Thanksgiving 1862 in the Defenses of Washington Near Chain Bridge

This week as we prepare to celebrate Thanksgiving, I wanted to offer readers a brief look into how Union soldiers defending the nation's capital spent the holiday in 1862.  One hundred and fifty years ago, the area around the strategic crossing of the Potomac at Chain Bridge was home to several regiments.  Camp life offered little excitement, and the men spent their days drilling, performing picket duty, or working on the forts and earthworks.  Thanksgiving provided the soldiers with a welcome respite from the daily grind in front of Washington.

The 118th New York, nicknamed the "Adirondack Regiment," was composed of three-year volunteers from Clinton, Essex, and Warren Counties.  Organized in Plattsburgh, the regiment left for Maryland in early September 1862, but by November 1862 had moved to the area around Ft. Ethan Allen and Chain Bridge.  Governor Edwin Morgan of New York proclaimed Thursday, November 27, as a day of thanksgiving, and the men of the 118th New York took the time to observe the holiday like their friends and family back home.

The soldiers surely were thankful for the "[f]ine and warm" weather on the twenty-seventh.  (Cunningham 34.)  Only the week before the New Yorkers had endured cold, rainy conditions that left 1st Lieutenant John Cunningham "quite wet and 'shivery.'"  (Cunningham 34.)  The regimental chaplain led the boys of the 118th in a service of thanksgiving.  Cunningham and the others also enjoyed a relatively hearty meal.  As the young officer wrote in his diary, "[f]or dinner had bread, salt beef, fried bread, pickles, coffee, cheese and more bread, with bread and molasses for dessert."  (Cunningham 34.)  The entire day left Cunningham "happy and thankful."  (Cunningham 34.)

"Thanksgiving in Camp," Harper's Weekly, Nov. 29, 1862, by Winslow Homer (courtesy of Wikipedia)

The 127th Pennsylvania, known popularly as the "Dauhpin County Regiment," consisted of nine-month volunteers from Dauphin, Lebanon, and Adams Counties.  The regiment headed to Washington in August 1862 and soon took up a position not far from Ft. Ethan Allen and Chain Bridge.  In October, the regiment moved briefly to another spot about three miles from Ft. Ethan Allen, before receiving orders to return closer to the fort.  Col. William Jennings of the 127th christened this place "Camp Dauphin."  According to a history of the 127th Pennsylvania, the camp "was pleasantly located in a young peach orchard, on level, or slightly sloping ground, and was an ideal spot." (History of the 127th Regiment 154.)  The soldiers thought that this location would serve as their home for the winter and began to construct log cabins there.

Pennsylvania Governor Andrew Curtin, like his counterpart from New York, issued a proclamation declaring November 27th as a day of thanksgiving.  On November 26, Lt. Col. Hiram C. Alleman issued a special order "directing" that the next day "should be observed in strict accordance with the Proclamation of Gov. Curtin."  (Pa. Daily Telegraph, Nov. 29, 1862.)  The order was read to the men at evening dress parade. 

Rev. John Gregg, the regimental chaplain, described how the regiment began Thanksgiving Day in a letter to the Pennsylvania Daily Telegraph of Harrisburg on November 27:

We had a ceremony this morning at 10 o'clock, which was not only interesting, but highly appropriate to the occasion.  The regiment was formed on parade ground, and the Colonel designated company B to escort the colors.  The regiment was then formed into a hollow square, the Governor's Proclamation was read by [the adjutant], and a prayer suitable to the occasion was offered by the Chaplain.  After singing the doxology, and executing some military manoeuvres, both the religious and military exercises closed.  (Pa. Daily Telegraph, Nov. 29, 1862.)

Gregg added that the regiment "had neither company or battalion drill during the day, and the boys enjoyed themselves to their heart's content."  (Pa. Daily Telegraph, Nov. 29, 1862.)  Whether liquor was consumed, the reverend did not say!  Gregg took the opportunity to tell readers that "[t]he health of the men is improving and the boys generally seem to be in good spirits."  He was also "glad to inform the friends of religion, that most of those who profess faith in Christ, have formed themselves into a Christian body. . . ."  (Pa. Daily Telegraph, Nov. 29, 1862.)  Gregg "hope[d] that much good will be accomplished by the united efforts of the members of this body, composed as it is of members of the many Christian denominations represented in this regiment."  (Pa. Daily Telegraph, Nov. 29, 1862.) 

The 127th Pennsylvania would soon leave the defenses of Washington and march to join the Army of the Potomac along the Rappahannock.  As part of the Second Corps, the regiment fought at the Battle of Fredericksburg on December 13 and suffered more than a hundred casualties.

These recollections of Thanksgiving in camp near Chain Bridge demonstrate the central role that religion played in observing the holiday 150 years ago.  (The separation of church and state seemed a bit less of a concern then too.)  Of course, the soldiers also looked on the day as an opportunity to relax and indulge, just as we do today.  And so, as we prepare to enjoy turkey with all the fixings, I'd like to wish all of my readers a Happy Thanksgiving!

Editorial Note to Readers

I just wanted to let everyone know that due to an increasingly intense and unpredictable work schedule between now and Christmas, the frequency of posts is about to drop.  I'll make my best efforts to get something up in a few weeks, starting with a follow-up on that Chain Bridge blockhouse story.

Sources

Committee of the Regimental Ass'n. of the 127th Pa., History of the 127th Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteers (1902); John L. Cunningham, Three Years with the Adirondack Regiment (1920); New York State Military Museum and Veterans Research Center, "118th Infantry Regiment: Civil War: Adirondack Regiment;"  N.Y. Times, Oct. 2, 1862; Pa. Daily Telegraph, Nov. 29, 1862; George E. Reed (ed.), Pennsylvania Archives, Fourth Series, Vol. VIII: Papers of the Governors, 1858-1871 (1902); Richard A. Sauers, Advance the Colors: Pennsylvania Civil War Battle Flags, Vol. II (1991).

Little Mac, Lincoln, and Military Reviews: Engravings from Frank Leslie's

My hobby of collecting Civil War newspapers has become quite the obsession.  I often search eBay and other online sites for additions to my collection, which focuses heavily on the lesser-known aspects of the war in and around Washington.  The other day I won an auction for an October 5, 1861 edition of Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper.  This particular issue contains a multitude of interesting engravings and articles about the time when all was truly quiet along the Potomac.  Two oversized illustrations pertain to military reviews, which were all the rage with the Army of the Potomac in the fall of 1861.


Cover of the Oct. 5, 1861 edition of Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, showing "Brilliant Naval Exploit in Pensacola Harbor--Burning of the Rebel War Schooner Judith on the 14th September."

Berdan's Sharpshooters Take Aim
On September 20, 1861, President Lincoln, accompanied by Secretary of State William H. Seward and the Prince de Joinville of France, rode out to Camp Burnside near Washington to review soldiers under the command of Col. Hiram Berdan.  Known popularly as "Berdan's Sharpshooters," this famed regiment was composed of top marksmen from across the Union.  "At a late hour," Gen. George B. McClellan finally arrived on the field and greeted the President and Secretary of State.  (Frank Leslie's, Oct. 5, 1861, 326.)  McClellan dismounted and chatted with the Prince and his sons before proceeding to review Berdan's men at target practice.  According to Frank Leslie's:

General McClellan walked down the line of the troops, looking every man in the eye, and afterwards watched with interest the progress of the shooting.  He complimented the men for their skill, and expressed his gratitude to Colonel Berdan at the neatness and excellent discipline that pervaded the camp. . . .  (Frank Leslie's, Oct. 5, 1861, 326.)

Other dignitaries were in attendance that day, along with "[a] large number of ladies and citizens of Washington."  (Frank Leslie's, Oct. 5, 1861, 326.)  It is unclear whether this is the same review of Berdan's men where Lincoln fired a rifle "to the great delight of the many soldiers and civilians surrounding."  (Stevens 10.)  The President on that occasion apparently remarked, "Boys, this reminds me of old-time shooting."   (Stevens 10.)  The article in Frank Leslie's makes no mention of the President's participation.

"'Sharpshooting'--Trial of Skill of Berdan's Riflemen, Before General McClellan and Staff, Near Washington, Friday, September 20--From a Sketch by our Special Artist Attached to General McClellan's Command," Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, Oct. 5, 1861.  McClellan is presumably the person standing in uniform talking to the men in top hats.

The newsweekly chose to illustrate the event with a two-page spread of McClellan, his staff, and spectators gathered to watch the sharpshooters engage in target practice.  The paper reported that of 240 shots fired at a distance of three-quarters of a mile, "130 hit the target, and nearly all the other shots struck very near it."  (Frank Leslie's, Oct. 5, 1861, 326.)  Overall, the Frank Leslie's correspondent considered that "[t]he affair was successful, so far as the shooting was concerned, and was highly interesting to the spectators."   (Frank Leslie's, Oct. 5, 1861, 326.)  Not to be outdone, the rival Harper's Weekly published a front-page illustration of Berdan's Sharpshooters on the same day.

A Grand Review of Artillery and Cavalry

On September 24, McClellan held yet another review of his army in the making.  Frank Leslie's accorded the event a two-page spread in the October 5 edition.  Once again, the accompanying article portrayed  McClellan as the man of the hour.  This grand review involved over 2,000 troopers from "two full regiments of cavalry, the 5th regular and the Kentucky Volunteers, together with such portions of the Lincoln, Ira Harris and Cameron Guards as had their horses and sabres."  (Frank Leslie's, Oct. 5, 1861, 327.)  In addition, "there were eight batteries of U.S. Regular Flying Artillery, comprising 48 heavy rifled and howitzer field pieces, with caissons, carriages, horses, riders and gunners, in full quota." (Frank Leslie's, Oct. 5, 1861, 327.) 

The artillery and cavalry units were encamped "near the extremities of Seventh and Fourteenth streets" and had to march about three miles to the parade ground, which sat a mile east of the Capitol.  The paper reported that "[t]housands of men, women and children streamed after them" as they made their way through the streets of Washington to the review.  (Frank Leslie's, Oct. 5, 1861, 327.)  Many dignitaries assembled on the parade ground, including the President, the First Lady, and Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase. 

Finally, "at four o'clock General McClellan, accompanied by his staff -- among whom were the Comte de Paris and Duc du Chartres -- rode upon the ground, and were received with six guns."  (Frank Leslie's, Oct. 5, 1861, 327.)  The day culminated in McClellan's review of the assembled cavalry and artillery units:

The General rode slowly along the line, and carefully scrutinized the equipment, arms and bearing of the troops.  He then inspected the artillery. . . .  Eight batteries numbering 48 heavy guns, then rode in thunderous line before the young Commander-in-Chief, and elicited his hearty approval.  This closed the review, and by sundown the glorious pageant was over.  (Frank Leslie's, Oct. 5, 1861, 327.)

"Grand Review in Washington of Eight Batteries of Artillery and Three Regiments of Cavalry, by the President, General McClellan, and a Portion of the Cabinet, Tuesday, September 24--From a Sketch by our Special Artist Attached to General McClellan's Command," Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, Oct. 5, 1861.  McClellan sits mounted at the center of the engraving.  It is unclear which figure is the President.  The person in the black coat and top hat next to McClellan most resembles Lincoln, although according to the accompanying article, the President was seated in a carriage with his wife and Secretary Chase during the review.  In the engraving, a carriage with two men and a woman is visible to the left.  The bearded individual in the carriage could also be the President.  Perhaps Frank Leslie's should have gotten better engravers!

Harper's Weekly was even more effusive, calling the review "[o]ne of the finest displays of cavalry and artillery ever witnessed upon this continent."  (Harper's Weekly, Oct. 12, 1861, 652.)  The New York Times struck a more reserved, if not critical, tone:

The display was most grand and impressive, but it lacked the spirit and hurrah of a European review. Gen. MCCLELLAN reviews very much as if he were minutely inspecting the equipments of the men. This gives him perhaps a very good knowledge of the material which he has in his hand, but it does little or nothing to arouse martial spirit or to awaken enthusiasm. It brings out no evidence of the dashing recklessness which carries all before it, and which nine times out of ten alone wins battles.  (N.Y. Times, Sept. 25, 1861.)

The Times was on to something.  Although McClellan was a superb organizer and administrator, he certainly lacked the aggressiveness it took to crush the Confederacy.  On the other hand, the Times misread Little Mac's ability to inspire his own men, who ended up admiring McClellan perhaps more than any other commander of the Army of the Potomac.

These engravings and related stories make the war seem like a sideshow compared to the carnage that was to follow over the course of four long years.  The nation, however, was hungry for war news, and the papers were there to report on whatever was happening around the nation's capital at the time.  Surely McClellan didn't mind the publicity.  Reviews offered the chance to stir patriotic feelings and showcase the Union's military might.  And the October events were only a preview for what was to come.  A few months later, on November 20, the general would conduct the grandest review of them all at Bailey's Crossroads. 

Sources

Adam Goodheart, "Killing Jeff Davis," N.Y. Times Disunion Blog, Aug. 6, 2011; Harper's Weekly, Oct. 5, 1861; Harper's Weekly, Oct. 12, 1861; New York Times, Sept. 25, 1861; C.A. Stevens, Berdan's United States Sharpshooters in the Army of the Potomac, 1861-1865 (1892).

The Chain Bridge Defenses: A Mysterious Blockhouse

Following a recent trip to the Falls Church Library, I decided to swing by my local Books-A-Million on the way home.  As I was browsing the bargain bin, a Blue & Gray Press reprint of Volume 5 of Francis T. Miller's famous, The Photographic History of The Civil War, caught my eye.  This volume focuses on forts and artillery and includes a chapter on "Defending the National Capital."  A photograph on page 75 entitled, "Blockhouse at the Chain Bridge, Above Georgetown," really peaked my curiosity.  I've read a lot about the Chain Bridge and the Civil War defenses of Washington, but had never come across any mention of a blockhouse being built at the bridgehead.  I was determined to learn more about the subject of this unique photograph. 

Photograph and caption from p. 75 of Miller's The Photographic History of The Civil War, Volume 5: Forts and Artillery (courtesy of Perseus Digital Library, Tufts University)

The caption for the photograph in Miller's Photographic History includes no indication of when it was taken or who took it.  The image depicts a small group of persons gathered at the end of the Chain Bridge below the blockhouse.  At least one woman is standing there, along with a few children.  Given the format of digital reproduction that I found, it is difficult to magnify the photograph on a computer to see more detail. 

Virginia Side or D.C. Side?

During the Civil War, the D.C. side of the Chain Bridge crossed low over the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal before meeting the shore (see photograph below), while the Virginia side passed high over the Potomac River and ended abruptly at a steep bank.  (Barnard 80.)  The bridge in Miller's book appears to hit the shore at the river, or Virginia, end.  A modern photograph of the same location, which has not changed much since the war, supports this conclusion (see below). 

A wartime view of the Georgetown/D.C. end of the Chain Bridge (courtesy of Library of Congress).  Note the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal immediately below the bridge.



Contemporary view of the Chain Bridge and the Potomac at the Virginia shoreline, looking south (courtesy of Wikipedia).  The curve in the river and the shape of the palisades on the Virginia side appear to match the same features in the photograph from Miller's Photographic History.

At the time of the war, the ruins of an industrial brick building (or buildings) stood on the south side of the Virginia end of the bridge.  A lone chimney also rose above the Chain Bridge around the same area (see the series of photographs below).  Both of these features appear to be missing from the photograph in Miller's classic work.  The ruins were likely situated farther down the road, outside the frame of the photograph.  At some point when I have more time I'd like to hike around the site to get a better idea of where the blockhouse and ruins were possibly located in relation to the old bridge.

Ruins of an old manufacturing building on the Virginia side of the Chain Bridge (courtesy of Library of Congress).

Another view of ruins near the head of the bridge on the Virginia side (courtesy of Wikipedia).



View from heights above the bridge, showing the ruins of a brick chimney (courtesy of Library of Congress).  The remnants of the brick industrial building are visible below, to the right of the Chain Bridge.

A Blockhouse?

During the war, the Chain Bridge was one of three strategic crossings of the Potomac River near Washington.  As Gen. John G. Barnard, Chief Engineer for the Department of Washington, recalled, "The possession of the Chain Bridge communication with the opposite shore of the Potomac, incidentally important in a defensive point of view, was essential to our operations in Virginia and to the prestige of our arms."  (Barnard 47.)  Accordingly, the Union Army constructed several works on both sides of the Potomac to protect this vital link between Washington and Virginia.  In the Old Dominion, Forts Marcy and Ethan Allen, along with a system of rifle trenches and batteries, served as the main defensive works.  On the D.C. side, a battery of field guns sat at the end of the bridge; Battery Martin Scott occupied the heights above.  Batteries Vermont, Kemble, Parrott, and Cameron also swept the land around Chain Bridge in Virginia from their dominant positions on the other side of the river.*

The Union Army constructed several blockhouses around the nation's capital, but commonly-consulted sources on the defenses of Washington do not list a blockhouse as part of the works at the Chain Bridge.  Three blockhouses were erected on the Virginia side of the Aqueduct Bridge (near today's Key Bridge).  Blockhouses were also built near Alexandria at Hunting Creek and on the Leesburg-Alexandria Turnpike around Ft. Ward.  In November 1864, the Union Army began to erect a series of picket posts, including blockhouses, that stretched from Prospect Hill on the Leesburg-Georgetown Turnpike (a few miles from the Chain Bridge) to Vienna, Fairfax Courthouse, and Fairfax Station.  

A wartime report on Washington's defenses offers a clue as to the construction of a blockhouse at the Chain Bridge.  On October 25, 1862, Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton appointed a Commission to examine the adequacy of Washington's defenses.  Barnard served on the Commission along with other military experts, including Quartermaster General Montgomery Meigs and the Chief of Engineers, Gen. John G. Totten.  In December 1862, the Commission offered its recommendations.  After reviewing the state of the defenses around the Chain Bridge, the Commission concluded:

[S]ome defensive arrangements are necessary immediately about the head of the bridge; probably two or three small works, or, perhaps, block-houses would suffice.  (OR, 1:21, 909.)

Several months later, on May 22, 1863, Barnard complained to the head of the Department of Washington, Gen. Samuel P. Heintzelman, that he was running low on funds to hire workers for the improvements recommended by the Commission.  As to the Chain Bridge, he explained:

. . . there remains much to be done, and I will continue a force of mechanics, with some laborers, provided I can have the assistance of the troops.  (OR, 1:25:2, 513.)

However, a few weeks later, on July 7, 1863, Barnard reported to Col. J.C. Kelton, the Assistant Adjutant-General:

The work has been prosecuted with all the vigor the means at my disposal would admit. Although the winter season was most unfavorable for such work, and with the limited amount of money available, as well as with regard to economy, it was not deemed advisable to employ very large gangs of hired laborers, yet, by aid of the troops, working whenever the weather and state of the ground would permit, the most essential works recommended by the commission, such as . . . the additional works at the Chain Bridge. . . were all pressed forward, so as to be in a condition, if not complete, at least of efficiency, for their uses, with the return of the season, when active field operations might throw Washington upon its defenses.  (OR, 1:27:3, 596.)

Barnard's correspondence indicates that despite resource constraints, the Union Army completed or made substantial progress on the recommended works at the Chain Bridge -- which possibly included one or more blockhouses -- by mid-summer of 1863.  However, in his post-war report on the defenses of Washington Barnard elaborated on the fate of the blockhouses at the Chain Bridge:

It has been seen that the Commission recommended that some defensive arrangements should be made immediately about the head of the bridge, suggesting two or three small works or block-houses.  This recommendation, though always contemplated, was never complied with. Doubtless, however, this interior and limited inclosure of the bridge-head is a necessary and important part of all extensive "tetes de pont." (Barnard 47.)

So, is Barnard wrong about the blockhouse?  After all, pictures presumably don't lie.  His report was published several years after the close of the war, and his memory may have grown a bit cloudy, particularly if the blockhouse was built following his departure from the Department of Washington in 1864.  Alternatively, the U.S. Army may have constructed the blockhouse at some point during the post-war period, and Miller's Photographic History may have erroneously classified the image as a Civil War-era one.  If that is the case, then for what defensive purposes was the blockhouse built?  After all, an active rebellion no longer threatened the river crossing at the Chain Bridge.  Another possibility is that Miller's book misidentified the photograph, and that it actually depicts another bridge and another blockhouse somewhere else that bears an uncanny resemblance to the area around the Chain Bridge.  Whatever the theory, one thing is certain -- the complete story behind the "blockhouse at the Chain Bridge" remains a mystery.

Notes

*A sub-caption to the photograph in Miller's Photographic History explains that "[the Chain Bridge] approach was defended by Forts Ethan Allen and Marcy on the Virginia side, and by Batteries Martin Scott, Vermont, and Kemble on the Maryland side of the Potomac."  (Miller, Vol. 5, 75.)

Sources

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

John G. Barnard, A Report on the Defenses of Washington (1871); Benjamin Franklin Cooling III & Walton H. Owen II, Mr. Lincoln's Forts: A Guide to the Civil War Defenses of Washington (2010 ed.); Historical Marker Database, "Pimmit Run and Chain Bridge"; Francis T. Miller & E.O. Hunt (eds.), The Photographic History of the Civil War in Ten Volumes, Volume 5: Forts and Artillery (1911); National Park Service, A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defenses of Washington, Parts I & II (2004).