The Value of Living History: Reenacting the Vote on Secession in Virginia

A couple of weekends ago, I attended a reenactment of the Virginia vote on secession in Vienna, Virginia.  The Town of Vienna, Historic Vienna, Inc., and the Vienna Sesquicentennial Committee sponsored the event, which was held to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the May 23, 1861 vote on the Ordinance of Secession.  As I stood in the audience, I couldn't help but think of the recent blogosphere controversy over Civil War reenactments and living history. (Much of the discussion has focused on the military aspect of reenacting.) Professor Glenn LaFantasie fired the opening salvo on Salon.com, and since then, several bloggers have weighed in on the topic. (See here , here, and here.)   I found LaFantasie's commentary filled with condescension, over-generalization, and political bias. The Vienna event demonstrated the folly of outright dismissing living history events and the value that they bring to educating the public about the Civil War.

The Vienna reenactment on May 21 put the political and social history of the war front and center.  I wasn't sure what to expect, but what I found confirmed my longstanding support for living history.  Just as Craig Swain pointed out the other day, I too am glad to see that community groups and other organizations are looking at unique ways to commemorate the Sesquicentennial.  The sponsoring organizations held the event at the restored Lydecker's (now Freeman) Store, where the actual vote took place 150 years ago.  A commentator kicked off the commemoration by discussing the history of the vote on the Ordinance in Fairfax and Vienna.  The only omission was the failure to explore claims of intimidation and  irregularities that plagued the voting that day in Fairfax and across the Commonwealth.

After the introductory remarks, the commentator turned the "stage" over to reenactors outfitted in 1860s-era civilian costumes. Each civilian stood on Lydecker's porch and gave a brief speech as to why he was for or against secession, while reenactors planted in the crowd yelled insults. (I suppose this taunting represented intimidation, although it seemed at times aimed at getting laughs from the audience.) All major views on secession in Fairfax were represented. A Northern transplant, who was also the election commissioner, opposed secession out of commitment to Union and family ties. He stood on the porch and engaged others in debate. A native Virginian joined him in opposing the Ordinance over fears that war would bring economic ruin to the region. 

The election commissioner and Northern transplant (Peter Hendrick) debates with a pro-secession tobacco farmer (Ernest Birdsong).

A hotheaded secessionist (Charles Adams) makes his views known.

The pro-secession vote ran the gamut.  A tobacco farmer explained his anger over Lincoln's call for volunteers and his worry about the future of slavery under the Republican party.  A few others spoke about their overriding and unquestioning loyalty to Virginia.  The village drunk stumbled onto the porch, whiskey in hand, and proclaimed his support for the South. 

A Unionist farmer (Eric Owens) casts his vote against the Ordinance.

Following the debate and discussion, a reenactment of the actual vote was held.  Each voter approached the election officer, who was seated at a desk, and announced his vote aloud, as was done in 1861.  The officer recorded the vote in his ledger.  A group of women walked towards the polling official and attempted to vote, but was turned away.  Although I don't think this exact episode occurred at Lydecker's in 1861, it gave the reenactors a chance to demonstrate the injustice of denying women the right to vote.  The reenactment concluded, and the audience was invited to vote by a show of hands.  The Ordinance was defeated, just like it was at Lydecker's 150 years ago. (And if you are wondering, yes, I voted against secession!)

The organizers had three reenactments throughout the day, and all were well attended.  Given that the Freeman House is located right off the W&OD Trail and busy Church Street, quite a few passers-by were drawn to the event, along with the usual crew of history enthusiasts.  The reenactment explored the complexities of secession in Fairfax by bringing the vote alive for a modern audience.  More than a few audience members likely walked away with a better understanding of what secession meant to the inhabitants of Fairfax 150 years ago.  Now that is living history worth commending.

One Year Already....Hard to Believe

Today All Not So Quiet Along the Potomac turns one.  When I decided to enter the blogosphere a year ago, I wasn't entirely sure what direction this endeavor would take.  I knew I wanted to focus primarily on local Civil War history, and that I hoped to spread the word about some lesser known aspects of the war in Northern Virginia and Washington, DC.  A year later, I couldn't be happier with where the blog is headed, and I'd also like to extend my thanks to you, the reader.  It really is encouraging to see so many people interested in learning more about the Civil War.  (I'd also like to thank my wife for putting up with this hobby and passion of mine!  Perhaps it is preparing her for a day when I turn to writing a book.)

Over the course of the last year, I initially focused on the Civil War history right around my home base of McLean, Virginia and expanded from there.  I have hit on Alexandria, Arlington, and Fairfax, and have even ventured out to Loudoun and Fauquier. The Sesquicentennial has given me a lot of food for thought and enabled me to write about other topics that may not necessarily have crossed my mind.  In the process of writing posts, I am also expanding my own knowledge of Civil War history.  I really enjoy having the opportunity to research and write on a weekly basis about a topic I love so much.

As of today, I have over 100 Facebook fans, as well as about 70 followers on Twitter.  Daily hits have also increased significantly since last May.  These numbers may be modest compared to some blogs, but it is nice to see that people are reading and commenting on my posts.  Perhaps the growth of the blog is much more than I anticipated when typing my first post.  Regardless of numbers, I am satisfied if I can teach just one person something new about the Civil War, or if I can inspire someone to research or read more about an issue. 

Entering the blogosphere has also introduced me to other Civil War "nuts" out there.  Now I don't feel quite as alone! But seriously, I am thankful for the interactions that I have had with many fellow bloggers and I feel that I have learned so much from you and have been inspired by your posts. 

As I start another year, I hope to continue bridging the gap between the blogosphere and the "real world."  From my vantage point, blogs have yet to capture the attention of the entire Civil War community.  There are a lot of readers out there, but in some ways, the demographic skews away from blogs.  I've been to many events where it seems like history-minded individuals aren't even aware of the existence or utlility of blogs.  But we should be thinking of cross-pollination.  Bloggers use their online presence to promote local events and discuss the history of their communities and elsewhere.  Historical societies and other organizations would do well to direct people to Civil War blogs in order to learn more about a topic.  Some already do, such as Fairfax Civil War on Facebook.  The McLean Historical Society also learned about my on-line work and invited me to speak on Ft. Marcy and the defenses of Washington.  The new media offer a powerful way to connect with the public and generate discussion more widely.  Blogs are a way of continuing the meaningful conversations we all have when we attend an event and meet like-minded folks.

Thanks again for reading. It has been a great year, and I look forward to the next one!

The Confederates Evacuate Alexandria for the Second and Final Time

Today marks the 150th anniversary of the Union occupation of Alexandria, Virginia. (Yes, yet another event to commemorate as part of the Sesquicentennial. . . .)  Probably the best-known story of the invasion is the murder of Col. Elmer E. Ellsworth, who was shot taking down a Confederate flag flying atop the Marshall House.  Ellsworth's death is a pretty familiar topic by now, so rather than go over old ground, I'd like to shed light on another aspect of the Union takeover on May 24, 1861.

As I discussed in a couple of recent posts, Virginia volunteers evacuated Alexandria at the start of May 1861.  (See here and here.)  Readers may recall that Lt. Col. Algernon Taylor lost his job for abandoning the city in disobedience of an order from Brig. Gen. Philip St. George Cocke.  Algernon was replaced by Col. George H. Terrett, a former Marine, who was commander when Virginia voters approved the Ordinance of Secession on May 23.  He would soon have the unenviable task of ordering a retreat that would leave Alexandria in Union hands for the duration of the war. 

Early on the morning of May 24, 1861, three main columns of Federal troops moved quickly to occupy Virginia.  Two of the columns crossed the Potomac at the Aqueduct and Long Bridges.  The 11th New York Fire Zouaves, under Col. Ellsworth, boarded steamers and disembarked at the wharves in Alexandria.  The U.S.S. Pawnee covered the regiment from the river.  After crossing the Potomac at Long Bridge, the First Michigan, under Col. Orlando B. Wilcox, marched down Washington Street towards Alexandria.

Terrett had already put his troops on high alert earlier that morning after learning that a squadron of Union cavalry had entered Virginia across the Chain Bridge.  Around 4:30 a.m., a U.S. Navy officer went ashore from the Pawnee and met with Col. Terrett under a flag of truce.  According to Terrett, the officer "informed me that an overwhelming force was about entering the city of Alexandria, and it would be madness to resist, and that I could have until 9 a. m. to evacuate or surrender."  Terrett wasted no time in organizing an evacuation.  Surrender was not an option.

Civil War-era photograph of the Lyceum at 201 S. Washington Street (courtesy of Historic Alexandria).

The Lyceum in Old Town today.

The Virginia troops, including units that would soon form the 17th Virginia Infantry, proceeded to the Lyceum on Washington Street.  From there, Terrett marched them down Duke Street and away from Wilcox's advancing soldiers.  The Old Dominion Rifles narrowly escaped capture, but in the end, managed to join up with the main body of troops.  The retreat was covered by two cavalry units -- Captain Edward Powell's Fairfax Cavalry and Captain Mottrom Dulany Ball's Chesterfield Troop.

Terrett reported that his Virginians "five hundred in number, retreated in good order."  The Union troops were hard on the tail of Terrett's force, whose rear guard was "in sight of and within two hundred yards of the advance guard of the enemy."  Given the apparent aggressiveness of the pursuit, one wonders how sincere of a choice Terrett was given between surrender and evacuation. 

Ball accompanied Terrett and his men as far as Ball's quarters, "a little west of the railroad depot" on the Orange & Alexandria R.R.  The volunteers continued for a half-mile beyond the depot, where they boarded cars for Manassas.  Terrett asked the cavalry to follow in his rear, but for whatever reason, Ball's thirty-five men took too long, and were captured by the Federals.

As the train headed down the tracks, Terrett had his men burn the railroad bridges behind them. A contingent of Union troops "pursued [the Confederates] a short distance, also burning such bridges as they had spared." (Report of Maj. Gen. Samuel P. Heinzelman, July 20, 1863.) Around half past five, Col. Wilcox was able to report to Washington, "Alexandria is ours."

Terrett's force arrived safely in Manassas and joined other Confederate soldiers assembling in the vicinity.  Brig. Gen. Milledge Bonham, commander at Manassas, reported to Maj. Gen. Robert E. Lee on May 25:

The Alexandria (Va.) troops are here, without cooking utensils, and many without arms. Please send to the quartermaster of this place cooking utensils and other camp equipage for six hundred men, as destitute men are hourly joining me. Caps, ammunition, and arms greatly needed.

Lucky for Bonham, the Federal advance on Manassas was still a couple months away.

Note on sources
For a complete set of reports associated with the Union occupation of Alexandria, see the Official Records, Series 1, Vol. 2, Part 1, pp. 37-44. Further information can be found in Alexandria in the Civil War by James G. Barber (1988) and 17th Virginia Infantry, from the Virginia Regimental History Series, by Lee A. Wallace, Jr. (1990).

150 Years Ago: The Voters of Fairfax Approve the Ordinance of Secession

As I wrote a few months ago, in February 1861 Virginians elected delegates to a state convention called to consider the issue of secession. They also approved a voter reference clause under which any decision in favor of secession would be submitted to a popular referendum. In Fairfax County, the reference clause passed by a margin of 62 percent to 38 percent.  Following two months of debate, the Convention finally adopted an Ordinance of Secession on April 17 and voted to send the Ordinance to a statewide referendum.   

Pending the Ordinance, David Hunter Strother (courtesy of Library of Virginia)

On May 23, 1861, Virginians across the state headed to the polls to vote on secession.  (Of course, it goes without saying that in 1860s America, blacks and women were disenfranchised, so the vote was really in the hands of white males.)  In many ways, the outcome was a foregone conclusion, or at least the state government treated it that way.  Virginia began to mobilize immediately after the Convention's decision.  Within a few days, state troops had seized key federal installations at Harpers Ferry and the Gosport Navy Yard. Virginia also offered to join the Confederate States of America, and invited the new government to move its capital to Richmond.  By the time of the May 23 referendum, Rebel forces were amassing in northeastern Virginia, not far from Washington. 

The Results of the Vote in Fairfax County
State-wide, the referendum passed by a vote of 125,950  to 20,373.  (Governor John Letcher estimated that an additional 2,934 voted for secession and 11,761 against.)  In Fairfax County, as in other counties across Northern Virginia,* the vote went overwhelmingly in favor of secession.  According to official returns, out of a total of 1,231 votes, 942, or 77 percent, voted to ratify the Ordinance, and 289, or 23 percent, voted against it.**  Four precincts (Bailiss', Centreville, Ross', and West End) voted unanimously for secession.  Only three of fourteen precincts -- Lewinsville, Lydecker's, and Accotink -- went against the tide and rejected the Ordinance.  All but 49 of the county's "no" votes came from these three precincts.  (The actual voting records can be found here.)

Wartime view of Vienna, Virginia, by A.R. Waud.  Lydecker's Store, where voting took place, is  to the right of the tree in the center of the sketch.  The vote at Lydecker's was 44 to 78 against secession  (courtesy of Library of Congress).

Lydecker's Store today.  This photo was taken on Saturday, May 21, 2011, almost 150 years to the day that the vote was held in Vienna.

On May 21, 2011, Historic Vienna, Inc. sponsored a 150th anniversary reenactment of the secession vote at the Freeman Store (Lydecker's) in Vienna.  Here, a tobacco farmer casts his vote for the Ordinance.  I will feature some thoughts about the reenactment in a future post.

Possible Explanations for the Outcome in Fairfax
The vote, both state-wide and in Fairfax, represented a significant change of heart.  After all, Virginia had elected a moderate Unionist majority to the Convention.  In Fairfax County, pro-Union candidate William Dulany defeated the secessionist Alfred Moss by a vote of 57 percent to 43 percent.  But April had been a turbulent month, and the political landscape looked considerably different than a few months before. 

Voters may have changed their views on secession for a number of reasons.  All hope for compromise disappeared after the attack on Ft. Sumter, and many saw President Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers as a coercive use of federal power against fellow slave states.  Pro-secession voters also sought to demonstrate loyalty by rallying behind their native state, which for all intents and purposes, had already left the Union.  Even Dulany, who voted against the Ordinance on April 17, decided that his allegiance to Virginia was paramount.   He became the first person to vote for secession in Sangster's precinct on May 23. 

A few factors may explain the "no" votes in Fairfax. The county had seen an influx of Northern migrants prior to the war.  These transplants may have remained loyal to the Union and opposed the Ordinance. One notable migrant, Abram Lydecker from New Jersey, voted against secession at the polling place located in his Vienna store.  Some Fairfax residents, who depended on trade with nearby Washington, may have considered secession as against their economic interest.  Perhaps other voters feared that secession would bring war to their very doorstep.  Dulany himself had given this concern as a reason for his initial vote against secession.  Fairfax, particularly around Accotink, was also home to Quakers, whose pacifism may have led them to vote against secession out of a desire to avoid civil war.

Intimidation and Irregularities
Intimidation and voting irregularities also played an unfortunate role in the referendum's outcome.  Because voice voting was the practice in Virginia at the time, everyone in a precinct would know how their neighbors voted on the referendum.  Such an atmosphere at the polls was conducive to peer pressure and intimidation.  The Southern Claims Commission (SCC) files of approved claims for Fairfax County contain numerous references to threats and harassment used to intimidate voters.  John Lynch of Falls Church, for instance, headed to the polls on May 23, but he and several others left without voting when one of the election officials told Lynch that if he voted against the Ordinance he "would be regarded as a traitor."  John Hart of Centreville did not even go to the polls "because of threats."  Josiah Bowman of Vienna also recalled that he did not vote on the Ordinance "because we were threatened."

"How Virginia Was Voted Out of the Union," Harper's Weekly, June 15, 1861 (courtesy of sonofthesouth.net)

Others refused to be intimidated.  John W. Devers went to vote at Accotink, where "the Rebels had thrown old Mr. Plaskett out of the door."  A man by the name of Willis Henderson told Devers that "if I did not vote for secession I would be taken in the woods and hung."  Devers replied that "I would die in a good cause," and then voted against the Ordinance.  Of course, some voters may not have been as brave in the face of intimidation.  And in such small communities, news about threats must surely have traveled quickly and could have dampened pro-Union turnout.  We may never know how many voters stayed away that day due to intimidation.

There is also at least one episode of possible intimidation by pro-secession military units.  According to a contemporary account in the New York Semi-Weekly Tribune, the vote against secession in Accotink would have been even larger "'if there had not been a Company of Virginia Cavalry marched into the village the night preceding the election.'"  The cavalrymen "'hung out a secession flag on one side of the street, and the Union men immediately flung the Stars and Stripes to the breeze from a window immediately opposite.'"  The Tribune implies that at least 40 voters may have stayed away from the polls in Accotink on May 23 due to the presence of secessionist forces. William Smith, a witness in the SCC case of John Devers, also mentions the "rebel cavalry" at Accotink.  When he went to vote, Smith was told "by a rebel that if I voted against the Ordinance, I would lose my property and perhaps get greased before I got home."  The results for Accotink reveal that Smith never cast his vote.

Other records raise questions about possible voting irregularities. The results for Bailiss' precinct show four names crossed out (one of which is crossed out twice) in the "for rejection" column and moved to the "for ratification" column. The voting returns indicate that "[b]y desire of the voters. . . their votes have been changed." Nothing explains what motivated these men to switch their votes, but such a change after the fact calls into question the legitimacy of the four votes. Incidentally, Bailiss' precinct went unanimously for the Ordinance. A separate document among the Fairfax voting returns shows the Fairfax Cavalry as casting 27 votes for, and 1 against, the referendum. The election officials noted that they received these votes "under protest" given that the Fairfax Cavalryhad allegedly voted on the Ordinance in Alexandria on May 21.

We may never know the full impact of intimdation and voting irregularities. As the SCC files show us, at least some voters in Fairfax stayed away from the polls due to threats. However, without more evidence, we cannot conclude that ratification of the Ordinance was mostly attributable to improper means. In any event, intimidation and threats cast a pall on the voting that day. And the fact that Virginia was already in rebellion against the United States made the referendum seem like a rubber stamp exercise in popular sovereignty. Interesting to ponder what would have happened if the vote had gone the other way 150 years ago.

Footnotes
* Other counties in Northern Virginia voted as follows:
Alexandria 958 for, 106 against (some accounts say 48 against)
Fauquier 1809 for, 4 against
Loudoun 1621 for, 726 against
Prince William 841 for, 38 against

**The total number of "yes" votes listed on the official returns appears not to be accurate.  Each precinct numbered the votes for and against the referendum sequentially next to each voter's name, so that the total "yes" and "no" vote for each precinct was dervived by looking at the number written next to the individuals who cast the last "yes" and "no" vote.  When reviewing the original returns online, I noticed that due to numbering errors, 4 votes were not counted, and 1 vote was added accidentially, meaning that there were 945 in favor (gain of +3).  Regardless, such errors do not alter the overall ratio of "yes" to "no" votes in the county in any meaningful way.

Note on Sources

The following sources were useful in compiling this post:

Thomas P. Chapman, Jr., "The Secession Election in Fairfax County--May 23, 1861," Yearbook of the Historical Society of Fairfax County, Vol. 5 (1955); Brian A. Conley, Fractured Land: Fairfax County's Role in the Vote for Secession, May 23, 1861 (2001) (contains many primary source documents on the vote); Library of Virginia, Virginia Memory, Union or Secession: Virginians Decide (2011) (online resource); Charles V. Mauro, The Civil War in Fairfax County: Civilians and Soldiers (2006); Southern Claims Commission, Approved Claims for Fairfax County, Virginia, available on footnote.com;  James Neale Stirewalt, "Secessionist Sentiment in Northern Virginia: December 1860 to May, 1861," Yearbook of the Historical Society of Fairfax County. Vol. 10 (1969); "The Vote for Secession in Virginia," New York Semi-Weekly Tribune, May 31, 1861.

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.

The Volunteers Take Over Washington (Part 2)

Last week -- before the great Blogger service interruption of 2011 -- I wrote about the quartering of Northern volunteers in government buildings across Washington during the spring of 1861.  Today's post looks at a few more regiments that stayed in the District at the start of the Civil War.

The Treasury, c. 1860, showing the old Riggs Hotel  to the left of the photo (courtesy of Library of Congress) 

The Fifth Massachusetts arrived in Washington towards the end of April and took up residence in the Treasury, which was still under construction when the war started.  The Union Army had earlier designated the building as the last bulwark against a Confederate attack on the nation's capital.  According to the plan, President Lincoln, who lived just around the corner at the White House, would seek shelter at the Treasury with his Cabinet while the Federal forces fought for the survival of the city.  Of course, this scenario never came to pass, but the fact that the high command was prepared for such contingencies demonstrates the concerns that gripped the Army brass early in the war.

Cooking and eating arrangements for Union soldiers in the courtyard of the Treasury, Harper's Weekly, May 25, 1861 (courtesy of sonofthesouth.net)

As Alfred S. Roe noted in his regimental history, the presence of the Fifth Massachusetts meant that the "Treasury was well guarded."  The daily routine largely "consisted in patrol and sentry duty, not very hard of itself, but liable to become irksome if too often repeated."  The Fifth drilled on the site of the National Mall, and Company F even received daily instruction on the "green back of the White House."   Like any soldiers in close quarters, the men "contracted [] coughs and colds that hung on for many a day." On April 29, Lincoln paid a visit to the regiment at the Treasury.  A few days later, the Fifth headed to Jackson Square across from the White House, where then-Major Irvin McDowell officially mustered the regiment into federal service.  President Lincoln then reviewed the newly minted Union soldiers at the White House.

On April 26, the First Rhode Island Regiment under Col. Ambrose E. Burnside arrived in Washington and set up temporary quarters in the Patent Office.  (The building today houses the National Portrait Gallery and Smithsonian American Art Museum.)  Construction on the Patent Office began in 1836 and was close to completion by the time of the Civil War.  Burnside's men placed bunks between the glass cabinets containing patent models.  According to one account, the soldiers broke around 400 panes of glass during their stay at the Patent Office, and some men even stole the models. The men of the 1st Rhode Island were also accompanied by four women -- a camp laundress, as well as three relatives.

Patent Office before the war, c. 1846 , showing F St., N.W. facade (courtesy of Library of Congress)

On May 1, the First Rhode Island played a part in a rousing display of patriotism at the Patent Office. Famous 19th century journalist and author Benjamin Perley Poore described the scene:

The Rhode Island regiment was under arms in the street facing the building, and on the roof of the portico was the Washington City Rifle Corps. At noon President Lincoln, accompanied by Secretary Seward and other members of his Cabinet, appeared on the portico, and the President hoisted the flag to the top of the staff, where the breeze at once displayed its fair proportions amid the hearty cheers of the soldiers and of the multitude. Three cheers were then given for the President, and three more for the Secretary of State, both of whom gracefully but silently acknowledged the compliments. The Rhode Island regiment then gave nine cheers for the stars and stripes, and were drilled in the manual by Colonel Burnside, displaying a steadiness and unity of movement worthy of veterans. Mr. Lincoln then advancing to the front, the regiment presented arms, a salute which he acknowledged by raising his hat. He had intended to address the regiment, but the strong wind would have prevented their hearing him, had he spoken.

The next day, the First Rhode Island was sworn into service by Major McDowell on the east side of the Capitol.  At the end of the ceremony, the band struck up The Star Spangled Banner.

Sleeping bunks of the 1st Rhode Island, Harper's Weekly, June 1, 1861 (courtesy of sonofthesouth.net)

Model room at the Patent Office (1861-65), site of 1st Rhode Island quarters during the war, as seen in the illustration from Harper's Weeky above (courtesy of Library of Congress)

Both the Fifth Massachusetts and the First Rhode Island did not occupy government buildings for long.  The First Rhode Island left the Patent Office after a couple of weeks and established Camp Sprague, northeast of downtown, on a farm belonging to George Keating.  The Fifth Massachusetts crossed the Potomac into Virginia and set up camp around Alexandria towards the end of May.  Both 90-day regiments would fight in the First Battle of Bull Run in July before being mustered out later in the summer.  The Union Army eventually constructed a ring of defenses and encampments around Washington, but government buildings in town were never entirely safe from military use.  The Patent Office and Capitol, for instance, were later used as a hospital for the wounded after the Second Battle of Bull Run in 1862.   The war was never too far away for Washingtonians.

Photo of Camp Sprague, Col. Burnside just to the left of the tree in center (courtesy of Smithsonian Institution)

Note on Sources

The following sources were useful in compiling this two-part series:

Kenneth W. Dobyns, History of the United States Patent Office (1994).

"From the Fire Zouaves; How the Boys Put Out the Fire at Willard's," New York Times, May 11, 1861.

Steve Hawks, Civil War in the East: A Reference Guide to America's Civil War (online resource with regimental chronologies).

Richard M. Lee, Mr. Lincoln's City: An Illustrated Guide to the Civil War Sites of Washington (1981).

Margaret Leech, Reveille in Washington (1941).

Mark Leepson, "Capital Defense--Washington, D.C. in the Civil War", America's Civil War, Aug. 26, 2009.

Lehrman Institute/Lincoln Institute, Mr. Lincoln's White House (on-line resource).

Official Records, Series 1, Vol. 2, Part 1, pp. 8-9.

Benjamin Perley Poore, The Life and Public Services of Ambrose E. Burnside (1882).

Alfred S. Roe, The Fifth Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry In Its Three Tours of Duty: 1861, 1862-'63, 1864 (1911).



The Volunteers Take Over Washnigton (Part 1)

Over the last few weeks, I have written about Virginia state forces in and around Alexandria during late April and early May 1861.  This week, I'd like to cross to the other side of the Potomac and describe some of the scenes in Washington City during the tension-filled spring of 1861.  Following the attack on Ft. Sumter, President Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to suppress the rebellion.  Many of the volunteers headed to the nation's capital.  However welcome a sight these defenders were, the U.S. Government was little prepared to accommodate the influx.  Many of Washington's famous government buildings soon became makeshift barracks for the new regiments.  By the end of April, some 11, 000 soldiers had descended on Washington and taken up residence across the city. 

The U.S. Capitol under construction, May 1861 (courtesy of Library of Congress)

The U.S. Capitol, whose dome was still under construction in 1861, served as temporary quarters for many raw recruits.  The 6th Massachusetts arrived in Washington not long after its violent and deadly confrontation with a mob in Baltimore on April 19.  The regiment, greeted by Lincoln upon arrival, marched through the streets and headed to the Capitol.  The 6th Massachusetts established "camp" in the Senate Chamber and the surrounding galleries and corridors.

Other regiments soon followed.  The 7th New York Militia, whose ranks were filled by members of New York City's upper crust, took over the House Chamber towards the end of April.  The regiment's colonel made himself at home in the Speaker's parlor, while staff officers occupied the committee rooms.  The Eighth Massachusetts arrived at the Capitol about the same time.  The volunteers from the Bay State settled down in the Capitol Rotunda. 

Soldiers of the 8th Massachusetts in the Rotunda, Harper's Weekly, May 25, 1861 (courtesy of sonofthesouth.net)

Soldiers drilled on the Capitol grounds and performed picket duty.  During down time, they wrote letters home and endured army food, although the well-bred 7th New York left Capitol Hill to dine in Washington's large hotels.  According to Margaret Leech's Reveille in Washington, "mock sessions of Congress were a favorite diversion":

The uproar started every  morning with the rattle of reveille. A self-appointed presiding officer rapped for order. The galleries shouted to the floor, and the floor bawled back.  There were pompous speeches and burlesque debates, greeted by howls of applause and hoots of derision. 

The 7th New York was gone by the start of May, but the famed 11th New York Fire Zouaves under Col. Elmer Ellsworth took the regiment's place. The firemen primarily occupied the old and new House chambers.  In a few short weeks, Ellsworth's regiment would march into Virginia, and Ellsworth would be gunned down by a secessionist innkeeper in Alexandria.  While in Washington, the Fire Zouaves gained a reputation for rough and tumble behavior.  On May 11, 1861, the New York Times commented:

Since their arrival in this city the Zouaves have been quartered in the Capitol, and scattered as they have necessarily been over different portions of the building, the opportunity for building up the discipline of the regiment has not been such as would have been offered by placing them in camp . . . .  Notwithstanding this unfavorable circumstance, the men are visibly improving in soldierly qualities, and within a very short time will be perfectly under control.

New York Fire Zouaves in the House of Representatives, Harper's Weekly, May 25, 1861 (courtesy of sonofthesouth.net)

The men had an opportunity to prove their mettle one early morning when they rushed from camp to put out a fire in a tailor's shop that nearly destroyed neighboring Willard's Hotel.  The Times noted:

The Messrs. WILLARD, and, indeed, all Washington, is loud in praise of the gallant fellows for their heroism and public spirit, and the fact of its exhibition will be to retrieve the character of the regiment from the disgrace cast upon by the excesses of the few rogues who have been turned out of its ranks. . . .

Not long after, the Fire Zouaves left the Capitol for a new encampment at the Insane Asylum in Washington.

Bread ovens in the basement of the Capitol, Harper's Weekly, May 25, 1861 (courtesy of sonofthesouth.net)

The army also transformed the basement of the Capitol into a bakery.  Around 150 bakers worked to produce loaves for the troops around Washington.  One estimate puts the output at an incredible 60,000 loaves a day.  The bread was loaded onto wagons and sent out for delivery to the various garrisons.

As the weeks passed, the regiments in the Capitol left and moved to duty elsewhere.  Surely many a solider must have found the experience of living in the Capitol a surreal experience. After all, these men had inhabited the very seat of the democracy and Union they were called to defend.

Note: This post is re-published from Wednesday, May 11, due to Blogger technical issues.  At least my whole blog didn't disappear--yet....

Book on McLean History, Including Civil War

Last month when speaking to the McLean Historical Society, I learned about the release of a new book on McLean's history.  As you can imagine, McLean doesn't get the same attention when it comes to history as some other towns around Northern Virginia, so I was particularly excited to hear this news.  The book, Images of America: McLean was written by Carole Herrick, a local historian and member of the Fairfax County History Commission.  When out running errands recently, I picked up a copy at a local bookstore. 

At close to 130 pages, Images of America: McLean contains a virtual treasure trove of pictures related to the history of McLean.  The book spans colonial times to the present.  The McLean area is rich in Civil War history, and the book has an entire chapter dedicated to the period.  Herrick has uncovered some really fascinating and hard-to-find images of Camp Griffin, Chain Bridge, Salona, Ft. Marcy, and other sites that I have blogged about over the past year.  And for those interested in other eras, the book does not disappoint.  A reader will find a wealth of material on McLean's connection to British settlement, the War of 1812, and the 20th century growth of the D.C. suburbs.  The only downside is the lack of maps or addresses to indicate the location of the historical sites. From my experience, other Images of America books suffer from this shortcoming.  However, with a copy of the Fairfax County Inventory of Historic Sites, and a modern street map, a reader can locate most sites.  Overall, I would recommend Images of America: McLean to history enthusiasts who are looking for a little more on a community that played an interesting, but often little-known part in our nation's past.

The Rebels Evacuate Alexandria for the First Time (Part 2)

As discussed in Monday's post, Lt. Col. Algernon Taylor ignored an order from his direct commander, Brig. Gen. Philip St. George Cocke, and evacuated Alexandria with his force of Virginia volunteers on May 5, 1861.  Cocke ordered Taylor back to Alexandria from Springfield, Virginia.  He was on the verge of arresting Taylor for disobedience, but first sought permission from Gen. Robert E. Lee, commander-in-chief of Virginia forces.

Robert E. Lee, from an 1861 edition of Harper's Weekly (courtesy of sonofthesouth.net)

Lee was a bit more willing than Cocke to hear Taylor's excuses.  On May 8, Lee sent word to Cocke through Virginia Naval officer J.M. Brooke, acting aide-de-camp, that "[t]he general commanding directs that you will not arrest Colonel Taylor, but require from him an explanation."  A day later, Taylor wrote his detailed response to Cocke as to why he had abandoned Alexandria.

Taylor first attributed his retreat to "the inefficient condition of a large proportion of the troops and my exposed and indefensible position."  He explained that many of the soldiers under his command were poorly armed and equipped.  Two companies of "raw Irish recruits," for instance, carried only "the altered flint-lock muskets of 1818, and without cartridges or caps."  One of his cavalry companies had only a few Colt revolvers, but otherwise possessed "no arms or equipments of any kind."

Taylor also asserted that his men, many native to Alexandria, "were becoming almost useless from home influences." Their commander feared that they "were necessarily scattered over the city," and that "it would have been impossible to have assembled the command at any particular point in time to have defended itself with the slightest possibility of success, or even to have made anything but a disastrous and demoralizing retreat in the face of an enemy."

Last of all, and probably most importantly, Taylor believed that Alexandria faced an imminent attack.  He wrote to Cocke:

I was possessed of, apparently, such reliable information that the Government at Washington would occupy Alexandria on the 6th or 7th instant, and knowing that a large force was being concentrated at Fort Washington and that two steamers were anchored off Mound Vernon, I was induced to suppose that from that point an attempt would be made, in concert with a force from Washington City, to hem in my small and inefficient command, and thereby the services of good material be lost to my State and our cause.

As evidence of the planned Federal movement, Taylor enclosed a copy of an alleged order that he obtained secretly from a former War Department employee that "shows the intention of the Federal Government as to Alexandria."  (The order was lost by the time the OR were compiled.)

Cocke was far from pleased with Taylor's justification, however well-grounded it was. His subordinate had disobeyed a direct order to remain in Alexandria unless forced to retreat by "overwhelming and irresistible numbers." In doing so, he had left the city dangerously exposed to a Union advance. Taylor was relieved of command on May 10, and replaced by Col. George H. Terrett, a former U.S. Marine.  Curiously, Cocke did not forward Taylor's report to Lee until May 13, so it appears that the insubordination issue was settled outside the channel of official correspondence.

Note on Sources

The entire text of correspondence related to this story can be found in the Official Records, Series 1, Vol. 2, Part 1, pp. 23-27.

Additional informaiton is available in Alexandria in the Civil War by James G. Barber (1988) and 17th Virginia Infantry, from the Virginia Regimental History Series, by Lee A. Wallace, Jr. (1990).

The Rebels Evacuate Alexandria for the First Time (Part 1)

Last week, I wrote about the Virginia state forces converging on Alexandria towards the end of April 1861.  Troops in the Potomac Department, including those based in Alexandria, were under the overall command of Brig. Gen. Philip St. George Cocke.  The general, an 1832 graduate of West Point, had become a wealthy planter in Virginia and Mississippi before the war.  Now he shouldered the tremendous responsibility of organizing the defense of Northern Virginia as the Union Army watched menancingly from across the Potomac.  At the start of May, Cocke suddenly found himself thrust into the middle of a controversy involving one of his subordinates.

Philip St. George Cocke (courtesy of Encyclopedia Virginia)

On May 5, Cocke drafted an order from his headquarters in Culpeper Court House and had it delivered by messenger to Lt. Col. Algernon S. Taylor, commander of the Virginia forces in Alexandria:

You will not move the troops out of Alexandria unless pressed by overwhelming and irresistible numbers; and even then you should retire to Manassas Junction, to hold that point, assist in obstructing and breaking up the road between that point and Alexandria, harassing the enemy should he attempt to use the road, and not retire farther in the interior unless overpowered and forced, as a last extremity, to so retire.

According to Cocke's correspondence in the Official Records, Taylor received the order on the fifth and was well aware of its contents.  Although Alexandria was not under attack, Taylor decided to disregard Cocke's order and abandon the town. He gathered his command, including the 6th Battalion of Virginia Volunteers, and left Alexandria that evening.  The volunteers got as far as Springfield on the Orange & Alexandria Railroad.  

Cocke was furious upon learning that Taylor had abandonded Alexandria.  Around 10 p.m. on May 6, he dashed off a note to Col. R.S. Garnett, adjutant-general to Maj. Gen. Robert E. Lee, commander-in-chief of Virginia forces:

. . . [S]o far as I am informed up to this moment, there was no proper or justifiable cause whatsoever for any such movement. After waiting for further intelligence and receiving none, and duly considering and weighing all the circumstances and bearing of that movement with the information before me, I have ordered the return of the troops . . . . 

Cocke eventually ascertained that no military personnel were left in Alexandria to receive his telegrams containing the order to Taylor.  (Presumably the telegram office would have arranged for the order to be delivered to Taylor at his field headquarters.)  In the early morning hours, Cocke scrambled to send his aide, Giles B. Cooke, to Springfield with a copy of the order.  Arriving at his destination by rail, Cooke handed the order to Col. George Terrett, who had left Alexandria to join Taylor.  Cocke wrote to Terrett:

I am not informed of any circumstance whatsoever that could have furnished just and sufficient cause . . . of the movement of the troops out of Alexandria . . . .  I must therefore now order that the troops return to Alexandria, . . . .  If, however, there has been any new and treating movement by the enemy unknown to me, and which in your judgment may render it impracticable of imprudent to return to Alexandria, communicate the fact to me, and, in the mean time, exercise a sound discretion as to your acting.

Taylor, under order to return and facing no real threat, had little choice but to lead his men back to Alexandria. They arrived around noon on the seventh.  Cocke was incensed by the entire episode.  He asked General Lee:

Shall I arrest Colonel Taylor for disobedience of order and unsoldier-like conduct, in having evacuated Alexandria, under the circumstances. . . ? I shall await your orders in this particular connection.

Cocke was in no mood to hear excuses.  His subordinate had disobeyed orders and left Alexandria exposed.  Taylor's fate was now in Lee's hands.