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.

Manassas 150th Events, Part II: The Reenactment

Yesterday I attended the large-scale reenactment of the Battle of First Manassas with my father and good friend Ken.  The event was held on the grounds of a farm not far from the Manassas National Battlefield Park.  (In fact, the shuttle bus drop off point was at the Brawner Farm, a National Park site connected with the Second Battle of Bull Run.)  The early morning ride west along I-66 went smoothly, but we hit traffic on the road to the giant parking lot at Jiffy Lube Live.  All told, it took us around 25 minutes just to enter the lot -- a sure signs of the crowds to come.  Kudos to the event staff, who ran a very tight ship.  Local news sources report that around 11,000 spectators attended yesterday's reenactment, yet the crowds were moved along very efficiently from place to place. 


At the event parking lot, we were handled bottled water and boarded an air conditioned bus that took us to the Brawner Farm.  From there we walked quite a distance to the grandstands.  I am thankful that we paid the extra money for seating, since I was not inclined to stand in a crowd for two and a half long hours while the temperature climbed to around 100 degrees.  The heat and humidity were once again the enemy as at Thursday's events, although I was well equipped with bottled water and sunscreen.

Heading to the grandstand, I felt transported back to the dirt roads around Manassas 150 years ago.  Here, Confederate soldiers march towards the sounds of enemy artillery.

I was impressed with the reenactment.  Out on an open field, around 8,700 reenactors faithfully recreated the movements of the Battle of First Manassas, starting with Matthews Hill.  The organizers planned the action so that the climax on Henry Hill played out in front of the grandstand.  A narrator provided context and explained what was taking place.  Observing so many men in action gave a feel for the tactics used during the battle.  Whatever your opinions about reenacting (and I know some people certainly knock this hobby), the event surely helped many in the audience understand what had happened near Manassas 150 years ago.  And I have a feeling that for better or for worse, more people elected to go to the reenactment than to the events at Mansassas NBP or across Prince William County; if they got exposed to First Manassas, the reenactment was it.

South Carolina troops dressed in a hodgepodge of uniforms move towards the front.  I was struck by how well the reenactors mastered the non-standardized look at the time of First Manassas. 

A contingent of U.S. Marines arrives on Henry Hill to support the artillery batteries of Captains Charles Griffin and James Ricketts.

Ricketts' gunners in position on Henry Hill.

Confederate troops who have overrun Ricketts' Battery clash with the 69th New York.

More Confederate reinforcements enter the chaos of the battlefield.

A Confederate regiment unleashes a volley into the Union forces who have retaken Ricketts' Battery.  The massive power lines in the background were a noticeable intrusion on the attempt to recreate a 19th century battlefield.



The 69th New York fights back.

We left the reenactment a little early to avoid the huge exodus and get out of the heat, so I did not have time to check out the massive encampment.  (Of course, once you've seen one, you've seen them all!)  Our next stop was the City of Manassas.  We parked at the Prince William County Fairgrounds, the point of origin for the city's 150th anniversary activities.  The lot was empty compared to the parking area at Jiffy Lube Live.  After boarding yet another air conditioned bus, we disembarked along Main Street in the heart of Old Town Manassas, a quaint Southern hamlet.  At the time of the battle, the railroad junction consisted of just a few buildings.  After the Civil War, the town grew to become the transportation and commercial hub of Prince William County.  A fire destroyed Manassas in 1905.  Many of the current historic structures date from the early 1900s.

Looking down Main Street in Old Town Manassas.  The railroad still runs through the town.  Depsite living in the Washington area for many years, this was my first trip to Old Town.

My Dad, Ken, and I all grabbed a beer and sandwich at a local watering hole and then walked the streets of Old Town -- perhaps against our better judgment in light of the heat.  Our first stop was Prospero's Books, which has a solid collection of used Civil War books and prints.  I had seen this store on the local news and wanted to stop by to browse.  We also walked past various outdoor vendors who had set up in Old Town for the 150th.  I was fortunate to stumble upon artist Brian Kammerer's booth.  I have seen Brian's Civil War art on the Internet, and finally was able to meet the artist in person and chat about his work.  Brian creates illustrations of Civil War campaigns from an overhead prospective, similar to the maps in Bruce Catton's classic, American Heritage Picture History of the Civil War.  His unique work is well-researched and extremely detailed.  I purchased several prints for my home office.  At Brian's booth I also met fellow blogger Bernard Kempinski, who is building an O-scale model railroad depicting the U. S. Military Railroad Aquia-Fredericksburg line in 1863.

My crew had planned to got to Liberia Plantation and few of the other sites around Manassas, but the temperatures got the best of us.  We settled on a brief visit to the Manassas Museum and a walk around the living history encampment on the grounds of the museum, before going back to our car.  

The Manassas Museum in Old Town Manassas.  The museum tells the story of Manassas, including the role that the vital railroad junction played in the Civil War.

I particularly liked this quote from Jubal Early displayed at the museum.  Early was a delegate to the Virginia Convention and had been a forceful opponent of secession.  Later a Confederate general, Early became a major proponent of the Lost Cause school of thought after the war.

Part of the living history encampment on the museum lawn.

Overall, the last few days were a whirlwind of Civil War-related activity.  I was deeply satisfied to be able to participate in some of the major events commemorating the 150th anniversary of First Manassas and to share that experience with so many other enthusiasts and historians.  As we headed back to McLean, my friend Ken asked me, "Have you had your fill for now?"  "Never," I responded.

Manassas Battlefield and the 150th Commemoration

Today I attended the 150th Commemoration of the First Battle of Manassas at the Manassas National Battlefield Park.  The traffic was relatively light on the way out I-66 W, and I arrived at the battlefield with plenty of time to spare before the commemorative ceremony.   The National Park Service did an excellent job of arranging for air conditioned shuttle buses to take spectators from the parking lot to the day's events.  The only really annoying part of the whole day was the stifling heat and humidity, with temperatures reaching around 100 degrees at the start of the afternoon.

Walking across the very ground where so many men fell 150 years ago to the day was a sobering and reflective experience.  Even with all the tourists around me, I found myself lost in time as I explored Henry Hill and looked out over Matthews Hill.  I actually felt a deep sense of sadness as I walked over the hard-fought ground around Captain Charles Griffin's Union battery.  I have been to Manassas before; visiting on such an anniversary brings new meaning to the experience.

Morning on Henry Hill, looking towards the famous Rambo-like statue of  "Stonewall" Jackson.

Reenactors hanging out in front of the Henry House.  The Henry Hill Monument, erected in 1865 by Union veterans, sits in the background.

 

Looking past the Stone House to Matthews Hill, site of the first phase of the battle.





Looking towards the two-gun contingent of Griffin's Battery from the vantage point of the 33rd Virginia Infantry, part of what would become known as the "Stonewall" Brigade.

A  commemorative ceremony kicked off four days of events at the park.  Unfortunately, the numbers in the audience weren't as high as they could have been -- all told, possibly around 1,000.  Perhaps the heat had something to do with it, rather than some dwindling interest in the war or the Sesquicentennial.  Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell delivered a speech commemorating the sacrifices of Union and Confederate troops and recalling the evils of slavery. McDonnell was not going to make the same mistake he made over Confederate History Month last year.  The highlight of the ceremony was the animated keynote address by Dr. Edward Ayers, President of the University of Richmond, who placed the battle in context with just the right amount of detail.  I particularly liked his discussion of how Northern Virginia fit into the secession debate in the winter and spring of 1861 -- a subject near and dear to me on this blog.

Governor McDonnell of Virginia addresses the crowd.

Dr. Ayers speaks about the history surrounding the Battle of First Manassas.

The event was quite the social occasion as well.  I was able to catch up with some friends, such as writer and local historian William Connery, a.k.a. "the History Guy."  I also had the opportunity to meet in person some of my fellow bloggers, including Robert Moore, Mannie Gentile, John Hoptak, and Scott Patchan.  I really had an enlightening time chatting with such knowledgeable individuals about the Civil War. (And in the case of Robert, about World War I, too!)

The National Park Service has sponsored several activities and events over the next four days.  Here, tourists visit the Civil War 150 HistoryMobile.  Although aiming to make the wartime experience in Virginia more accessible, the mobile museum was at times just a little overdone.

A living history camp area has been established on the grounds of Henry Hill.  Visitors can see what camp life was like, minus the outhouses!

Living history reenactors portraying U.S. Marines drill in front of the Henry House.  The Marine Corps also has a display on the grounds of the house detailing its interesting and little-known involvement in the Battle of First Manassas.  The National Park Service recently erected a marker on Henry Hill about the "Marines of '61."


After about five hours, I called it a day, and am still wondering where I got the burst of energy to do this post.  On Saturday I will be attending the reenactment and possibly a few other events.  I look forward to sharing additional thoughts.  Until then, keep cool.

**For more information on the 150th Commemoration, visit the website of the Manassas National Battlefield Park.

The Future of Fort Monroe: How to Get Involved!

Many of you have probably read about the imminent closure of Fort Monroe in Hampton, Virginia and the possibility of converting the property into a National Park or National Monument.  Craig Swain at To the Sound of the Guns did a good piece on the importance of this historic site a couple weeks ago.  The National Trust for Historic Preservation has also posted an excellent fact sheet on the fort.  This site, which is rich in U.S. history, deserves to be preserved for present and future generations of Americans. 

I would like to alert readers to two opportunities to weigh in on the fate of Fort Monroe.  First, the National Trust has posted an on-line petition to President Obama that asks him to use his legal authority under the Antiquities Act to designate Fort Monroe as a National Monument.  Second, the National Park Service is soliciting public comments on a special website.  I would urge you to sign the petition and to submit your comments to the National Park Service.  Your voice can help make a difference in ensuring the preservation of Fort Monroe as part of the National Park system.

Aerial view of Ft. Monroe today (courtesy of National Trust for Historic Preservation)

"Slaves Entering Sally Port of Fort Monroe," Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, June 8, 1861 (courtesy of Virginia Historical Society's Blog).  Fort Monroe was the site of Gen. Benjamin Butler's determination to treat slaves who had escaped to Union lines as "contraband" of war.  Following this decision, thousands of slaves flocked to the safety of Union lines around Fort Monroe.

The 17th Virginia at Blackburn's Ford

As many of you, I am looking forward to this week's commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the Battle of First Manassas.  I plan to attend several events later in the week, including the commemoration ceremony at Manassas National Battlefield Park on Thursday and the large-scale reenactment on Saturday.  I also hope to visit many of the Manassas-related sites around Prince William County.  I will be taking plenty of pictures and will be sure to report back when the dust settles. 

In the meantime, I would like to take a look at an action that preceded the big show by a few days.  The Battle of Blackburn's Ford occurred 150 years ago today, when Union troops under Col. Israel Richardson clashed along Bull Run with Confederate forces under Brig. Gen. James Longstreet and Col. Jubal Early.  Many authors, including Ethan Rafuse and William Davis, have covered this action in detail as part of their larger studies on the First Manassas Campaign, and I don't plan to discuss the intricacies of the battle here.  However, I'd like to examine a few connections that Blackburn's Ford has to other aspects of Northern Virginia's Civil War history that should be familiar to many readers.

The 17th Virginia Infantry, comprised of volunteers from Alexandria, Fairfax, Fauquier, Loudoun, Prince William and Warren Counties, was one of the Confederate regiments engaged at Blackburn's Ford.  The 17th Virginia was officially created on June 10, 1861 out of volunteer militia companies from Northern Virginia belonging to what was then called the "Alexandria Battalion."  In April and May 1861, most of these men were stationed at Alexandria and were forced to evacuate the city during the Federal invasion at the end of May.  The Fairfax Rifles became Company D under the command of Captain William Dulany, who had served as Fairfax's delegate to the Virginia Secession Convention.  The Warrenton Rifles were assigned to the regiment as Company K.  This unit was originally under Captain John Q. Marr, the Fauquier delegate to the Virginia Convention, who was killed during a skirmish at Fairfax Court House on June 1.  Montgomery Corse, who once led the Alexandria Battalion, became colonel of the regiment, and George William Brent, who represented Alexandria at the Virginia Convention, served as major.

The 17th Virginia was assigned in mid-June to Col. George Terrett's brigade of the Confederate Army of the Potomac.  Longstreet replaced Terrett at the start of July.  Within a few weeks, the 17th Virginia would face its first test in battle.

General James Longstreet, brigade commander of the 17th Virginia (courtesy of Wikipedia)

On July 18, 1861, a Union division under Brig. Gen. Daniel Tyler entered Centreville and discovered that the Confederates had abandoned their defensive position there.  Tyler pushed Col. Richardson's brigade forward to reconnoiter along Bull Run.  Around midday, Federal artillery shells began to fall on Longstreet's men at Blackburn's Ford.  After thirty minutes of artillery fire, Tyler ordered Richardson's infantry to engage the Confederates at the ford, and companies of the 17th Virginia, along with other units, were rapidly thrown into the fray to counter the Federal attack.

Wartime drawing of Blackburn's Ford (courtesy of Library of Virginia)

After beating back soldiers from Massachusetts and New York, Longstreet directed some of his men in the front line to advance across the stream.  According to Corse,  "Company A, Captain [Morton] Marye, was . . . ordered to cross the run and deploy as skirmishers on the opposite bank.  Company C, Captain [George] Head, and Company F, Captain [George] Hamilton, were subsequently ordered to cross also and sustain this movement." (OR, Series 1, Vol. 51, Part 1, pp. 33-34.)  As Longstreet wrote in his official report, "[a] few small parties, under command of Captain Marye, Seventeenth Regiment Virginia Volunteers, who behaved with great gallantry, met parties of the enemy on the other side of the stream with the bayonet, and drove them back."  (OR, Series 1, Vol. 2, Part 1, p. 462.)  Longstreet, however, believed that his men were likely shaken after taking accidental fire in the rear from Jubal Early's troops, who had been brought up in support of his brigade.  Unsure of whether his advanced elements could press the attack, Longstreet finally recalled the 1st and 17th Virginia from the opposite bank.  The 17th Virginia brought back seven prisoners along with their wounded.  Tyler, meanwhile, ordered a withdrawal of his forces from the field.  As Richardson's men retired, artillery dueling between the two sides ensued until about 4 p.m.

Overall, losses were rather modest compared to later battles in the Civil War.  Longstreet reported 63 killed or wounded, while Richardson recorded 83 killed, wounded, or missing.  Corse described the 17th Virginia's casualties in his report on the battle:

I regret to add that Captains Dulany and [Stephen] Presstman were severely wounded whilst at the head of their companies. Captain [Benjamin] Shackelford, commanding Company K, and Lieutenant [Charles] Javins, of Company E, were slightly wounded. Private Thomas R. Sangster, Company A, was killed, and four privates severely and six slightly wounded. (OR, Series 1, Vol. 51, Part 1, p. 34.)

Due to the serious nature of his injuries, Dulany never returned to active service with the 17th Virginia following the battle.  He left the regiment in March 1862, and served as a Judge Advocate for the Marines and Navy.  Dulany tried unsuccessfully to obtain quartermaster or commissary positions in the Confederate Army.  Apparently recovered from his wounds by April 1863, he asked to receive a commission to raise a cavalry company and ride "with Capt. Mosby on our lines in Fauquier, Prince Wm., Fairfax & Loudoun."  (Letter to Sec. of War James Seddon, April 16, 1863.)  Instead of returning to military service, however, Dulany ended up serving the remainder of the war as a member of the Virginia State Senate.

Officers of the 17th Virginia won the praises of their superiors for their performance at Blackburn's Ford.  Longstreet noted that several officers in his brigade, including Corse, Lt. Col. William Munford, and Brent from the 17th Virginia, "displayed more coolness and energy than is usual amongst veterans of the old service."  (OR, Series 1, Vol. 2, Part 1, p. 463.)  He was "particularly indebted to Lieutenant-Colonel Munford and Major Brent, who having a spare moment and seeing my great need of staff officers at a particular juncture, offered their assistance." (OR, Series 1, Vol. 2, Part 1, p. 463.)  Corse also singled out Munford and Brent, among other officers, for their "gallant conduct" where "the fire was hottest." (OR, Series 1, Vol. 51, Part 1, p. 34.)

Soldiers of the 17th Virginia had finally experienced combat, but the remainder of the Manassas Campaign was a bit anticlimactic for the regiment.  The 17th remained around Blackburn's Ford, and engaged only in light skirmishing on July 21, the day of the Battle of First Manassas.  Longstreets's brigade joined in the pursuit of the retreating Federals, but much to Longstreet's consternation, his men were ordered to stop, and then return to their position along Bull Run.  The 17th Virginia may have largely missed First Manassas, but would see much more action over the next four years.

Note on Sources

The following books contain thorough accounts of the Battle of Blackburn's Ford:

William C. Davis, Battle at Bull Run: A History of the First Major Campaign of the Civil War (1977.) and Ethan S. Rafuse, A Single Grand Victory: The First Campaign and Battle of Manassas (2002).

For more information about the 17th Virginia, see Lee A. Wallace, Jr., 17th Virginia Infantry, Virginia Regimental History Series (1990).

The service record of William Dulany can be found in the Civil War Soldier Service Records collection on footnote.com.

McDowell and Civilians in Northern Virginia: Trying to Do the Right Thing (Part II)

As I discussed earlier this week, by the middle of July 1861 Federal commander Irvin McDowell had already taken several measures to protect civilians in Northern Virginia from the impact of war.  McDowell's orders reflected a conciliationist approach towards non-combatants, but not all men in the ranks shared his view.  As the Union Army prepared to move on the Confederate position near Manassas, the raw, undisciplined recruits would put McDowell's policy to the test.

The Union Army left camp in and around Washington on July 16, 1861 and headed into the heart of Northern Virginia.  During their march over the next couple of days, the Union soldiers grew increasingly unrestrained.  Colonel William T. Sherman commanded the men in his brigade to respect private property and refrain from foraging, but to no avail.  Volunteers ignored his orders, questioned his authority, and took whatever they pleased.  According to one account, Sherman reprimanded a Wisconsin solider for stealing mutton.  The solider countered that he was hungry and asserted that "it was rebel mutton, anyhow."  Sherman arrested the soldier; the mutton, however, was cooked and served to Sherman's staff at mealtime.  (William C. Davis, Battle at Bull Run: A History of the First Major Campaign of the Civil War, p. 96 (1981 ed.); Ethan S. Rafuse, A Single Grand Victory: The First Campaign and Battle of Manassas, p. 85 (2002).)

Meanwhile, some soldiers resorted to more drastic forms of pillage.  In Vienna, Federal troops in Brigadier General Daniel Tyler's division ransacked a grocery store that belonged to an alleged secessionist.  The ringleaders were Ohio boys who may have been motivated by a desire to avenge the Confederate attack on their fellow Ohioans in Vienna the month before.  Sergeant Dan Littlefield of the 3rd Michigan "did not think it was right to steal and destroy private property in that manner."  He worried that "if we go through the country that way, many would join the southern [sic] army that otherwise would not."  (excerpted in Steve Soper, The "Glorious Old Third": A History of the Third Michigan Infantry, 1855 to 1927, Ch. 9 (2007).)  McDowell would have agreed.

General William T. Sherman, later in the Civil War (courtesy of Library of Congress).  On the march to Manassas, Sherman tried in vain to keep his soldiers under control.

Around midday on July 17, Colonel David Hunter's division entered Fairfax Court House without a fight.  The soldiers found that the Confederates had abandoned the town and put a torch to a few buildings before retreating.  Some Union troops raised a flag over the courthouse, and then things rapidly deteriorated.  As an ashamed regimental chaplain wrote the following year:

I am sorry to say, that the occupation of Fairfax by our troops was marked, in some instances, by pillage and destruction. Several unoccupied houses were forcibly entered, their furniture injured or smashed to pieces, and many articles stolen and carried away. There was no reason for such wilful destruction of property, and there was no excuse for it. It left enemies behind us, when we might have secured friends. Men, who would have scorned to do such a thing at home, seemed eager and more than ready to lay their hands upon what was not their own. Many things were taken which could not possibly be carried upon the march, and which were thrown aside the next morning, and left upon the road. There was such an element of meanness and of cowardice in all this, that I could not help condemning it then, and I condemn it now. There is some glory in winning a trophy in a fair fight. But the appropriation of private property in a defenceless town, is nothing better than theft. It does not rise even to the dignity of burglary, for that requires a certain amount of courage. (Augustus Woodbury, A Narrative of the Campaign of the First Rhode Island Regiment, in the Spring and Summer of 1861, p. 82 (1862).)

Wartime photo of Fairfax Court House (courtesy of Library of Congress).  Advancing Union troops looted the county seat on July 17, 1861.

Around the same time, Federal soldiers under General Tyler, including Sherman's men, marched into the hamlet of Germantown.  As William Lusk of the 79th New York wrote to his mother, "soon the soldiers were ransacking the houses for food, destroying and burning what they could not use themselves."  However, he was "happy to say the boys in my company had little hand in these doings, as such paltry work finds little countenance from its officers." (William Thompson Lusk, War Letters of William Thompson Lusk, p. 52 (1911).)  A few bad seeds decided to burn down the village, and before long, Germantown was in flames.  

The 69th New York came upon one of the burning houses.  Major Thomas F. Meagher of the 69th, future leader of the Irish Brigade, disavowed any involvement by his men and condemned this spiteful act.  He wrote:

Whose was the scurvy and malignant hand that fired the deserted homestead? It is for the regiments of the Brigade, in advance of the 69th to answer. With them rests the responsibility of this savage riotousness and mischief. The house was doomed irrevocably when the 69th came up. The Irish regiment swept by the blazing ruin, cursing the ruffians who had played the barbarous prank, and maddened with the thought of the disgrace it would bring on the Federal Flag. (Thomas F. Meagher, "The Last Days of the 69th in Virginia," in Michael Cavanaugh, Memoirs of Gen. Thomas Francis Meagher, p. 393 (1892).)

McDowell witnessed what his men had done at Fairfax Court House.  He was angered by the behavior of his men and their blatant disregard for his orders to respect civilian property in Northern Virginia. On July 18, McDowell dashed off General Orders No. 18 (OR, Series 1, Vol. 2, Part 1, pp, 743-44), in which he began:

It is with the deepest mortification the general commanding finds it necessary to reiterate his orders for the preservation of the property of the inhabitant of the district occupied by the troops under his command.

Hardly had we arrived at this place when, to the horror of every right-minded person, several houses were broken open and others were in flames by the act of some of those who, it has been the boast of the loyal, came here to protect the oppressed and free the country from the domination of a hated party.

He followed with a dose of guilt and shame:

The property of this people is at the mercy of troops who we right-fully say are the most intelligent, best-educated, and most law-abiding of any that were ever under arms. But do not, therefore, the acts of yesterday cast the deeper stain upon them? 

It has been claimed by some that their particular corps were not disgraced. This is of but little moment; since the individuals are not found out, we are all alike disgraced.

McDowell adopted measures to stop further acts of plunder and destruction, and reiterated his previous order to protect the civil liberties of the local inhabitants:

Commanders of regiments will select a commissioned officer as regimental provost-marshal, and ten men as a permanent police force under him whose special and sole duty it shall be to preserve the property from depredation, and arrest all wag-doers, of whatever regiment or corps they may be. Any one found committing the slightest depredations, killing pigs or poultry, or trespassing on the property of the inhabitants, will be reported to headquarters, and the least that will be done to them will be to send them to the Alexandria jail. 

It is again ordered that no one shall arrest or attempt to arrest any citizen not in arms at this time, or search or attempt to search any house, or even to enter the same, without permission.

McDowell concluded:

The troops must behave themselves with as much forebearance and propriety as if they were at their own homes.  They are here to fight the enemies of the country, not to judge and punish the unarmed and helpless, however guilty they may be.  When necessary, that will be done by the proper persons.

The commander once again proved his commitment to a policy of conciliation, and we know that at least some Federal volunteers like Lusk, Meagher, and Woodbury were more than likely pleased with the renewed effort to impose discipline.  In any event, the army was soon on the march again, and within a few days it engaged the Confederates on the battlefield of Bull Run.  The war was going to be a long one after all, and as the months turned into years, McDowell's early attempts to restrain his troops and protect civilian property looked almost quaint. Unfortunately for the residents of Northern Virginia, the war and Union occupation would mar the countryside and transform everyday life, and the Bull Run Campaign was just the beginning.

McDowell and Civilians in Northern Virginia: Trying to Do the Right Thing (Part I)

Last month I examined Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard's June 1861 proclamation to Northern Virginians.  Attempting to rouse support among the local population, Beauregard accused Union soldiers of seeking "beauty and booty."  While Northern troops were undoubtedly stealing, expropriating, or otherwise destroying civilian property, the Union high command was all too aware that any such excesses would only antagonize the locals and make the Army's job that much more difficult.  The war was not likely going to last all that long, and when it came to Virginia's civilians, conciliation was preferred over vindictiveness.  This policy was put to the test in the days leading up to the Battle of First Bull Run.

On May 29, 1861, Brigadier General Irvin McDowell, commander of the Union Department of Northeastern Virginia, dashed off a communication to the Assistant Adjutant General at Army headquarters in Washington City.  He explained that "[t]here have been rumors of outrages committed by volunteers in Alexandria. Colonel Butterfield, of the Twelfth New York, has reported several cases of trespass, depredations, and attempts at burglary in his vicinity."  Reacting to these transgressions, McDowell opined that "we are not, theoretically speaking, at war with the State of Virginia, and we are not, here, in an enemy's country."  McDowell suggested that "[b]ecause the ordinary courts and officers of the State, against whose peace and dignity it is these acts have been committed, are not in the exercise of their functions, shall not these cases be punished, as similar ones were in Mexico, by military commission?"

General Irvin McDowell (courtesy of Wikipedia)

That same day, McDowell expressed concern over the economic losses being inflicted by the Union Army.  He told the Assistant Adjutant General that "[t]he troops are occupying houses in some cases, and fields, and cutting wood for fuel."  He asked, "[s]hall not rent and compensation be paid?" and recommended that "[i]f so, funds are needed for that purpose."

McDowell was particularly attentive to the sensitivities of at least one prominent local family.  On May 30, McDowell promised Confederate General Robert E. Lee's wife that the Union occupation of the Lee home, Arlington House, "has been done . . . with every regard to the preservation of the place."  He assured her that "it has been and will be my earnest endeavor to have all things so ordered that on your return you will find things as little disturbed as possible."  (This last promise seems a bit naive in hindsight, given that Arlington National Cemetery was established on Lee's property during the war.) 

Arlington House with group of Union soldiers gathered out front (courtesy of Wikipedia)

The commander soon adopted a policy to protect the pecuniary interests of civilians in his department.  On June 2, 1861, McDowell issued General Orders No. 4, in which he required brigade commanders and officers in charge of fortifications around Washington to send him as soon as practicable "[s]tatements of the amount, kind, and value of all private property taken and used for Government purposes, and of the damage done in any way to private property by reason of the occupation of this section of the country by the U. S. troops."  McDowell required that the statements, "as far as possible, give the value of the property taken or of the damage sustained, and the name or names of the owners thereof."  The order allowed citizens who suffered any such loss or damage to "make their claims upon the commanding officers of the troops by whom it was done, or in cases where these troops have moved away, upon the commander nearest them."  Brigade commanders were told to "make this order known to the inhabitants in their vicinity, to the end that all loss or damage may, as nearly as possible, be ascertained, whilst the troops are now here, and by whom or on whose account it has been occasioned, that justice may be done alike to the citizen and the Government."  Unlike the criteria for post-war compensation administered by the Southern Claims Commission, McDowell did not require proof that claimants were loyal to the Union.  The war was still too new, and a conciliationist policy would not allow the imposition of such legal hurdles.

McDowell, ever mindful of residents' civil liberties, issued General Orders No. 5 on June 14, 1861.  The general apparently operated under the assumption that at least some constitutional guarantees still applied to the inhabitants of a state in active rebellion against the United States.  The order prohibited unlawful arrests:

Unless under the special orders in each case of a commander of brigade or superior authority, it is forbidden to any officer of soldier within this department to arrest or attempt to arrest any citizen or citizens under the plea of their being secessionists, or for any cause whatsoever save that of being at the time in arms against the United States.

The order also sought to protect Northern Virginian civilians against unauthorized searches:

Nor will any officer or soldier without the like authority forcibly enter, search, or attempt to search any house or the premises of any peaceable resident or other persons not in arms against the United States. The military or police force will arrest any one found trespassing even on the premises of any citizen without the department.

As McDowell would soon discover, ensuring respect for local residents was easier said than done.  Not long after the announcement of General Orders No. 4, he was already reprimanding his subordinates for failure to enforce the order.  As Whitelaw Reid, editor of the New York Tribune, concluded, "[a]gainst such measures the volunteers, with loose ideas of discipline, or of the rights of non-combatants, but with a vague desire to see Virginia punished and humbled by the sufferings of war, revolted."  (Whitelaw Reid, Ohio in the War: Her Statesmen, Generals, and Soldiers, Vol. 1, pp. 664-65 (1895)).  Things would not get an easier as the Union Army took to the field in the middle of July 1861.

A Note on Sources
The full text of McDowell's communications and orders can be found in the Official Records, Series 1, Vol. 2, Part 1, pp. 653-55, 659; Series 1, Vol. 51, Part 1, p. 400.

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.

Civil War Tour of the Outer Banks: Bodie Island Lighthouse and Roanoke Island

This past Saturday I returned with my family from a week-long vacation to the Outer Banks of North Carolina.  The region, which is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean on one side, and a series of sounds on the other, is known for its stunning beaches, historic lighthouses, and fresh seafood.  But the Outer Banks was also the setting for a couple of important Civil War actions related to the Union blockade of the Southern coastline.  Armed with a Civil War Trail map, information from Civil War Traveler, and print outs from the Historical Marker Database, my father-in-law and I set out last Tuesday to discover some of the lesser-known Civil War sites scattered across this top tourist destination.

The Currituck Sound, near Duck, NC.  This body of water served as a key commercial route between North Carolina and Virginia.  Union operations in the region aimed to ensure Northern control of such shipping lanes. 

Bodie Island Lighthouse

We left our home base of Duck along the Currituck Sound and headed south to our first stop -- the Bodie Island Lighthouse, located within the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.  The current lighthouse dates from 1872.  The federal government constructed the original lighthouse in 1847, but faulty engineering rendered the lighthouse unstable, and in 1859 a new one was built. 

Bodie Island Lighthouse (1872), located across the Oregon Inlet from the site of the Civil War-era lighthouse.

Only a few short years later, the Civil War descended on the Outer Banks. The Confederates erected defensive positions to protect various waterways, including Fort Oregon at Oregon Inlet near the Bodie Island Lighthouse, as well as Forts Hatteras and Clark further south at Hatteras Inlet. In August 1861, Union naval vessels under Flag Officer Silas Stringham pounded the Confederate forts at Hatteras Inlet into submission. Union troops under Major General Benjamin Butler went ashore to secure a foothold at this important entrance to the Pamlico Sound. (Unfortunately, due to time constraints I was unable to get down to the Hatteras Inlet area this time around.)

Following the Union victory, Confederate commanders made the decision to abandon Fort Oregon without a fight.  The departing Confederates destroyed the Bodie Island Lighthouse rather than allow it to fall into Union hands.  A few years after the war ended, the government erected another lighthouse, which is the one tourists see today. Unlike the first two lighthouses, this one was built on the north side of Oregon Inlet, across from the earlier locations on the south side. 

Roanoke Island

After visiting the lighthouse grounds and surrounding marshlands, the "Colonel" and I drove to Roanoke Island, the site of a strategic Union victory in 1862.  Roanoke Island sits at the gateway to the Albemarle Sound.  In the fall of 1861, the Union military recognized that the capture of Roanoke Island would cement control of the North Carolina sound region and give the Union a backdoor to attacking Confederate-held Gosport Navy Yard and Norfolk.  Brigadier General Ambrose E. Burnside, who would go on to command the Army of the Potomac, was given permission to raise an expedition to take Roanoke Island.  His novel force was comprised of soldiers from seacoast towns in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states.  Flag Officer Louis Goldsborough led the naval side of the joint operation. 

Roanoke Island was poorly defended by a small force of about 2,500 Confederates from Virginia and North Carolina under the command of ex-Virginia governor Henry Wise.  (During the actual battle, Wise was suffering from pleurisy, and command passed to Colonel Henry Shaw.) The Confederates had constructed a few small forts and batteries on the island.  The naval force under Captain William Lynch consisted of just eight boats -- a contingent that Wise derisively called the "Mosquito Fleet."  As a defensive measure, Lynch had sunk some hulls and pilings in the Croatan Sound to the west of Roanoke Island.

The entire Union Coastal Division of around 13,0000 men left Annapolis in early January 1862 and met up with Goldsborough's twenty gunboats at Ft. Monroe in Virginia.  The fleet of about 80-odd vessels, including transports and supply ships, steamed towards Hatteras Inlet, but was delayed by extremely rough weather.  In addition, several ships were unable to clear the sand bar to enter Pamlico Sound, so the assembly of the fleet was further delayed until the passageway could be deepened.

The force finally headed to the Croatan Sound to the west of Roanoke Island on February 5.  After dealing with poor weather the next day, the Union forced launched an attack at 11:30 a.m. on February 7. Goldsborough's gunboats pounded Confederate Ft. Bartow and drove Lynch's small fleet out of the sound.   Under the cover of naval guns, Burnside's men boarded row boats and landed on the island.  This was the first large amphibious operation of the war and would set an example for future joint operations, both in the Civil War and afterwards.  By midnight, 10,000 troops were camped at Ashby's Landing.

On the morning of February 8, Burnside sent his three brigades against the thin Confederate line of about 1,000 men.  The Federal troops attacked the Confederates on the front and both flanks, captured a three-gun battery, and broke the defenders' line. The Confederate soldiers beat a hasty retreat, abandoning equipment as they raced to the northern end of the island before being taking prisoner by Burnside's men.  In all, the victory came with a relatively small price tag -- 37 killed, 214 wounded, and 13 missing.  The Confederates lost 23 killed, including Wise's son, and 58 wounded.

Today little remains of the actual battlefield, but a few markers commemorate the engagement on Roanoke Island.  My father-in-law and I first visited a marker dedicated to the land battle on NC 345, just south of the intersection with U.S. 64. 

The Battle of Roanoke Island marker is located close to the site of the Confederate three-gun battery that was taken by Union troops during the battle.  The Confederate defenses were concentrated around this battery, which was placed across a causeway, the only north-south road on the island.  The Confederates cut a clear field of fire in front of the battery.  Because both sides of the road consisted of swampy marshland, the Confederate commanders expected that the Union attackers would stick to a direct frontal assault as they approached along the causeway.  Burnside, however, ordered his men to march into the swamps, and before long, the Confederates were surrounded on three sides.  

"Gallant Charge of Hawkins's Zouaves Upon the Rebel Batteries on Roanoke Island," Harper's Weekly, March 1, 1862 (courtesy of sonofthesouth.net).  The famed Zouave regiment under Colonel Rush Hawkins, known officially as the 9th New York, claimed credit for taking the Confederate battery on Roanoke Island.  The Northern press, infatuated with the colorful Zouaves, ran with the story and sang the praises of the regiment.  In fact, the 21st Massachusetts and 51st New York under Brigadier General Jesse Reno planted their flags first atop the Confederate battery.

We next headed to the new Outer Banks Welcome Center on U.S. 64, just west of the intersection with NC 345.  The marker there tells the story of the entire Burnside expedition in North Carolina, including the successful movements against Elizabeth City, New Bern, and Ft. Macon.

A marker commemorating the Burnside Expedition at the Outer Banks Welcome Center on Roanoke Island.  This marker provides context for the actions that occurred on Roanoke Island in February 1862.

No trip to Roanoke Island is complete without a stop at Ft. Raleigh National Historic Site, located off of U.S. 64 on the north side of the island.  The focus is on the first English settlements in America (1585-87), and the story of the "Lost Colony" is fascinating in its own right.  However, the Visitor Center offers an overview of the Civil War action on Roanoke Island.  (Note that the Visitor Center has recently undergone some renovations, so it appears that the exhibits are not yet fully re-installed.) 

Ft. Raleigh National Historic Site visitor center exhibit on Civil War-related events on Roanoke Island.

The historic site also commemorates the Freedmen's Colony on Roanoke Island.  During the early days of occupation of Roanoke Island, the Union Army labeled slaves a "contraband of war."  Slaves from across the region were soon fleeing to the Union lines and freedom.  In May 1863, the Union commander, Major General John G. Foster, moved to deal with the influx of slaves and ordered the establishment of a freedmen's community on the northern part of the island.  A church, several schools, and even a sawmill flourished there.  By 1865, the population of the colony had grown to nearly 4,000, and over 150 inhabitants served in black Union regiments.  Unfortunately, the colony never became self-sufficient, and the federal government decommissioned it in 1867.  The Freedmen's Colony Monument and a few markers outside the Visitor Center tell the story of this social experiment.

Front side of the Freedmen's Colony Monument, just outside the Visitor Center at the Ft. Raleigh National Historic Site.  

After touring the Ft. Raleigh site, the Colonel and I drove west on U.S. 64 and checked out a few markers associated with the naval battle and the Confederate defenses of Roanoke Island.  These markers were easily accessible from the road, and the traffic was light enough that I crossed by foot from one side of U.S. 64 to the other with little difficulty.

The Naval Battle of Roanoke Island marker is located off U.S. 64, just before the Manns Harbor Bridge on the northwest corner of Roanoke Island.  This marker gives a good sense of the naval action in relation to the geography of Roanoke Island.

The Ft. Huger marker is directly across the highway from the Naval Battle of Roanoke Island marker.  Ft. Huger was one of three Confederate forts on the western side of the island.  The remaining earthworks of Ft. Huger are located on private property.  This position looks out over the Croatan Sound towards the site of the 1862 naval battle.



"The naval fight in Croatan Sound -- landing of national troops -- showing also obstructions in the Sound, with the rebel fleet beyond," original printed source unknown (courtesy of North Carolina Civil War Image Portfolio, UNC University Libraries).  This view looks towards the northwest corner of the island where Ft. Huger was located.

The Ft. Blanchard marker is located on the south side of U.S. 64 not far from the Ft. Huger marker.  The remaining earthworks were not visible from this location.  The third fort on the western side of the island, Ft. Bartow, came under heavy fire during the naval battle.  A marker also commemorates Ft. Bartow, although time did not permit a detour to visit this out-of-the-way marker.

Our last stop before returning to home base was the town of Manteo.  My father-in-law is a lighthouse aficionado, so we stopped to check out the Roanoke Marshes Lighthouse.  This replica is based on an 1877 screwpile lighthouse that was located in a narrow channel between the Croatan Sound and Pamlico Sound.  I only mention this lighthouse because the one in existence during the war was passed by Burnside's troops on the way to the fight at Roanoke Island and is pictured on at least one contemporary engraving.  (See below.) As an explanatory marker notes inside the lighthouse, the structure was a "witness to the Battle for Roanoke Island."

Roanoke Marshes Lighthouse along the waterfront in Manteo, NC.

"The national fleet passing through the marshes between Croatan and Pamlico Sounds," 1862, original printed source unknown (courtesy of North Carolina Civil War Image Portfolio, UNC University Libraries).  An earlier incarnation of the Roanoke Marshes Lighthouse is visible to the right of the engraving.

As the Colonel and I returned to the family quarters in Duck, I was reminded of how much I love travel.  Each destination has a way of revealing its own history that leads me to dig a little deeper.  Before the Outer Banks trip, I was vaguely familiar with the Union coastal operations in North Carolina.  Now, after visiting the sites and reading more about them, I have gained a greater appreciation for this important aspect of the Civil War.  And dare I admit that I even have a new-found respect for Burnside?

Further Reading

In preparation for a Civil War tour of the Outer Banks, the following books may prove useful:

Peter M. Chaitin, The Coastal War: Chesapeake Bay to Rio Grande (1984).

Kevin Dougherty, Strangling the Confederacy: Coastal Operations in the American Civil War (2010).

Drew Pullen, The Civil War on Roanoke Island North Carolina (2002).