to Aqueduct Bridge from the Virginia side of the river.  These forts comprised part of what would become the ring of defenses built to protect Washington during the war. 

The Aqueduct Bridge from the Washington side, with the C&O Canal in the foreground, ca. 1862-65 (courtesy of Library of Congress).

In his A Report on the Defenses of Washington to the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army (1871), Brevet Major General John Gross Barnard noted that the Union military decided that a "permanent and secure bridge connecting Washington with the Virginia shore" was preferable to the use of the Aqueduct Bridge to transport military supplies to Alexandria by way of the canal. Some officers, as well as the canal company, initially objected to the suspension of canal operations across the Aqueduct Bridge. A "boat bridge" was contemplated for military purposes, but proved an unrealistic alternative given concerns about water depth, flooding, ice, and currents. Barnard described the subsequent transformation of the Aqueduct Bridge:

The tow-path of the aqueduct did indeed furnish a narrow passageway to horsemen and footmen; but this was far from adequate to the military exigencies. Accordingly, early in the winter of 1861-'62, the water was shut off from the aqueduct and its trough converted into a double-track wagonroad, the floor being overlaid with 4-inch planks and long inclines, on trestles, forming connections with the roads on either side.

Eventually three blockhouses and a rifle trench were placed at the Virginia end of the Aqueduct Bridge. The head of the bridge was also enclosed with a stockade to protect more effectively against cavalry raids. The Union Army contemplated placing a shore battery in Georgetown to command the length of the bridge, but decided against this defensive measure.  A guard of one officer and thirty men usually covered each end of the Aqueduct Bridge.

One of the blockhouses near Aqueduct Bridge on the Virginia side (courtesy of Library of Congress).

Barnard, who oversaw the construction of the the defensive works around the nation's capital, concluded in his report that "the aqueduct served perfectly, throughout the entire period of the war, its new destination, and was recognized as an important and essential adjunct to the 'Defenses of Washington' and to the great military operations in Virginia."


Looking at the top of the remains of the Aqueduct Bridge's Washington abutment along the C&O Canal.  The canal entered here and crossed the Potomac. The Key Bridge dominates in the background.  The office buildings of Rosslyn, Virginia are visible across the Potomac River.



Another view of the Aqueduct Bridge during the Civil War (courtesy of Library of Congress).  This photograph was taken from across the Potomac in Virginia.  The Washington abutment is visible where the bridge hits the shore in Georgetown.

A side view of the Washington abutment.  The arch to the left was expanded in 1889 to accommodate the Washington branch of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. 

The bridge was returned to canal usage after the Civil War.  In 1923, the Aqueduct Bridge was closed when the Key Bridge was built next door, and in 1933, the old bridge was largely dismantled.  Today the remaining Washington abutment is a visible reminder of the existence of the Aqueduct Bridge and the place it occupied in the capital's Civil War history.

Mansfield Eyes Virginia With Concern

As Virginia prepared for war, Col. Joseph K. Mansfield, Commander of the District of Washington, looked across the Potomac with worry.  Washington felt vulnerable to him, even with the arrival of thousands of Union volunteers from across the North.  Mansfield, a 58 year-old Army Regular, expressed his concern to General-in-Chief  Winfield Scott on May 3, 1861:

We now come to the city and Georgetown and arsenal, exposed to the Virginia shore. Here I must remark that the President's House and Department buildings in its vicinity are but two and a half miles across the river from Arlington high ground, where a battery of bombs and heavy guns, if established, could destroy the city with comparatively a small force after destroying the bridges. The Capitol is only three and a half miles from the same height at Arlington, and at the Aqueduct the summits of the heights on the opposite shore are not over one mile from Georgetown.

Joseph K. Mansfield (courtesy of Wikipedia)

Mansfield then made the following recommendation:

With this view of the condition of our position, it is clear to my mind that the city is liable to be bombarded at the will of an enemy, unless we occupy the ground which he certainly would occupy if he had any such intention. I therefore recommend that the heights above mentioned be seized and secured by at least two strong redoubts, one commanding the Long Bridge and the other the Aqueduct, and that a body of men be there encamped to sustain the redoubts and give battle to the enemy if necessary. I have engineers maturing plans and reconnoitering further. It is quite probable that our troops assembled at Arlington would create much excitement in Virginia, yet, at the same time, if the enemy were to occupy the ground there a greater excitement would take place on our side, and it might be necessary to fight a battle to disadvantage.

Mansfield was unsure of the optimal timing for the movement:

I know not exactly how many troops we have at command. I presume the enemy might bring 10,000 troops into the field in a short time on such an occasion. I would not urge any premature movement in this quarter, yet one taken too late might cause much bloodshed.

Although the Union Army did not act immediately on Mansfield's suggestion, an action-forcing event was fast approaching. In a little over two weeks, on May 23, Virginians would head to the polls to vote on the Ordinance of Secession.