My Last Sesquicentennial Event

Last week marked the Sesquicentennial of President Abraham Lincoln's assassination and death. On April 14 I commemorated the anniversary by attending a lecture at Ford's Theatre, visiting the Petersen House where Lincoln died, and touring a special assassination exhibit at the Center for Education and Leadership. Given the immediacy of other forms of social media, I mainly covered the day's events on Twitter and Facebook. I won't repost all of my photographs and comments here, but I'd advise readers to check out my Facebook and Twitter feeds to see what I published in real time.

Life changes a lot in four years, and I had hoped to make it to Appomattox for the 150th. Intervening events, including the recent birth of my daughter, made the trip to Appomattox a near impossibility. However, because I work in downtown DC, I knew that I could at least mark the 150th anniversary of another important milestone of the end of the Civil War years, and I ultimately decided to take a half day of leave on the 14th and spend some time at Ford's Theatre. The 150th of Lincoln's assassination is the last of the Sesquicentennial events that I will personally attend, and it was a fitting, albeit sad, end to four years of commemoration.

The incessant rain on April 14 did not deter visitors, and the line for each timed entry to Ford's Theatre stretched down the block. The number of people in the street only continued to grow as the hour of the assassination approached. Living historians entertained the crowds with their first-person accounts from the day of the assassination. I chatted with a few reenactors from Pennsylvania who represented Independent Battery C, First Pennsylvania Artillery. On the night of the 14th, four artillerymen from the battery helped to carry Lincoln to the Petersen House. Check out this post on Harry's blog for more info.

Waiting outside Ford's Theatre in the rain.

Once we were seated inside the theatre, a costumed interpreter told the story of Lincoln's assassination and death. The speaker really helped to take us back in time and imagine the horror, sadness, and confusion of that night. Her passion for the subject made for a captivating presentation. I've been to Ford's on numerous occasions, but I was moved beyond words to sit below the presidential box on the very day that Lincoln was shot 150 years ago and hear about his life, assassination, and death.

Looking up at the presidential box -- this felt like truly hallowed ground.

Following the tour, we made our way across 10th Street to the Petersen House. I felt a sense of extreme loss while reflecting on all that happened there. Just shy of 150 years before my visit, Lincoln slipped from life lying on a bed in a back room, and Secretary of War Edwin Stanton pronounced, "Now he belongs to the ages."

Upon leaving the Petersen House, I entered the Center for Education and Leadership, where I toured various permanent exhibits on Lincoln's death and the hunt for the assassins. Much to my surprise, I learned that my ticket included admission to the temporary exhibition of Silent Witness: Artifacts of the Lincoln Assassination. This exhibit, running through May 29, 2015, brings together an incredible collection of objects, including John Wilkes Booth's derringer; Lincoln's top hat, coat, and the contents of his pocket from the night of the assassination; and the blood-stained bunting from the presidential box. Given Lincoln's god-like status in U.S. history, many of these artifacts seemed like holy relics.

What I witnessed on Tuesday afternoon was nothing compared to what came later, as hundreds gathered outside the theatre to mark the exact time of Lincoln's assassination. Some people remained throughout the night to keep a mournful vigil, and by early the next morning, hundreds of onlookers once again crowded 10th Street, this time to mark the exact moment of Lincoln's death on April 15, 1865. (See here for a Washington Post report.) Although I couldn't attend, I kept watch myself by tuning to C-SPAN and reading Facebook and Twitter feeds by a host of organizations and individuals, including friend Craig Swain.

Overall, I was extremely encouraged by the public interest in Lincoln, his assassination, and death, even in jaded and cynical "Washington City"! And I was also happy to see so many friends and family who were interested in observing this 150th anniversary. I suppose that every once in a while, a historic event speaks to so many, including those who normally take only a passing interest in history. I and others like me are sometimes in our own Civil War bubble and tend to forget the wider appeal that America's history can hold. Last week's commemoration proved that some events mean so much to so many that they cannot easily be forgotten or overlooked, no matter how many years have passed.

The Fallout from the Report on the Contraband Camps in Northern Virginia, 1864

Back in September I wrote about the Union Army's investigation of the contraband camps in Northern Virginia during the summer of 1864. The inspectors' report, authored by Majors Elisha Ludington and Charles Compton, condemned the military's experiment in transitioning slaves to freedom and economic independence. The officers called the government farms in Arlington, Langley, Lewinsville, and Falls Church nothing more than "expensive toys" and recommended that they be disbanded once the current growing season was over. (Berlin et al. 341.) The report was sent to Secretary of War Edwin Stanton and soon landed on the desk of Quartermaster General Montgomery Meigs.

The inspectors' conclusions did not sit well with Meigs, who had supported the efforts of Lt. Col. Elias M. Greene, the Chief Quartermaster of the Department of Washington, to establish the government farms on abandoned secessionist properties in Northern Virginia. The report singled out Greene's ideas for particular scorn. Meigs wrote to Stanton on August 15, 1864 to register his objections.

Lt. Col. Elias M. Greene, Chief QM of the Dept. of Washington (courtesy of Civil War Badges).

Meigs disputed the inspectors' accounting, arguing that the farms were actually turning a profit. In any event, the camps provided intangible benefits that far outweighed their cost. The farms ensured "healthful and useful employment for a considerable number of men and women who were not fit for the active and hard work of the army." (344.) The camps had also led to a drop in disease among the contrabands, who previously lived in crowded and unsanitary conditions in Washington City, and prevented the spread of smallpox to the white population of the nation's capital. Meigs further believed that the government had an obligation to care for the wives and children of those who were fighting for the Union. As he noted in his letter to Stanton, "the United States. . . must take care that they do not starve." (345.)

The Quartermaster General rejected the recommendation that the government farms be discontinued. However, he proposed that employment on the farms be limited to women and the infirm and that their pay "be reduced. . . to a mere reward, enabling the laborer to procure tobacco or some such luxury." (345.) Meigs overall defended Greene's contraband policies, and praised him for "the improvement in the condition, treatment and health of these poor creatures, and the cessation of the criticisms and complaints of the press." (345.)

Meigs's letter to Stanton was endorsed by the Inspector General, Col. James Hardie, and sent to Maj. Ludington with a request to take another look at the report's conclusions. Although Ludington lowered his cost estimate for the government farms, he still found that they ran at a loss to the government. He refused to take make any other changes or alterations to the original report.

Despite Meigs's best efforts, Greene lost his job over the inspectors' findings and criticisms. He was sent to the Western Theatre, and his duties largely fell to Capt. Joseph Brown, an assistant quartermaster of who became head of the Department of Washington's Bureau of Freedmen and Government Farms. The government farms, however, continued in operation against the inspectors' recommendations. Unfortunately, Brown would prove far from sympathetic to the plight of the freedmen and women living in the contraband camps.

Source

I am grateful once again to the historians of the Freedmen and Southern Society Project who compiled the primary source documents referenced here in Ira Berlin et al., Freedom: A Documentary History of Emancipation, 1861-1867, Selected from the Holdings of the National Archives of the United States, Series I, Volume II, The Wartime Genesis of Free Labor: The Upper South (1993).

A Stinging Indictment of the Government Farms in Northern Virginia, July 1864

Earlier this summer I wrote about the state of Northern Virginia's contraband camps in Northern Virginia in June 1864. The Friends' Association for the Aid and Elevation of the Freedmen compiled a report on some of the camps that the Union Army had established on abandoned secessionist properties in the Old Dominion the previous year. The group took an overall positive view of developments on the government farms, although recognized the need for more improvements.

Not long afterwards, the War Department also decided to take a closer look at the farms, as well as the new contraband camp on Mason's Island and Freedman's Village on Robert E. Lee's Arlington estate. The department was footing the bill for the camps and surely wanted to assess the merits of the undertaking. On July 20, 1864, Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton ordered officers working for the Union Army's Inspector General to conduct an investigation of  Freedman's Village and "all matters pertaining to the organization and control of the Freedmen in the Dept. of Washington." (in Berlin et al. 345.)

Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton (courtesy of Wikipedia)

Majors Elisha H. Ludington and Charles E. Compton began the inspection in earnest. On July 30, 1864 they sent their final report to Col. James A. Hardie, the Army Inspector General. The report, which stood in stark contrast to the Friends' optimistic assessment, sent shock waves throughout the Union military. 

Ludington and Compton examined the five government farms in Northern Virginia, comprising some 1,270 acres under cultivation. [1] They noted that the land was "of poor, thin soil, for the most part." (340.) Moreover, "[w]hen occupied it was without fences and overgrown with bush," so that "it was necessary to clear and fence it, with heavy expenditure." (340.) The two assistant inspectors general observed some positive developments after a year of operation:

These Farms appear well, the crops are fair, the employees comfortably cared for, and in all respects the farms compare favorably with others in the vicinity. (340.)

Nevertheless, they determined that the farms exhibited "a loss to Government of an alarmingly large sum," which they calculated to be $69,000 over the course of 13 months. (340-41.) As Ludington and Compton interpreted the accounts:

The expense of the Guard alone amounts to three fourths of the whole receipts. For wages alone there is paid within 3000$ as much as all the farms yield. And yet the crop is put at the highest estimate in amount, and valued at present extraordinary prices. (341.)

The report sharply criticized the entire endeavor, concluding that "[o]nly a very wealthy government can afford such expensive toys." (341.) (emphasis added.)

Freedman's Village and Mason's Island did not fare any better in the inspectors' eyes. In fact, the inspectors found conditions so "disgraceful" on Mason's Island that they recommended that Rev. Danforth B. Nichols, Superintendent of Freedmen for the Department, be removed from his position for his alleged mismanagement of the new camp. (343.)

Even in terms of non-material benefits, Ludington and Compton had nothing positive to add about the Army's efforts:

We fail to discover any improvements in the character or conduct of the Adults. Judging from what we saw, they are of the most ignorant class of slaves. Few have knowledge of any labor above field labor, and are but little skilled even in that. Their erroneous idea that "emancipation" signifies a claim upon Government for support in idleness, has been confirmed rather than corrected. (342.)

The two inspectors singled out Lt. Col. Elias Greene's "theories" about the camps  for particular scorn. (342.) Greene, the Chief Quartermaster of the Department of Washington, was instrumental in the establishment and organization of the camps, and they were managed under his direction. The inspectors rejected outright his policy of refusing to bind out adult contrabands unless their children could accompany them:

This cannot be maintained on principles of humanity, for these people are seldom married -- have little idea of training children, and cannot hope to give them such advantages as are afforded by the Schools at the "Village." Moreover, the necessities of the times compel separations. . . . Nearly every women being burdened with children lessens the chances of her employment. (342-43.)

The inspectors' utter disregard for families seemed no better than the views held by the freedpersons' former masters.

Not surprisingly, Ludington and Compton called for an overhaul of the entire system. They recommended that most women be sent to work in "those portions of our Country where labor is greatly demanded, taking with them their children under 4 years of age." (343-44.) However, hearkening back to their views on separation of families, the inspectors advised that children from 4 to 14 should be held back, supported, and educated "out of the [government's] Contraband Fund." (344.) With respect to the government farms scattered across Northern Virginia, they urged that "all farming operations be discontinued as soon as the present crop is secured." (344.)

Col. James A. Hardie, Army Inspector General (courtesy of Wikipedia).

After landing on the Inspector General's desk, Hardie endorsed and forwarded the damning report to the Secretary of War. On August 4, Stanton sent the document to Quartermaster General Montgomery Meigs. The inspectors had challenged nearly all of Greene's efforts to deal with the contraband problem around the nation's capital, and coming days would bring both controversy and change.

Up Next

Meigs rushes to the defense of his subordinate.

Source

I am grateful to the historians of the Freedmen and Southern Society Project who compiled the primary source documents referenced here in Ira Berlin et al., Freedom: A Documentary History of Emancipation, 1861-1867, Selected from the Holdings of the National Archives of the United States, Series I, Volume II, The Wartime Genesis of Free Labor: The Upper South (1993).

Note

[1] The five contraband farms were likely Camps Beckwith, Rucker, Springdale, Todd, and Wadsworth.

Christmas in Washington, 1863: A Merry Time Was Had by All

As the end of the year 1863 fast approached, Washington City prepared to celebrate Christmas. Citizens in the nation's capital and elsewhere across the North had witnessed some important victories over the last twelve months, although at the cost of far too many dead and wounded. Perhaps the hope for an end to hostilities in the upcoming year took the sting off the awareness that the country was once again celebrating Christmas while divided and at war.

The weather in Washington leading up to the holiday was "quite cold," and "much ice was formed not only on the creeks and ponds, but in the river." (Alex. Gazette, Dec. 28, 1863.) The predicted snowfalls, however, never materialized. Residents woke up on Christmas morning to find "the river was nearly frozen across" to the point where "navigation became impeded." (Alex. Gazette, Dec. 28, 1863.)

"Christmas, 1863," Harper's Weekly, Dec. 26, 1863 (courtesy of sonofthesouth.net)

Despite the cold and frosty weather, the residents of the nation's capital got out and celebrated the holiday with cheer and "remarkable good order for so large and miscellaneous a population as Washington city now shelters." (Wash. Even. Star, Dec. 26, 1863.) As the Washington Evening Star reported:

Most of the business places were closed, and trade was for the time suspended, and all had the one end in view -- enjoyment. The restaurants and saloons were open and large bowls of the favorite Christmas drink, "egg-nogg," displayed upon innumerable sideboards, invited the attention of drinkers. The street cars ran all day, and many availed themselves of the opportunity to enjoy a ride and visit their friends about the city and Georgetown. But Washington never experienced a more quiet and orderly Christmas, and there was no evidence whatever of rowdyism. The day passed off admirably, and in many churches the people assembled in the morning to celebrate in a religious manner the natal day of the Saviour. . . . The theatres too were open, and attracted large audiences, both afternoon and evening. (Wash. Even. Star, Dec. 26, 1863.)

Curiously, the same edition of the Evening Star indicates a few episodes of "rowdyism" involving African-Americans in the northern part of the city. Either the editor missed the inconsistencies, or the paper drew a divide based on race when tallying incidents of rowdyism.

Campbell Army Hospital (courtesy of N.I.H.)

Patients at the U.S. military hospitals in Washington also marked the holiday, and several political dignitaries attended the festivities to offer their support. The Evening Star described the scene at Campbell Hospital, located at the northern boundary of 5th and 6th Street, N.W.:

Previously to partaking of the dinner the visitors were shown through the buildings and grounds, finding all the hospital department in admirable order -- the men in each ward having apparently tried to outdo those of the others in decorating their wards, and in some the decorations were very tasty, consisting of colored paper, cut into a variety of shapes, evergreens, etc. In all the wards were well arranged aquariums, containing a variety of beautiful fish. The company assembled in the reading-room while the tables in the dining-room were being prepared, where they were regaled with excellent music from the band of the 14th N.H. regiment. (Wash. Even. Star, Dec. 26, 1863.)

Dinner was served at 3 o'clock. Sen. Jacob Collamer of Vermont "urg[ed] the soldiers to remember that in this war, more than in any other, had they the sympathies of the people who rejoice with them that the beginning of the end is approaching." (Wash. Even. Star, Dec. 26, 1863.) The 200 patients and their guests partook in "an excellent dinner, consisting of turkeys, chickens, oysters, a variety of vegetables, pies, cakes, &c." (Wash. Even. Star, Dec. 26, 1863.) Afterwards, "a band of minstrels gave a concert, followed by a short play, and a promenade to the music of the band closed the festivities." (Wash. Even. Star, Dec. 26, 1863.)

Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts visited the patients at Emory Hospital, east of the Capitol. The Evening Star reported:

After a sumptuous dinner had been partaken of, the visitors were entertained with a concert of Ethiopian and other melodies by the soldiers. These entertainments have been found to have a good effect on the patients. (Wash. Even. Star, Dec. 26, 1863.)

Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, Senator Edwin Morgan of New York, and Senator Henry Wilson of Massachusetts all visited Stanton Hospital (along I Street, N.W. between 2nd and 3rd Streets, N.W.). The entire place "was dressed in evergreens with admirable taste." (Wash. Even. Star, Dec. 26, 1863.) The Secretary made a few patriotic remarks to the assembled patients:

Soldiers, I hope that when the next anniversary of the day you are now celebrating occurs, that this war will be ended, and you will have returned to your homes and your firesides. When you shall have so returned, you will be considered as honored guests of the nation. You have periled your lives upon the battle-field, or you have suffered in camps from the ravages of disease incidental to great armies. . . .

 . . . If we can end this rebellion with the extinction of Slavery, will it not be a great triumph? You will, at the end of this great rebellion, when making a review of it, have the satisfaction of knowing that you have aided the Government of the United States in discharging the duties incumbent on that Government when it was in peril. And, furthermore, you will experience the feeling that you have materially aided to make the country free. (N.Y. Times, Dec. 29, 1863.)

The men greeted Stanton's speech with applause, and Morgan then made a short speech, which was likewise "well received." (N.Y. Times, Dec. 29, 1863.) The soldiers at Stanton Hospital also enjoyed a full Christmas meal.

Similar celebrations occurred at other hospitals around town. Senator Morgan appeared at Douglas Hospital, where 300 patients ate Christmas dinner. Meanwhile, "[t]he patients at Lincoln Hospital. . .were gratified by a visit from Senator Sumner." (Wash. Even. Star, Dec. 26, 1863.) Armory Square Hospital "was decorated for the occasion, and was well supplied with tables loaded down with all the desirable delicacies and substantials." (Wash. Even. Star, Dec. 26, 1863.) Patients there presented the chaplain with a "handsome gold watch." (Wash. Even. Star, Dec. 26, 1863.)

By all accounts, Christmas 1863 in the nation's capital was celebrated with as much merriment as a people at war could muster. The sick and wounded at the Union military hospitals also enjoyed a welcome change from the everyday routine. As the skies turned rainy towards the end of December and 1864 began, civilians and soldiers alike faced a hard year ahead. And yet another Christmas would come and go before the nation would celebrate the holidays united once more.

Sources

Alexandria Gazette, Dec. 28, 1863; N.Y. Times, Dec. 29, 1863; Washington Evening Star, Dec. 26, 1863; R.D. Winthrop, "The War Hospitals, 1861-1865, Washington, DC," available at PA-Roots.

Contraband Camps Established in Northern Virginia: May-June 1863, Part I

A few months ago when researching events that transpired in the McLean area during 1863, I came across various references to "contraband camps." After some additional digging, I discovered that the Union military established camps for fugitive slaves on land in Northern Virginia at the end of May and start of June 1863. Unlike the Freedman's Village on Robert E. Lee's Arlington Estate, these contraband camps have attracted little attention in accounts of local Civil War history. In today's post I begin an exploration of the contraband camps of Northern Virginia. My research has just started, and I hope to tell more of this compelling story in the months ahead.

As the Civil War progressed, thousands of slaves fled to the nation's capital from surrounding states in search of freedom and opportunity. The abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia in April 1862 led to an even greater migration of slaves to Washington City. The problems of caring for these contrabands mounted as their numbers grew. Northern aid and religious societies provided material donations of necessities like clothing and sent teachers to educate the former slaves, but the chief responsibility for the contrabands rested with the Federal Government.

James Wadsworth, the military governor of Washington, soon recruited help from the outside. In June 1862 he named the Rev. Danforth B. Nichols as the Superintendent of Freedmen.  Nichols was a Methodist minister and member of the American Missionary Association, a society dedicated to abolition, racial equality, the education of blacks, and the spread of Christian values. (NPS, Theodore Roosevelt Island, fn121.) In his new role, Nichols oversaw the distribution of food, blankets, and clothing to ex-slaves; placed them in jobs throughout the city; and handled issues related to contraband housing.

Gen. James S. Wadsworth, commander of the Military District of Washington from March 1862 to September 1862 (courtesy of ExplorePAHistory.com).  Wadsworth faced the challenge of dealing with an influx of contrabands during his time in the nation's capital.

Many contrabands were housed in tenement dwellings along Duff Green's Row on Capitol Hill. In July 1862 smallpox erupted among the contrabands there, and the authorities feared the spread of the deadly disease. Nichols removed the contrabands to abandoned barracks at a more remote location, far from the populated areas of the capital. (The camp sat at 12th and Vermont Avenue, N.W., near today's Logan Circle). Called Camp Barker, this new settlement "became the center of the government's effort to provide relief and employment for former slaves in the District of Columbia," but before long, difficulties also plagued Camp Barker. (Berlin et al. 247.) The contraband population continued to grow, and conditions deteriorated. Diseases like scarlet fever, whooping cough, and measles spread in the overcrowded barracks and killed many of the former slaves. Nichols also worried that the close quarters at Camp Barker were contributing to promiscuity and immorality.

View of Camp Barker (courtesy of Civil War Trust).

The government clearly faced a daunting task as the third year of the war got underway. Lt. Col. Elias Greene, the Chief Quartermaster for the Department of Washington, hatched a plan. In early May 1863, he wrote to Gen. Samuel P. Heintzelman, commander of the Department. Greene viewed the population of dependent contrabands as a "dead weight on the Government." (Berlin et al. 298.) The Chief Quartermaster reminded Heitzelman that lands abandoned by "rebel owners" in Virginia were "now lying idle." (in Berlin et al. 298.) He observed:

On quite a number of these farms the houses are left standing--of these, there are enough to provide quarters for, from 500 to 750 field hands, with a very small outlay for additions and improvements. (in Berlin et al. 298.)

The Chief Quartermaster suggested:

The force of contrabands, males and females, now idle in this City. . . can be employed to very great advantage in cultivating the above lands, raising corn and millet, cutting Hay . . . for this Department. (in Berlin et al. 298.)

Greene felt that there would be "a decided advantage afforded to [the contrabands] of the salutary effects of good pure country air." (in Berlin et al. 298.) Moreover "a return to their previous healthy avocations as 'field hands' under much happier auspices than heretofore, . . . must prove beneficial to them, and will tend to prevent the increase of diseases now prevalent among them." (in Berlin et al. 298.)

Greene concluded:

The arrangement I propose will not only in my opinion conduce to the sanitary and moral improvements of the contrabands, but will save the Govt an immense amount of money. (in Berlin 298.)

Greene recommended that Nichols, who agreed with the plan, remain as Superintendent. The Chief Quartermaster also asked for a response to his proposal within 48 hours so that farming could start before the imminent end of the planting season.

Heintzelman approved Greene's plan, and Quartermaster General Montgomery Meigs added his endorsement. On May 14, Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton agreed to the proposed system of contraband camps in Virginia, and a week later, Heintzelman formally issued orders authorizing Greene to execute his plan by relocating dependent contrabands to abandoned secessionist lands in Virginia. (General Orders No. 28, May 22, 1863.) The social experiment across the Potomac would begin in earnest.

Up Next: Nichols establishes five camps throughout Arlington and Fairfax.

Sources
Ira Berlin et al., Freedom: A Documentary History of Emancipation, 1861-1867, Selected from the Holdings of the National Archives of the United States, Series I, Volume II, The Wartime Genesis of Free Labor: The Upper South (1993); John H. Eicher & David J. Eicher, Civil War High Commands (2001); Allen C. Guelzo, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America (2004); Robert Harrison, Washington During Civil War and Reconstruction: Race and Radicalism (2011); National Park Service, "Freedman's Village," Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial (website); National Park Service, Historic American Landscapes Survey: Theodore Roosevelt Island.

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).