Civil War Views: Battery Martin Scott

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

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

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

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

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

(courtesy of archive.org)

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

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

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

Source

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

A Surprise Visit to Battery Parrott

A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of attending a reception at the residence of the Belgian Ambassador to the United States. Located along Foxhall Rd., N.W. in Washington, this ornate home sits atop the heights dominating the Potomac River near Chain Bridge. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that that the property was the site of Battery Parrott, part of the defenses of Washington during the Civil War. In fact, the Belgian Embassy website even discusses the history associated with the location.

The Union Army erected Battery Parrott in 1862 on land belonging to local widow Ellen King. The battery was named after Robert P. Parrott, a former captain of ordinance and inventor of the Parrott gun.  Battery Parrott was equipped with two 100-pounder Parrott rifles. Gen. John G. Barnard, Chief Engineer for the Department of Washington, later called Battery Parrott one of the "most perfect and complete" batteries in the defenses of the nation's capital. (Barnard 72-73.) Along with Batteries Cameron and Kemble, Battery Parrott swept the Virginia side of the Potomac from Chain Bridge and Forts Marcy and Ethan Allen to Fort DeKalb (Fort Strong).


The remaining earthworks of Battery Parrott are plainly visible in the backyard of the Belgian Ambassador's Residence. The massive Parrott guns were mounted en barbette behind the parapet.

Battery Parrott was garrisoned at various times by companies from the 1st Maine Heavy Artillery, the 1st New Hampshire Heavy Artillery, and the 9th New York Heavy Artillery. Company K of the 1st Maine Heavy Artillery served the longest at the battery, from August 1862 until being sent to the front during the Overland Campaign in May 1864. Writing to Chief of Staff Henry W. Halleck about the state of Washington's defenses in spring 1864, Gen. A.P. Howe, Inspector of Artillery, observed:

Battery Parrott, Capt. Frederic E. Shaw commanding.–Garrison, one company First Maine Heavy Artillery–1 commissioned officer, 1 ordnance-sergeant, 46 men. Armament, two 100-pounder Parrots. Magazines, one; dry and in good order. Ammunition, full supply and serviceable. Implements, complete and serviceable. Drill in artillery, fair. Drill in infantry, fair. Garrison is sufficient. (in NPS at Vol. I, Appendix E.)

As with nearly all of the forts and batteries around the nations capital, Battery Parrott saw no action during the Civil War.

Photo of a 100-pounder Parrott, this one taken at Ft. Totten outside Washington (courtesy Library of Congress)

At the end of hostilities in 1865, the Union military offered King wood and other materials from the battery as compensation for the occupation of her land. The widow refused at first, but relented in October 1865, accepted the in-kind compensation, and signed a release discharging any future claims against the U.S. Government. King nevertheless filed a claim for rent and the taking of timber in May 1874. Despite the earlier release, King prevailed and was awarded compensation by the U.S. Treasury Department in 1875 and 1876.

Detail from 1865 War Department map of the defenses of Washington showing the position of Battery Parrott (center), as well as other features, including Batteries Cameron and Kemble, Chain Bridge, Ft. Marcy, Ft. Ethan Allen, and Ft. Strong (courtesy of the Library of Congress).

The position of Battery Parrott (blue pin) indicated on a modern map of Washington, DC and Virginia. (See here for a larger map.)

Sipping on a Belgian beer and looking out at the earthworks behind the ambassador's house, I couldn't help but chuckle. Things are sometimes ironic like that in Washington. One hundred and fifty years ago, boys from Maine tramped across this very land, while 100-pounder guns stood guard against the possibility of Rebel incursions, however remote. Now internationally-minded professionals were mingling and eating hors d'oeuvres, most oblivious to the importance of the site during our nation's most trying ordeal.

Sources

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.); Historic Preservation Review Board, Government of the District of Columbia, Application for Historic Landmark or Historic District Designation for the Scheele-Brown Farmhouse (2013); National Park Service, A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defenses of Washington, Parts I & II (2004); Official Records, Series 1, Vol. XXV, Pt. 2, at 187 (1889).

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).

The Chain Bridge Defenses During the Maryland Campaign, Part III: Sigel Stays Put and Stands Guard

In the last couple of posts, I've followed the story of the Chain Bridge defenses around Washington in the days prior to Antietam.  During the first week of September 1862, Franz Sigel led his corps from Fairfax Court House to the vicinity of Ft. Ethan Allen.  As Gen. George McClellan moved his army across the Potomac to chase down the Robert E. Lee, he left Sigel's men, along with the corps of Fitz John Porter and Samuel P. Heintzelman, to guard the Virginia side of the river in front of the nation's capital.  By September 7, Sigel's line stretched from Ft. Marcy and Ft. Ethan Allen, near Chain Bridge, to Ft. DeKalb in present-day Arlington.

McClellan Tries to Extract Sigel and Other Reinforcements from Washington's Defenses

Before long, McClellan was asking Washington to send him reinforcements, including men from Sigel's corps and the other commands around the capital.  Generally inclined to overestimate Confederate troop strength, Little Mac was no different this time around.  He believed that Lee had "not less than 120,000 men" near Frederick, Maryland. (OR, 1:19:2, 254.)  In fact, the Army of the Potomac had around a two-to-one advantage over Lee.  (Sears, Landscape, 102.)

On September 10, McClellan wrote to General-in-Chief Henry Halleck:

At the time this army moved from Washington, it was not known what the intentions of the rebels were in placing their forces on this side of the Potomac. It might have been a feint to draw away our troops from Washington, for the purpose of throwing their main army into the city as soon as we were out of the way, or it might have been supposed to be precisely what they are now doing. In view of this uncertain condition of things, I left what I conceived to be a sufficient force to defend the city against any army they could bring against it from the Virginia side of the Potomac.  (OR, 1:19:2, 254.)*

McClellan, however, felt that "[t]his uncertainty . . . exists no longer."  (OR, 1:19:2, 254.)  The immediate danger to the capital had passed.  McClellan informed Halleck of the overwhelming number of Confederates at Frederick and warned that "if we should be defeated the consequences to the country would be disastrous in the extreme."   (OR, 1:19:2, 254.)  Little Mac pleaded for Halleck to send him more men:

Under these circumstances, I would recommend that one or two of the three army corps now on the Potomac, opposite Washington, be at once withdrawn and sent to re-enforce this army . . . . (OR, 1:19:2, 254.) 

The commander perceived little threat to Washington:

If there are any rebel forces remaining on the other side of the Potomac, they must be so few that the troops left in the forts, after the two corps shall have been withdrawn, will be sufficient to check them; and, with the large cavalry force now on that side kept well out in front to give warning of the distant approach of any very large army, a part of this army might be sent back within the entrenchments to assist in repelling an attack.  (OR, 1:19:2, 254.) 

McClellan seemed almost nonchalant about the possible capture of the nation's capital:

But even if Washington should be taken while these armies are confronting each other, this would not, in my judgment, bear comparison with the ruin and disaster which would follow a signal defeat of this army.  If we should be successful in conquering the gigantic rebel army before us, we would have no difficulty in recovering it. On the other hand, should their force prove sufficiently powerful to defeat us, would all the forces now around Washington be sufficient to prevent such a victorious army from carrying the works on this side of the Potomac, after they are uncovered by our army? I think not.  (OR, 1:19:2, 254-55.)** 

From his headquarters near Rockville on September 11, McClellan further urged Halleck:

Please send forward all the troops you can spare from Washington, particularly Porter's, Heintzelman's, Sigel's, and all the other old troops. Please send them to Brookville, via Leesborough.  (OR, 1:19:2, 253.)***

President Lincoln himself responded to McClellan's plea for additional soldiers from the defenses of Washington.  (OR, 1:19:2, 253.)  The President understood that the new recruits streaming into Washington were mixed with the three commands and worried that "[i]f Porter, Heintzelman, and Sigel were sent you, it would sweep everything from the other side of the river. . . ." (OR, 1:19:2, 253.)  Instead, he released only the remainder of Porter's Fifth Corps, which was ordered to cross the Potomac and join the Army of the Potomac in the field.  (OR, 1:19:2, 253, 255.)  Lincoln held out the possibility of future reinforcements: 

I am for sending you all than can be spared, and I hope others can follow Porter very soon.  (OR, 1:19:2, 254.)

In the end, however, Sigel's men would stay put near the Chain Bridge defenses while the Army of the Potomac tracked down and fought Lee.

"General McClellan Entering the Town of Frederick, Maryland--The Popular Welcome," Harper's Weekly, Oct. 4, 1862 (courtesy of sonofthesouth.net).

Sigel's Corps and Everyday Life in Front of Washington

During the Maryland Campaign, Sigel's corps underwent a few organizational changes.  Once McClellan took to the field with the main army, Sigel reported to Gen. Nathaniel Banks, whom McClellan had placed in overall command of Washington's defenses. (OR, 1:19:2, 202, 214.)  Under General Orders No. 129, dated September 12, the War Department officially re-designated the three corps of the former Army of Virginia, and Sigel's First Corps became the Eleventh Corps of the Army of the Potomac.  (OR, 1:19:2, 279.) 

As McClellan battled Lee at South Mountain and Antietam, Sigel's men dealt with the mundane routine of camp life.  Soldiers spent the days drilling or on picket duty.  One regiment, the 27th Pennsylvania, changed camps around Chain Bridge several times throughout September and performed picket duty in Falls Church, a few miles in advance of the defensive line.  Gen. Robert Milroy, a brigade commander in Sigel's corps, used his free time to venture into Washington City and sit for his photograph at Mathew Brady's studio.

Not surprisingly, the presence of thousands of Union soldiers from Sigel's corps had an impact on the surrounding community.  Jospeh Sewell lived in Langley, just down the road from Forts Marcy and Ethan Allen where Sigel's men stood guard.  The farmer, like other locals, was no stranger to the Union Army.  Soldiers from Gen. "Baldy" Smith's division lived on and around Sewell's farm during the first winter of the war and had taken their fair share of crops and timber from him.  In September 1862, troops from Milroy's brigade entered Sewell's property and seized thirty barrels of corn.  They also took around three acres of garden vegetables and potatoes.****  Other civilians in the area likely experienced similar losses at the hands of the Union defenders.

Gen. Robert Milroy, from the Brady National Photographic Art Gallery (courtesy of Library of Congress).  Not long after sitting for his photograph, Milroy was sent with his brigade to western Virginia.

After Antietam: Sigel Advances to Centreville and Fairfax Court House 

As the Maryland Campaign drew to a close, Sigel's men were moved forward from the defenses near Washington.  Concerned about a possible Confederate attempt to reoccupy the railroad junction of Manassas, Banks ordered Sigel to send Gen. Julius Stahel's division to Centreville on September 21.  (OR, 1:19:2, 340-41, 344-45, 351.)   A few days later, on September 25, the remainder of Sigel's corps was dispatched to Fairfax Court House to cover an expedition being made to recapture several railroad engines at Bristoe.  (OR, 1:19:2, 356, 359.)  Banks, anxious about Confederate intentions, ordered that Sigel exercise "[g]reat caution. . . to prevent surprise," keep the cavalry "well to the front and on the alert," and "report frequently the state of affairs."  (OR, 1:19:2, 356.)

Banks originally intended to have Sigel's corps "fall back to its former position" following the expedition.  (OR, 1:19:2, 359.)   Sigel's men, however, remained in and around Fairfax Court House and Centreville to act as a "corps of observation."  (OR, 1:19:2, 425, 428.)  In this new role, Sigel kept an eye on Confederate activity in Northern Virginia, but Banks made sure to tell Sigel that "if menaced by a superior force of the enemy," he was "to fall back to the lines of defense."  (OR, 1:19:2, 425.)

The Eleventh Corps eventually ended up in Stafford Court House for the winter.  Although the soldiers missed the bloody encounter at Antietam, as well as the slaughter at Fredericksburg in December, they would go on to experience their fair share of brutal combat during the remainder of the war.  The soldiers of the Eleventh Corps became a scapegoat for the Union defeat at Chancellorsville, where they earned the derisive nickname of the "Flying Dutchmen."  Their reputation also suffered at Gettysburg.  During the tense days of September 1862, however, the corps served a necessary, yet unheralded role, in guarding the nation's capital as McClellan confronted Lee.

Notes

*Stephen Sears demonstrates that this correspondence was likely sent on September 10, even though the OR indicates that it was sent the next day.  (Sears, McClellan Correspondence, 446.)

**In correspondence dated September 13, Halleck rebuked McClellan:  "[Y]ou attach too little importance to the capital. I assure you that you are wrong. The capture of this place will throw us back six months, if it should not destroy us. Beware of the evils I now point out to you. You saw them when here, but you seem to forget them in the distance. No more troops can be sent from here till we have fresh arrivals from the North."  (OR, 1:19:2, 280-81.)

*** Earlier on September 11, Halleck had even suggested to McClellan that he send forward either Sigel's or Porter's corps when another division that Little Mac had requested was unavailable. As Halleck said, "Why not order forward Porter's corps, or Sigel's?  If the main force of the enemy is in your front, more troops can be spared from here." (OR, 1:19:2, 253.)

****The Southern Claims Commission files indicate that Sewell was not granted compensation for the claims he made concerning the taking of this property by Milroy's men.  The Commission considered that the $150 claim for corn rested solely on Sewell's testimony.  The $300 claim for garden vegetables and potatoes was considered a "depredation."

Sources

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

Samuel P. Bates, History of Pennsylvania Volunteers, 1861-1865, Vol. I (1869); Stephen D. Engle, Yankee Dutchman: The Life of Franz Sigel (1993); Bradley Gottfried, The Maps of Antietam (2012); Charles V. Mauro, The Civil War in Fairfax County: Civilians and Soldiers (2006); Johnathan A. Noyalas, "My Will is Absolute Law": A Biography of Union General Robert H. Milroy (2006); Pennsylvania Daily Telegraph, Sept. 29, 1862; Stephen W. Sears (ed.), The Civil War Papers of George B. McClellan: Selected Correspondence, 1860-1865 (1989); Stephen W. Sears, Landscape Turned Red: The Battle of Antietam (1983); Southern Claims Commission File of Joseph Sewell, available at fold3.com.

The Chain Bridge Defenses During the Maryland Campaign, Part II: Sigel Adjusts His Line While the Confederates Demonstrate at Pimmit Run

Last week I examined the withdrawal of John Pope's defeated Union force following Second Manassas.  Franz Sigel's First Corps of the Army of Virginia, along with the corps of Edwin V. Sumner and Fitz John Porter, moved from Fairfax Court House to Langley.  By September 3, 1862, Sigel's men occupied the ground closest to the strategic crossing at Chain Bridge.  Porter sat not far away, around Hall's Hill, while Sumner crossed the Potomac and took up a position at Tennallytown.

As Gen. George B. McClellan divined Robert E. Lee's next move, he sent instructions through his chief of staff, Randolph B. Marcy, to ensure the adequate safeguarding of Washington's defenses.  On the morning of September 4, Sigel was told to "draw in the main line of his forces. . . so as to run from Ft. Ethan Allen toward [Porter's] right."  (OR, 1:51:1, 789.)  This shift would shorten Sigel's line and close any gaps between the two corps.  (OR, 1:51:1, 785, 789.)  

That same day, a small fight erupted about a half a dozen miles from Sigel's force near Chain Bridge.  As Lee prepared his army to invade Maryland by crossing the Potomac near Leesburg, Confederate cavalry was ordered to make a demonstration in front of the Federal lines near Washington.  On the morning of September 4,  Gen. Beverly Robertson led the 7th and 12th Virginia Cavalry and three guns from Capt. R. Preston Chew's horse artillery down the Leesburg-Alexandria Turnpike towards Falls Church.  Between Vienna and Lewinsville, the Confederates ran into Union pickets from Gen. Alfred Pleasonton's cavalry command and drove them back "after a brisk skirmish."  (OR, 1:19:1, 828.)  Robertson sent one gun and part of his cavalry to a point "near Lewinsville to prevent surprise" and proceeded with the rest of his force to a hill above Pimmit Run along the pike.  (OR, 1:19:1, 828; see also OR, 1:19:2, 176.)*  Two of Chew's guns opened on the Union troops, and the Federals soon returned fire with two guns of their own.  Around six that evening, Marcy alerted Sigel to the attack and cautioned him:

Your pickets should be on the alert, and your command at once drawn into the new position indicated to you this morning.  (OR, 1:51:1, 785.) 

Robertson's fight with the Union troops lasted until about sundown, when the Confederates spotted several regiments advancing from the direction of Falls Church.  Robertson deemed "the object of the reconnaissance. . . fully accomplished" and withdrew his men "at dark."  (OR, 1:19:1, 828; see also OR, 1:19:1, 814; OR, 1:19:2, 176-78; Harsh 67.)  Pleasonton dismissed the action as a mere "show of force to conceal [Lee's] movements on the Upper Potomac," and McClellan agreed.  (OR, 1:19:2, 178; OR, 1:51:1, 785.)

Gen. Beverly Robertson (courtesy of Wikipedia).  The cavalry commander had few fans among the top brass of the Army of Northern Virginia and was transferred to North Carolina soon after the skirmish of September 4.

Armed with intelligence on Lee's intentions, McClellan set his army in motion to pursue the Confederates in Maryland.  His entire force, however, would not go with him.  The Lincoln Administration wanted assurances that Washington would remain sufficiently protected.  For the time being, Sigel's corps would have the chief responsibility for guarding the key approaches to Chain Bridge. 

Late on the afternoon of September 6, Marcy sent an order to Sigel at Ft. Ethan Allen:

The commanding general directs that you at once place your corps in position to occupy the line extending from Forts Marcy and Ethan Allen to the vicinity of Fort De Kalb. General F. J. Porter's corps will occupy the line from Fort De Kalb to Hunting Creek, and General [Samuel P.] Heintzelman the line from Hunting Creek to the river below Fort Lyon. . . .  You will please post your pickets well out so as to give timely information of the approach of the enemy.** (OR, 1:51:793.)

Marcy emphasized in a postscript: "Forts Marcy and Ethan Allen will be intrusted to your charge, and you will please connect your pickets with those of General Porter."  (OR, 1:51:1, 793.)  The admonishment about tightening the line likely stemmed from complaints by Porter, who a few days earlier had advised Marcy to send "a staff officer along our lines, to establish the picket lines and the proper connections between corps."  (OR, 1:19:2, 179.)  Not long after Marcy sent the order to Sigel, he reassured Porter that "General Sigel will hold the forts at the Chain Bridge and connect with you."  (OR, 1:51:1, 791.)

Detail from 1862 Union Army map of Northeastern Virginia showing the area of Sigel's line from Ft. Marcy and Ft. Ethan Allen near Chain Bridge to the vicinity of Ft. DeKalb (courtesy of Library of Congress).  For a modern view of the same area, see here.

That night, the area around Chain Bridge buzzed with activity.  McClellan ordered the Sixth Corps under Gen. William B. Franklin to cross the bridge and march to Rockville via Tennallytown.  (OR, 1:51:1, 793; OR, 1:19:1, 38.).   Gen. George Sykes's division from Porter's corps was likewise instructed to proceed to Tennallytown.  (OR, 1:51:1, 791; OR, 1:19:1, 38.)  As the day dawned on September 7, the bulk of McClellan's army sat across the Potomac from Virginia.  Little Mac was on the move, and Sigel's men may have started to wonder when their turn would come.

Notes

*This fight likely occurred near the current-day location of the Whole Foods supermarket along Leesburg Pike (Rt. 7)  (See here for a map). 

**Ft. Marcy and Ft. Ethan Allen guarded the immediate approaches to Chain Bridge on the Virginia side of the Potomac above Georgetown.  For more on the two forts, see here and here.  Ft. DeKalb sat near current-day US-29 (Lee Highway) between N. Adams and N. Vance Streets in Arlington, Virginia.  It was later renamed Ft. Strong.  Hunting Creek is a tributary stream of the Potomac located to the south of Alexandria, Virginia near the present-day Woodrow Wilson Bridge.   Ft. Lyon was located beyond Hunting Creek to the southwest of Alexandria.  For a complete map of the defenses of Washington from the OR, see here.

Sources

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

Samuel P. Bates, History of Pennsylvania Volunteers, 1861-1865, Vol. I (1869); Benjamin Franklin Cooling III & Walton H. Owen II, Mr. Lincoln's Forts: A Guide to the Civil War Defenses of Washington (2010 ed.); Stephen D. Engle, Yankee Dutchman: The Life of Franz Sigel (1993); Bradley Gottfried, The Maps of Antietam (2012); Joseph L. Harsh, Taken at the Flood: Robert E. Lee & Confederate Strategy in the Maryland Campaign of 1862 (1999); George Michael Neese, Three Years in the Confederate Horse Artillery (1911); Stephen W. Sears, Landscape Turned Red: The Battle of Antietam (1983).

A London Paper Features Some Local Sites

Last year I began to collect Civil War-era newspapers.  Not surprisingly, I have focused on papers that cover events in and around Northern Virginia and Washington.  I am particularly interested in newspapers that feature lesser-known aspects of the conflict in my neck of the woods.  These editions also tend to be cheaper than the papers that discuss the larger battles, like Second Manassas or Gettysburg.  Given the presence of on-line sellers such as eBay and Timothy Hughes, collecting old newspapers has never been easier.

I had my eye for quite some time on an October 12, 1861 edition of The Illustrated London News that contains one of the few, if only, contemporary engravings related to the September 11, 1861 Battle of Lewinsville.  Imagine my delight when I finally located an original copy on the eBay store, librariavitae.   The price also suited my fancy, and I quickly placed my order.

An entire page is dedicated to the engraving, which is entitled, The War in America: Bringing in the Federal Wounded After the Skirmish at Lewinsville, Virginia.  Based on commentary from the paper's special artist dated September 23, 1861, I've confirmed that the Lewinsville engraving depicts a scene following the September 11 engagement, and not the September 25 skirmish at the same location.

The text accompanying the illustration states:

Just as the wounded were being brought in General [George B.] M'Clellan reached the ground with an Aide-de-Camp and an escort of dragoons. He raised his hat as each poor fellow was borne from the ambulance to the hospital; and many whose eyes were fast glazing in death raised themselves in the arms of those who bore them and smiled a last smile at their young and beloved General.

As I've learned during the course of my research on Lewinsville, McClellan indeed greeted the Federal column returning from the skirmish.  (See, e.g., Hazard Stevens, The Life of Isaac Ingalls Stevens, Vol. II, p. 332 (1900)). However, The Illustrated London News added a touch of melodrama.  Only three Union soldiers died in the engagement, and they appear to have been killed on the spot.  (OR, 1:5, 173, 177, 180.)  The wounded were brought back to camp, but they were not on the verge of death as the paper wanted readers to believe. 

Presumably the scene was sketched close to Camp Advance, where the Union force returned from Lewinsville following the engagement.  Tents are clearly visible to center of the engraving, above Little Mac's head.  A defensive work appears to crown the hilltop to the upper left.  Ft. Marcy dominated the area around Camp Advance, but would have sat to the south of the road from Lewinsville, or to the right of the engraving.  The picture may depict Ft. Ethan Allen, which sat to the left of a road leading away from Ft. Marcy and Lewinsville.  (See map here.)  A few of the regiments involved at Lewinsville, including the 2nd Vermont, 19th Indiana, and 79th New York, helped to build Ft. Ethan Allen and were stationed nearby.  (See Benjamin Franklin Cooling III & Walton H. Owen II, Mr. Lincoln's Forts: A Guide to the Civil War Defenses of Washington (2010 ed.)).

The newspaper also contains an engraving entitled, The War in America: The Chain-Bridge Across the Potomac Above Georgetown, Looking Towards the Virginian Shore. 

The accompanying commentary notes:

The two great armies still stand at bay on the lines of the Potomac, and the chain-bridge across that river, above Georgetown, of which an Illustration by our Special Artist is given below, is a position of great interest just now, as the Confederates are continually making threatening movements in the neighbourhood, either with the intention of destroying the bridge or of crossing by it into Maryland. On the heights on the Virginian shore are seen the tents of the Federal advance, which throws out pickets to a distance of two miles beyond. The Maryland end of the bridge is commanded by an upper and a lower battery, both of them very strong positions.

I really like this engraving, which offers a spectacular view of Chain Bridge and the Virginia side of the river. The tents apparently mark the location of Camp Advance, which was established at the start of September 1861 by men under Union Gen. William F. "Baldy" Smith.  I am continually looking for information on the exact location of Camp Advance, and this engraving sheds further light on where Smith's men gained a toehold in the Old Dominion.  The accompanying text also references Confederate actions around Chain Bridge.  I've read about encounters between Confederate and Union pickets in the vicinity of the bridge during the fall of 1861, but am not familiar with Confederate plans to destroy the bridge or attempt a crossing in front of two batteries and countless Federal infantrymen.  I'll need to dig a little deeper on these early picket wars.

I really treasure owning this newspaper given its connections to local Civil War history.  I am reminded that what was happening in the present-day suburbs of DC once captured the world's attention.  Even a small engagement like Lewinsville made the London papers in the days before bigger battles like Antietam and Shiloh.  And a simple wooden bridge to Virginia held strategic significance that foreign editors could not deny.  

Manning the Defenses of Washington: The 3rd Battalion New York Artillery (Heavy)

Over the last two years, I've dedicated quite a few posts to life in the camps near Washington during the first winter of the Civil War.  My primary focus has been the soldiers living around present-day McLean, including the Pennsylvania Reserves and the Vermont Brigade.  As part of my Sesquicentennial timeline, I've even followed the men in "real" time as they combated disease, went on foraging expeditions, fought Confederates, and celebrated the holidays.  By the spring of 1862, however, most of the Union soldiers in and around Northern Virginia had left the region and moved to points farther south.

Now seems like the perfect time to shift attention to the Union soldiers who remained behind while the rest of the army was off fighting Joe Johnston on the Peninsula.  (Or waiting impatiently to do so at Fredericksburg.)  Following the Federal defeat at First Manassas, Gen. George McClellan undertook an ambitious plan to protect Washington from possible Confederate attack.   The army erected forts, batteries, and rifle trenches in a defensive ring around the city, and various regiments were assigned the unglamorous but important job of garrison duty.  I'd like to take a closer look at the men who defended Washington while the armies were battling and campaigning elsewhere.  And what better place to start than the two forts located in my neck of the woods?

Troops under Gen. William F. "Baldy" Smith crossed the Potomac and began construction on Forts Marcy and Ethan Allen in September 1861.  These two forts guarded the approaches to the Chain Bridge across the river above Georgetown.  I've written about Forts Marcy and Ethan Allen on more than a few occasions.  (See here and here.)  During this time 150 years ago, the 3rd Battalion New York Artillery (Heavy) had the responsibility of manning the two forts.

The 3rd Battalion was raised in New York City in the fall of 1861.  The men signed up for a three-year term of service.  Most of the recruits were either German immigrants, or descendants of German immigrants, and the 3rd Battalion quickly acquired the nickname of the "German Heavy Artillery."  The regiment was placed under the overall command of Lt. Col. Adam Senges, a 38 year-old immigrant from Baden who had participated in the German Revolution of 1848.  The artillerymen were soon en route to the nation's capital.  On November 28, 1861, the New York Times reported on the "Departure of Col. Senges' Company of Artillery":

Tuesday evening a company of artillery numbering ninety men, left this City, by the New-Jersey railroad for Washington. On their arrival there they are to report to the commanding officer of Gen. [Louis] BLENKER's Division, and will form a part of his command. Cannon, caissons, horses, &c., will be furnished them at the Capital.*

The 3rd Battalion was assigned to garrison duty at Forts Marcy and Ethan Allen, not far from the divisional camps of George McCall and "Baldy" Smith at Langley and Lewinsville.  The men passed a long, cold, and damp winter in Northern Virginia.  The days were mostly filled with drilling and other routine duties of army life. 

Lt. Col. Adam Senges (courtesy of OldPictures.com, from Library of Congress).** Senges served as the commander of the 3rd Battalion until May 1863.

During the summer of 1862, the 3rd Battalion sought to fill the ranks with new enlistments.  In an August 14, 1862 article entitled, "German Recruiting," the New York Times informed readers:

[The 3rd Battalion] is now stationed at Forts Ethan Allen and Marcy, in the vicinity of Washington.  It requires about 150 men to complete its maximum regimental strength, and is now receiving recruits at No. 15 Bowery. Capt. FRANZ MATTUSCHEK is the officer in charge.

The Times had no doubts that the 3rd Battalion would meet its goal:

Lieut.-Col. SENGES, the Commandant of the corps, is much esteemed by his men, and the inducements, to join his regiment are so great that the close of the present week will probably find it filled.

As the 3rd Battalion was busy recruiting in New York, Robert E. Lee's Confederates were moving towards Northern Virginia.  Gen. John G. Barnard, the newly-appointed commander of the fortifications around Washington, was worried.  Many experienced troops had already been transferred to Gen. John Pope's Army of Virginia at the front.  Upon taking command in August 1862, Barnard counted just 5,989 men in the fortifications, including 310 in the 3rd Battalion.  (Barnard 105.)  About 2,000 of the defenders were three-month recruits whose terms expired at the end of August, and an additional 2,000 were slated for the front.  (Barnard 105.)  Barnard began to reassign his men in an effort to strengthen various points in the capital's defenses.

On August 22, the 3rd Battalion was ordered to leave Forts Marcy and Ethan Allen.  Six days later, as Pope engaged Lee near Manassas, Barnard reported to Gen. McClellan:

The Third Battalion New York Artillery, about 300 strong, was distributed as follows: Fort Barnard, one company; Richardson, one platoon; Scott, one platoon; Blenker, one platoon; Ward, one company; Worth, one platoon; Ellsworth, one platoon.  (OR, 1:12:3, 711.)***

The next day, McClellan directed the 3rd Battalion to concentrate at Ft. Lyon to the west of Alexandria, with the exception of one platoon, which was retained at Ft. Ellsworth.  The immediate threat to Washington was averted when Lee's Confederates trounced Pope and headed to Maryland. 

The 3rd Battalion remained on duty at Ft. Lyon.  (OR, 1:12:3, 782, 803; 1:12:3, 1:25:2, 181.)  According to historians Benjamin Cooling and Walton Owen, during its time at Ft. Lyon, "[t]he battalion was known for its singing, lager beer, and numerous pet dogs."  (Cooling & Owen 69.)  One solider observed:

If you wish any dogs, there are plenty of them at Fort Lyon as the Dutchman have thee dogs to every man and peck of fleas in the bargain.  (in Cooling & Owen 69-70.)

On June 9, 1863, twenty-six men from the battalion were busy re-filling shells outside of Ft. Lyon's north powder magazine.  The men first had to remove powder that was caked on the inside of the shells due to moisture damage.  The lieutenant in charge grew frustrated with the ineffectiveness of the wooden spoons being used for the task and distributed priming wires to some of the men to dig out the powder.  A spark caused by a priming wire triggered a massive explosion of around 28,00 pounds of powder.  The powerful blast destroyed the north magazine and sent debris and bodies flying through the air.  As Gen. John Slough, military governor of Alexandria, reported to headquarters, "[e]verything in the vicinity is a wreck," although "[n]o serious damage was done . . . to the guns or guncarriages."  (OR, 1:27:2, 871.)  Incredibly, most of the men were huddled in the bombproof at the time of the explosion and escaped unharmed.  In all, twenty-one lost their lives, and ten were injured.  The "severely wounded" were transported to the hospital in Alexandria. (OR, 1:27:2, 871.)  The following day, President Abraham Lincoln, accompanied by Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, inspected the damage. 

The 3rd Battalion underwent organizational changes in September 1863, when the men were transferred to the newly-formed 15th New York Heavy Artillery.  The 3rd Battalion comprised Companies A through E of the regiment.  The 15th New York Heavy Artillery was initially based at Ft. Lyon, and other companies joined the old 3rd Battalion there. 

The 15th New York Heavy Artillery left the defenses of Washington and headed to the field in March 1864.  The regiment fought with the Fifth Corps of the Army of the Potomac throughout the Overland Campaign and before Petersburg.  After Appomattox, the men returned to the defenses of Washington and were mustered out of Federal service in August 1865. 

The 3rd Battalion never saw combat as a unit.  Its biggest enemies were disease and boredom.  The time spent in the defenses around Washington was generally considered "soft" duty by the hardened soldiers in the field.  However, without units like the 3rd Battalion, the forts were worthless as a deterrent.  And the terrible tragedy at Ft. Lyon in 1863 reminds us that garrison duty was not always a risk-free adventure.  The history of the 3rd Battalion also highlights the contributions that German immigrants made to the Union war effort.  Senges and others like him endured the hardships of army life and war for their adopted homeland.  Their story helps us to put a human face on the defenses of Washington.

Notes

*Some sources report that the 3rd Battalion left for Washington on December 19, 1861. It appears that a company under Senges left at the end of November 1861, and that the remainder of the 3rd Batallion may have joined them in Washington in December.

**Nearly all captions I have seen, including on the Library of Congress website, indicate that the officer pictured above is "Lt. Col. A. Senger" of the 15th New York Heavy Artillery (a later iteration of the 3rd Battalion). However, "Lt. Col. A. Senger" does not appear on the rolls of either the 3rd Battalion or the 15th New York Heavy Artillery. Moreover, a military service record for Senges on ancestry.com includes this photograph. I am convinced that this photograph has been misidentified in most captions, and that it actually shows Senges.

***All of these forts were located to the north and west of Alexandria, Virginia.  For a map of the defenses of Washington from the OR, see here.

Sources

John Gross Barnard, A Report on the Defenses of Washington to the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army (1871); Benjamin Franklin Cooling III & Walton H. Owen II, Mr. Lincoln's Forts: A Guide to the Civil War Defenses of Washington (2010 ed.); Wolfgang Hochbruck, "Forty-Eighters" in the Union Armies: A Preliminary Checklist, on RootsWeb; George B. McClellan, Report of Major-General George B. McClellan Upon the Organization of the Army of the Potomac and Its Campaigns in Virginia and Maryland (1864); Military and Naturalization Records of Adam Senges, available on ancestry.com (subscription service); William J. Miller, The Men of Fort Ward: Defenders of Washington (1989); National Park Service, A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defenses of Washington, Parts I & II (2004); New York State Military Museum and Veterans Research Center, 3d Battalion of Artillery (Heavy); New York State Military Museum and Veterans Research Center, 15th Artillery Regiment (Heavy); New York Times, Nov. 28, 1861; New York Times, Aug. 14, 1862; New York Times, June 10, 1863; Frederick Phisterer, New York in the War of the Rebellion, 1861 to 1865 (1890); Adolf Eduard Zucker, The Forty-Eighters: Political Refugees of the German Revolution of 1848 (1950).

Frank Leslie's and a View of the Area Near Chain Bridge

Part of my Civil War hobby involves collecting Civil War era books and newspapers. I have found that newspapers in particular are an affordable way to own an actual piece of Civil War history. Some relatively well-preserved editions can be purchased for as little as $40, which isn't bad when considering how old they are. A short while ago, I decided it was time to take a look again at what was available on eBay. Unable to resist, I ended up purchasing a January 18, 1862 copy of Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper. 

January 18, 1862 edition of Frank Leslie's.  The top illustration depicts Federal troops moving along the Louisville & Nashville R.R. and the Louisville & Nashville Turnpike in Kentucky, while the bottom one shows Confederate guns firing on Dam No. 5 near Williamsport, Maryland in December 1861.

This edition of Frank Leslie's may strike readers as covering a relatively quiet period in the war out East. There is a brief discussion of the Confederate movement on Dam No. 5 on the Potomac, but other than that, not much of significance had happened. Out West, things were a little more active, and the paper takes a look at Gen. Don Carlos Buell's movements in Kentucky. (The Battle of Mill Springs would actually take place the day following the publication of the paper.)

Sure, I could have purchased editions of Harper's Weekly or Frank Leslie's from far sexier times.  But the main reason I bought the paper has to do with the following illustration:

The title of the lithograph is "New Military Road Near the Chain Bridge, Virginia," based on a sketch by the newspaper's "special artist with the Grand Army of the Potomac." (Click image for a larger view.) The illustration depicts a Federal wagon train descending the Leesburg & Georgetown Turnpike (today's Chain Bridge Road/VA-123). Chain Bridge is off to the left at the bottom of the hill and not depicted here. Ft. Marcy was located not far uphill from the site of the engraving. The new Military Road, which led to Ft. Ethan Allen, veers to the right at the bottom of the hill and crosses over Pimmit Run. The scenery looks today very much like it did then. I'd insert a modern shot, but the late summer foliage is still too thick to make a good comparison. A contemporary map of the area can be found here.

I had seen a few reproductions of this image in books and am now glad to be the owner of an original copy.  I cross over this very ground on my way to Chain Bridge every weekday morning.  This lithograph carries me back to a time when the roads around Northern Virginia served as vital transportation networks for the Union Army.  And it reminds all of us that what may now be mundane commuter roads were once worthy of national attention.

General "Baldy" Smith's Soldiers Enter the Old Dominion State

Long-time readers of this blog may recall that I have devoted considerable attention to the Civil War history of present-day McLean, Virginia.  During the first winter of the war, two Union divisions encamped on the farmlands around Langley and Lewinsville.  As we near the 150th anniversary of various happenings in and around my adopted hometown, I thought readers might be interested in the origins of the Union Army's presence around here.

In some recent posts, I've discussed how the Confederates moved ever closer to the nation's capital during August 1861.  By the end of the month, Confederates were entrenched on the hills near Falls Church, where they could look across the river to Washington and the unfinished Capitol dome.  The Union commander of the Army of the Potomac, Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan, was well aware of the Confederates in his midst.  He had already started strengthening the initial defenses of Washington not long after taking charge of the army, but the Virginia side of the Chain Bridge -- around 10 miles from Falls Church and the Confederate line -- was not yet heavily fortified as September got underway.

The strategic situation would soon change.  As McClellan wrote in his memoirs:

On the 3d of Sept., while reviewing troops east of the Capitol, I received dispatches to the effect that the enemy had appeared in force opposite the Chain Bridge and towards Great Falls; also that they were probably on the point of advancing along their whole line. After giving the necessary orders at other points I rode to Gen. [William F. "Baldy"] Smith's headquarters at the Chain Bridge, and determined to move his brigade across the river during the night and to entrench a position on the Virginia side as the surest method of saving the bridge. (McClellan, 95.)

Smith prepared his men for the march to the Old Dominion State.  Starting late at night on September 3, and continuing into September 4, the Union soldiers slipped across the Chain Bridge and climbed the steep incline of the Leesburg & Georgetown Turnpike.  The regiments included the 2nd and 3rd Vermont, 19th Indiana, 33rd and 79th New York, and the 2nd and 5th Wisconsin.  Smith's men stopped a mile or so past Chain Bridge and encamped on high ground not far from Langley, Virginia.

Brig. Gen. William F. "Baldy" Smith (courtesy of Wikipedia).  Smith was born in St. Albans, Vermont in 1824 and graduated from West Point in 1845.  He was instrumental in organizing the famed Vermont Brigade of the Army of the Potomac in 1861.  Smith rose to become a division and corps commander. 

Some of the soldiers thought that McClellan was moving to pounce on the Confederates at Falls Church, but they soon learned that they would be clearing the land and building earthworks and forts.  The men immediately got to work constructing what were to become known as Ft. Marcy, northwest of Chain Bridge, and Ft. Ethan Allen, to the south.*  Both of these strongholds were built on the property of Gilbert Vanderwerken, who owned an omnibus line in Washington and had purchased over 1,300 acres of pastureland in Virginia for his horses.

The men called their new home, "Camp Advance." The name likely originated from the fact that the brigade had moved so far forward into Virginia. (Zeller, 43.)  However, according to another account, "the somewhat formidable title of 'Camp Advance' was given, under the impression that the movement meant a speedy advance upon Richmond." (Benedict, 91-92.)

Smith's men suffered from the endless rain at the start of September. As Alexander Campbell of the 79th New York wrote to his wife on September 6, "[i]t has been damp and dissegreable [sic] weather." (Johnston, 39.) The misery for some soldiers was compounded by the lack of adequate shelter. Both the 2nd Vermont and 5th Wisconsin, and perhaps other regiments, waited about two weeks until they received tents.   

"Gen. Smith's Brigade--from Fort Marcy. Chain Bridge, Va.," by Arthur Lumley, Sept. 1861, sketch for Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper (courtesy of New York Public Library Digital Gallery).  Based on the caption and date, this sketch appears to depict Camp Advance, or a portion of it.  Smith was a brigade commander in September and was still encamped close to Ft. Marcy.  In October 1861, as a division commander, Smith pushed his soldiers to a position that would likely have been farther west than is seen in this sketch.  This view from Ft. Marcy to the encampments beyond is from the western side of the fort.  The Potomac River and Leesburg & Georgetown Turnpike are visible to the right of the sketch.

Close up of above sketch, showing wagons moving down the turnpike with the Potomac River beyond the tents to the right.  This part of the pike is today's VA-123.

Aside from digging entrenchments and felling trees, the men at Camp Advance spent their days on picket duty or on scouting missions in the surrounding countryside.  Occasionally, the soldiers on reconnaissance brought back Confederate prisoners, horses, and contraband.  The men assigned to picket duty also confronted possible dangers, as the Confederates were equally as curious about the Union men who had encamped just over the Chain Bridge and also sent scouting parties to the area.

Detail from an 1862 Union Army map showing the area around Chain Bridge, Ft. Marcy, Ft. Ethan Allen, and Langley (courtesy of Library of Congress).  The encircled portion of the map represents the approximate position of Camp Advance based on the sketch above and first-hand accounts of soldiers from the regiments encamped there.  Today, the area around the camp and Ft. Marcy is bisected by the GW Parkway.

On September 10, President Lincoln, General McClellan, Secretary of War Simon Cameron, and Pennsylvania Governor Andrew Curtin rode out from Washington to pay a visit to the soldiers at Camp Advance.  The men were thrilled to see Old Abe and McClellan, and many soldiers rushed to shake hands with the dignitaries in their presence.  The very next day, some of the men would be tested in battle for the first time.  But for now, they were just happy to have the monotony of camp life broken by a visit from such esteemed guests.

Note

*In his A Report on the Defenses of Washington to the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, Brevet Major General John Gross Barnard notes that Smith crossed Chain Bridge on September 24, 1861 and began building the two forts.  (p. 14.) The reference to the 24th shows up in several sources, including the well-known work on the defenses of Washington, Mr. Lincoln's Forts.  However, this date is contradicted by numerous primary and secondary sources, which indicate that Smith entered Virginia on September 3-4 and set to work on the forts shortly thereafter.  Perhaps Barnard slipped a "2" before the "4," accidentally, and the mistake stuck!

Sources

Annual Report of the Adjutant General of the State of Wisconsin for the Year Ending September 30th, 1863 (1863); John G. Barnard, A Report on the Defenses of Washington to the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army (1871); George Grenville Benedict, Vermont in the Civil War, Vol. 1 (1886); Civil War in the East (website with army and unit information); The Civil War Letters of Forrest Little (website); Benjamin Franklin Cooling III & Walton H. Owen II, Mr. Lincoln's Forts: A Guide to the Civil War Defenses of Washington (2010 ed.); Terry A. Johnston, Jr., "Him on the One Side and Me on the Other" (1999) (collection of soldiers' letters);George B. McClellan, McClellan's Own Story (1887); NRHP Nomination Form for Ft. Ethan Allen;  Second Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry (website with soldiers' letters); Kerry A. Trask, Fire Within: A Civil War Narrative from Wisconsin (1995); Vermont in the Civil War (website with unit information); Paul G. Zeller, The Second Vermont Volunteer Infantry Regiment, 1861-1865 (2002).