Civil War News April 2019

‘The Battle of Atlanta’

Opens After Four Year Restoration

ATLANTA, Ga.—On Feb. 22, 2019, the Atlanta History Center opened The Battle of Atlanta cyclorama after a four-year, $35.8 million relocation and restoration project. The 360-degree painting is the centerpiece of the Center’s 25,000-square-foot multi-media exhibition Cyclorama: The Big Picture.

In 2017, The Battle of Atlanta and the locomotive Texas were moved from a 1921 building in Grant Park, Atlanta, to the newly-constructed Lloyd and Mary Ann Whitaker Cyclorama Building at the Atlanta History Center. Both artifacts have undergone complete restorations.

Created by the American Panorama Company in Milwaukee during 1886, the cyclorama portrays the U.S. victory of July 22, 1864, when General William T. Sherman’s armies repulsed a determined Confederate attack directed by General John B. Hood along the Georgia Railroad east of Atlanta.

A team of 17 mainly German artists painted the 18,000-squarefoot painting in less than five months. Using sketches made

on the battlefield, they re-created the moment at approximately 4:45 p.m. when General John A. “Blackjack” Logan led a counterattack against Confederates who had captured the DeGress Battery at the Troup Hurt House. The entire scene was composed from a Northern perspective so that it would appeal to Northern audiences. Only in large Northern cities were there enough paying customers to make the massive paintings profitable.

The Battle of Atlanta was shown in Minneapolis and Indianapolis through 1890. There was also a second copy of The Battle of Atlanta exhibited in Detroit and Baltimore. This second copy fell into disrepair and disappeared around 1900.

In 1891, Georgia entrepreneur and showman Paul Atkinson purchased The Battle of Atlanta in Indianapolis after it had gone bankrupt. He moved it to Chattanooga and then Atlanta, where he advertised it as the “Only Confederate victory ever painted” to appeal to Southern audiences.

After going bankrupt again, The Battle of Atlanta was donated to the city of Atlanta in 1898. After nearly thirty years in a “temporary” wooden building, where it suffered considerable damage, the painting was enshrined in the 1921 steel, concrete, and marble structure in Grant Park, where it remained through 2017.

Of at least 40 cycloramas that toured the United States depicting battles, biblical scenes, and disasters, only The Battle of Atlanta and The Battle of Gettysburg survive. One inspiration for The Battle of Atlanta project was the move and restoration of The Battle of Gettysburg cyclorama between 2004 and 2008.

In the 127 years that The Battle of Atlanta has been on display in Atlanta, the cyclorama has been the subject of periodic re-interpretation. At times, it was seen as a proud symbol of the capital of the New South rising from the ashes left by Sherman. It has also been criticized as an anachronism

meant to glorify the “Lost Cause” of the Confederacy. Perceptions of history, and the painting itself, have depended on the eye of the beholder, as audiences viewed it in different times and places.

In 2012, a task force convened by Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed recommended moving The Battle of Atlanta from its outdated ninedecades-old building to a new one to be built at the Atlanta History Center. On July 23, 2014—one day after the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Atlanta, Reed announced a 75-year licensing agreement with the non-profit Atlanta History Center for the relocation and restoration of The Battle of Atlanta cyclorama painting and the Texas

A $10 million endowment pledge from Lloyd and Mary Ann Whitaker initiated fund-raising

for the project. The Center raised an additional $25.8 million in private funds to design and construct a new building, relocate the painting, restore it to its original 1886 size and appearance, and create new interpretive exhibitions. From July 2014 through February 2019, a team of more than 200 architects, engineers, riggers, construction workers, and art conservators worked to bring The Battle of Atlanta back to life. The most significant challenges were erecting the building and engineering the move of the 10,000-pound painting as well as the 53,000-pound Texas

Today, three once missing sections of the painting have been restored: a 54-inch-wide vertical strip to the left of the Troup Hurt House (damaged and removed in 1893), a 22-inch-wide

vertical strip along the Decatur Road (excised in 1921 because the new Grant Park building was too small); and seven feet around the upper edge of the painting (removed incrementally as the painting was moved in the late 1880s and early 1890s).

The sky, overpainted in 1922, has also been restored to its original appearance. Today, The Battle of Atlanta stands at its original size of 49 feet tall and 371 feet in circumference, just as visitors first saw it in 1886.

Entering the new exhibition, Cyclorama: The Big Picture, guests are greeted by an introductory video and a 10-foot-tall animated map illustrating the course of the Civil War in Georgia. Two levels of exhibitions examine the

The Battle of Atlanta cyclorama restored to its original 1886 dimensions and appearance. In the foreground, restored 1930s plaster figures rest on a new fiberglass diorama infused with real Georgia red clay. (All photos courtesy of the Atlanta History Center)

Civil War News

Published by Historical Publications LLC

520 Folly Road, Suite 25 PMB 379, Charleston, SC 29412

800-777-1862 • Facebook.com/CivilWarNews

mail@civilwarnews.com • www.civilwarnews.com

Advertising: 800-777-1862 • ads@civilwarnews.com

Jack W. Melton Jr. C. Peter & Kathryn Jorgensen

Publisher Founding Publishers

Editor: Lawrence E. Babits, Ph.D.

Advertising, Marketing & Assistant Editor: Peggy Melton

Columnists: John Banks, Craig Barry, Joseph Bilby, Matthew Borowick, Stephen Davis, Stephanie Hagiwara, Gould Hagler, Tim Prince, Salvatore Cilella, John Sexton, Michael K. Shaffer

Editorial & Photography Staff: Greg Biggs, Joseph Bordonaro, Sandy Goss, Gordon L. Jones, Michael Kent, John A Punola, Bob Ruegsegger, Gregory L. Wade, Joan Wenner, J.D.

Book Review Editor: Stephen Davis, Ph.D., Cumming, Ga.

Civil War News (ISSN: 1053-1181)

Copyright © 2018 by Historical

Publications LLC is published 12 times per year by Historical Publications LLC, 520 Folly Road, Suite 25 PMB 379, Charleston, SC 29412. Monthly. Business and Editorial Offices: 520 Folly Road, Suite 25 PMB 379, Charleston, SC 29412, Accounting and Circulation

Offices: Historical Publications LLC, 520 Folly Road, Suite 25 PMB 379, Charleston, SC 29412. Call 800-777-1862 to subscribe.

Periodicals postage paid at U.S.P.S. 131 W. High St., Jefferson City, MO 65101.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to: Historical Publications LLC 520 Folly Road Suite 25 PMB 379 Charleston, SC 29412

Display advertising rates and media kit on request. The Civil War News is for your reading enjoyment. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of its authors, readers and advertisers and they do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Historical Publications, LLC, its owners and/or employees.

P UBLISHERS :

Please send your book(s) for review to:

CWN Book Review Editor, Stephen Davis

3670 Falling Leaf Lane, Cumming, GA 30041-2087

Email cover image to bookreviews@civilwarnews.com

Civil War News cannot assure that unsolicited books will be assigned for review. We donate unsolicited, unreviewed books to libraries, historical societies and other suitable repositories. Email Dr. Davis for eligibility before mailing.

ADVERTISING INFO:

Email us at ads@civilwarnews.com Call 800-777-1862

MOVING?

Contact us to change your address so you don’t miss a single issue. mail@civilwarnews.com • 800-777-1862

SUBSCRIPTION RATES

U.S. Subscription rates are $38.50/year, $66/2 years, digital only $29.95, add digital to paper subscription for only $10/year more. Subscribe at www.CivilWarNews.com

TO THE EDITOR:

I enjoy the Civil War News and find it most informative. The piece on Hiram Roosa’s collection was especially timely, as I had been asked to give a book report in February to the San Fernando Valley [Los Angeles area] Civil War Roundtable on The Rest I Will Kill: William Tillman and the unforgettable story of how a free black man refused to become a slave by Brian McGinty (Liveright Publishing Corp, New York, 2016). However, I believe that Roosa’s and Leon Reed’s statements that the captain and officers of the SJ Waring were set free in Cuba may be in error. McGinty (page 92) asserts that on July 9, two days after capturing the Waring near New York City, the Confederate privateer Jeff Davis intercepted the Mary Goodell off Rhode Island and transferred all her prisoners, including those taken from the Waring, to the Goodell. The Goodell promptly returned to Portland, Maine. So the citizens of New York had word of the Waring’s capture before that ship returned.

Given the relative distances between New York and Charleston, and New York and Cuba, the release of prisoners in the North seems far more likely.

“Let Them Rest” by Gould Hagler was also very good.

Nancy Martsch

Sherman Oaks, Calif.

Correction:

In the March issue we neglected to give credit for four photographs published with the “This and That” column. The photos were provided by the Stone Mountain Memorial Association and were published with the Association’s permission. We regret the oversight and wish to express our thanks to Association and its CEO, Bill Stephens.

Completely overpainted in 1922 to hide water stains, the sky was returned to its original light blue color. Plastic sheeting protected the rest of the painting during this work. Included as a salute to Wisconsin soldiers, “Old Abe,” the War Eagle, still soars above the scene, despite his absence during the battle.

Nancy Livengood retouches the figure of Captain Frederick Whitehead, Assistant Adjutant General of the XV Corps, using high-resolution copies of 1886 photographs of the painting. There are 24 U.S. officers identified by name in the cyclorama but no Confederate officers are identified.

All 128 plaster figures were carefully repaired and re-painted at the Atlanta studio of scenic artist Joseph Lazzari. As seen here, many figures have the same faces because the sculptors cast them from the same molds in the 1930s.

One of the more famous illusions in The Battle of Atlanta is a damaged wagon with its front wheels in the painting and its back wheels in the diorama. Here, engineer Tom Diehl and scenic artists install a new wagon to replace the old one damaged by dry-rot.

The diorama surface is comprised of pre-fabricated fiberglass sections built on steel frames. The diorama in the Grant Park building was surveyed and photographed so it could be re-created in the new building at the Atlanta History Center.

Atop a 50-foot scaffold, conservators attach the top edge of The Battle of Atlanta cyclorama to the adjustable trolley system that allowed the painting to be rotated during restoration. They also added seven feet of new canvas to reestablish the original height of the painting.

April 2019

untold stories of the painting, consider the role visual entertainments have had in shaping perspectives of the Civil War, and provide a look at the fleeting entertainment sensation of cycloramas.

Among the key artifacts exhibited are: the sword carried by Confederate Brigadier General Arthur M. Manigault during the assault on the DeGress Battery,

Civil War News

the sword used by Captain Francis DeGress to defend his battery, a Henry rifle used by Private Enos Tyler of the 66th Illinois near the Troup Hurt House, and a wooden chest and other personal effects of U.S. Major General James B. McPherson, who was killed during the Battle of Atlanta. Also on display are original artists’ sketches and oil studies for The Battle of Atlanta, a

preliminary sketch for a competing cyclorama of the Battle of Atlanta that was never made, and original cyclorama advertising brochures, photographs, and memorabilia from the collection of Sue Boardman, historian of The Battle of Gettysburg cyclorama.

In the 1880s, cycloramas were an immersive experience; they were the IMAX of their time. Every step in the extensive twoyear restoration process has been choreographed to revive that original viewing experience, albeit with visitor accessibility and safety in mind (cyclorama buildings of the 1880s were firetraps!). Visitors enter The Battle of Atlanta through a 7-foot-tall tunnel—passing underneath the diorama—before ascending an escalator to a 15-foot-tall stationary viewing platform. Here they get a full 360-degree view with the horizon at eye level, exactly as intended by the artists. There are no timed tours; you can stay as long as you want. The view is enhanced by LED lighting technology and a 12-minute largerthan-life theatrical presentation projected onto the painting at the top of every hour.

Visitors can also walk underneath the viewing platform, different from cycloramas of the 1880s. Seeing the diorama from

ground level reveals how the illusion above you works. It is all about tricking the eye. There is also a series of computer kiosks on this lower level that explain specific scenes in the cyclorama. Here you can learn about the battle and its famous personalities while sorting out what is historically accurate in the painting versus what is artistic license.

All cycloramas of the 1880s were meant to have a diorama, or artificial terrain, in the foreground. At the time, however, none were made with human figures because it was thought they might detract from the painting. Between 1934 and 1936 two Atlanta sculptors created 128 plaster soldier figures to enhance the three-dimensional illusion of The Battle of Atlanta. Today these figures, including one later adorned with the face of Clark Gable, are considered integral to the artifact and have also been restored.

Even if you have seen The Battle of Atlanta before, you have never seen it like this; and if you have never seen it, you are in for a spectacular treat!

The Atlanta History Center is open 10 a.m.–5:30 p.m. MondaysSaturdays and noon–5:30 p.m. Sundays. For more information, please call 404.814.4000 or visit AtlantaHistoryCenter.com.

Preserving the military history of the Western Hemisphere since 1949. Membership includes a scholarly quarterly magazine with an annual twelveprint uniform series. Join us!

Contact: David M. Sullivan Administrator

Email: cmhhq@aol.com Visit our website at www.military-historians.org

Art conservator Lisa Jarrow fills in the missing 22-inch-wide vertical section over the Decatur Road. This area was excised in 1921 when it was discovered that the painting was too large for the new Grant Park building.

Exhibition technician Michael King installs the sword used by Confederate Brigadier General Arthur M. Manigault during the Battle of Atlanta. The brass scabbard still bears the mark of a bullet that nearly took the general’s life at Chickamauga.

Another new exhibit at the Atlanta History Center focuses on the 1856 locomotive Texas, veteran of the Great Locomotive Chase, which ran on the Western & Atlantic Railroad between Atlanta and Chattanooga for nearly 50 years. The Texas has been displayed with The Battle of Atlanta since 1927.

Sculptors of the 1930s only molded the parts of the figures visible from the viewing platform. As seen here, the front legs of this figure were left hollow to save weight and materials. The blanket roll is simply a rolled-up sheet.

Visitors entering the cyclorama rotunda see the back of the cyclorama painting. A weighted ring at the bottom edges revives the original hyperbolic, or curved, shape. Without this suspension, the painting in its old building hung like a wrinkled curtain.

In an exhibit gallery under the viewing platform, interactive computer kiosks allow visitors to explore various figures, landmarks, and scenes. For example, here you learn the real story behind General John A. Logan, who did not sponsor the painting as was often claimed in the past.

Pre-restoration view of the battle for the DeGress Battery, the central scene in the cyclorama. Note the wrinkles visible along the horizon as well as the discolored sky. The 2014-2019 restoration corrected these and many other problems. (Jack and Peggy Melton)

By Philip Leigh

Whoever weds himself to the spirit of this age will find himself a widower in the next. — William

Inge

Few realize that Florida was so committed to The War Between the States that she gave more soldiers to repel Northern invaders than she had registered voters. Gainesville was among the towns that responded. As a result, the local United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) chapter later erected a statue of an ordinary infantryman honoring the hometown boys who had fallen, including many buried anonymously far from home. When erected in 1904, most of the living veterans were in their sixties and seventies. In May 2017 the county commissioners voted to remove the monument, which had become fondly known to most residents during the previous 113 years as Old Joe. After the vote, one audience member raised her hand to ask a question. The Chair recognized Nansea Markham, President of the local UDC chapter. She asked, “What will you do with the memorial?” The county attorney explained that the statue would be sold at auction if it was worth over $2,000. Otherwise Joe would be scrapped.

Nansea stood and held an old document at shoulder height before saying, “I’m sorry. You cannot do that.” Motioning with the papers she added, “This is the

Rescuing Old Joe

original 1903 document pertinent to Old Joe’s legal status. It shows that he remains the property of the United Daughters of the Confederacy.”

The commissioners held an impromptu conference as the audience looked on. Afterward the Chair announced that the commission would give the UDC sixty days to accept the return of Old Joe. He added that if the offer was accepted the UDC would be responsible for all moving expenses and must complete the move within sixty days of acceptance.

One commissioner who voted to remove the statue had previously announced that he would not allow the county to spend a single dime to move the memorial. He would rather see it destroyed.

Although Nansea was relieved for one last chance to save Old Joe, her chapter had less than $1,000 in the bank. Given the security requirements and care required to safely relocate so old an object, she worried the task might be too difficult. The next morning, however, she began to get supportive phone calls and emails. Many previously silent sympathizers recognized her from earlier Old Joe hearings before the commission and other local organizations during the preceding two years.

One phone call from a Vietnam vet lit a fire in her heart. He explained that the American soldier’s creed requires that a warrior

will “never leave a fallen comrade.” He told Nansea, “That’s how I see Old Joe’s situation. You are rescuing him. He is a veteran and I cannot leave him fallen on the ground to be scrapped. I will send you money.” Realizing that many older Americans now cringe with shame at how they treated returning Vietnam vets in the 1960s and 70s, Nansea reasoned that the same might apply to Old Joe in the years ahead. Thereafter she took every phone call and replied to every email. Many originated beyond Florida’s borders, including states above the Mason-Dixon Line. She took suggestions such as creating a FaceBook page and a GoFundMe Internet site. But she never directly asked for money. It started arriving anyway. She mobilized the UDC chapter members to send a hand-written “thank you” note to every donor. On July 20, 2017, she notified the county commission: “We [the UDC chapter] accept the Confederate Soldier Statue.”

Her laconic acceptance prompted repeated media inquiries including from national organizations such as The Washington Post and National Public Radio. She took the phone calls but politely declined to be interviewed or quoted. “Why?” asked one NPR reporter. “An interview would add publicity to help you raise money to move the statue.” “That’s true,” said Nansea, “but it might also attract unwanted attention. My job is to get Old Joe safely moved. I don’t want publicity that might trigger vandals.”

By mid-August the Gainesville UDC chapter had raised $30,000 and secured a site for Old Joe on private property adjacent to a cemetery containing the bodies of some Confederate veterans. The county attorney required Nansea to sign a twelve-page agreement that held the UDC chapter liable for any damages caused by Old Joe’s removal. Her group was also responsible for security in the event of interference from protesters.

Unfortunately, violent anti-Joe demonstrators were a genuine threat. They realized that the county government would do nothing to protect the memorial. As a result, they eagerly awaited the moving day when they assumed the media would be present. But Nansea fooled them. In the days leading up to the move she organized theatrics in which volunteers pretended to be dissembling Old Joe but did little

actual work. Rain arrived on the true moving day. It was enough to keep the protesters away until the moving crew was ready to drive off.

Although a dubious zeitgeist drove Old Joe from public grounds, his valor remains intact. The Kirby Smith Chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy rescued it. Note: Nansea’s name is pronounced Nancy.

Phil Leigh has authored five books on the Civil War and Reconstruction: Southern Reconstruction, Trading With the Enemy, The Confederacy at Flood Tide, Lee’s Lost Dispatch, and an annotated version of Sam Watkins’s memoir Co. Aytch. A sixth, U.S. Grant’s Failed Presidency will soon be released. During the Sesquicentennial he also authored twenty-four Civil War articles for the New York Times.

Nansea Markham with Old Joe at his new location. (Kirby Smith Chapter of the UDC)

Reenactment History, Dixie Gun Works Catalog

In my December column, I wrote about the confusion at the Civil War Centennial reenactment of the Battle of Antietam. In doing so I ventured an opinion that that reenactment was the last one to take place on the actual original battlefield it was commemorating. I was incorrect. A reenactment of “Pickett’s Charge” the following year was held on the original field at Gettysburg. Reader and Gettysburg resident Mike Strong advised me that he “attended a dress rehearsal of Pickett’s Charge in 1962 that was staged on the Gettysburg Battlefield.” Unfortunately, he missed the actual reenactment the following year due to being hospitalized with mononucleosis. The early dress rehearsal was no doubt an attempt to avoid the confusing preparations that subsequently occurred at Antietam. Some classified the rehearsal for the Gettysburg Centennial as a commemoration of the ninety-ninth anniversary of the battle, and I suppose you could term it so if you wish. Did the rehearsal result in an excellent show in 1963? Apparently not.

On July 4, 1963, a newspaper reported that: “Some 30,000 persons, happy under a mellow sun, saw Pickett’s Charge launched almost on schedule yesterday.” The report went on to state that “there were some 500 buffs on each side.” The charge reenactment ended on a rather bizarre note, because when the opposing sides were 100 feet apart, the shooting stopped and both “lowered their arms, marched together to a spot behind the Bloody Angle, formed hollow squares, and pledged allegiance to the national government and raised the Stars and Stripes on a tall staff while a US Navy band played the National Anthem.” “Some problems” occurred, with spectators sitting atop the stone wall adjacent to the Bloody Angle, a helicopter buzzing over the assault, and a mongrel dog that had to be “shooed out of the line of fire by State Troopers.”

There were antics in reenactor ranks as well, as “carloads of patent medicine, heavily laced with alcohol, were sold to preserve the health and bolster the courage of the troops.” Mike recalled that “the circus atmosphere surrounding the 1963 event led to the Superintendent deciding that no more re-enactments would take place on the Gettysburg National Military Park grounds. The 115th event took place across from Howe Avenue on land that was privately owned and was subsequently acquired by the NPS.”

Dixie Gun Works New Offerings

Dixie Gun Works, the iconic black powder retailer, has published its 2019 catalog, with some new items of interest to the Civil War shooter. The catalog lists new Pedersoli rifles, including a reproduction of the

by Joe Bilby

1854 Austrian Lorenz rifle. The Lorenz, in both original .54 caliber and reamed out to .58 caliber, was widely used by both sides during the Civil War. The Fifth New Jersey Infantry was originally equipped with Lorenz rifles. The rest of the Second New Jersey Brigade shouldered smoothbores, so the men of the Fifth were permanently assigned to skirmish duties, most notably during the brigade’s first big fight at Williamsburg, Va., in 1862. Dixie also sells a special Pedersoli mold for the .54 caliber gun. It casts a .547 diameter slug weighing 430 grains and features two deep grease grooves and two rifling bands. Another new rifle in the Dixie catalog is the Pedersoli remake of the famed Whitworth sharpshooter rifle. This .45 caliber gun, designed by British inventor Joseph Whitworth with hexagonal rifling, was perhaps the most accurate small arm of

the era. Queen Victoria reputedly fired one and hit a target at 400 yards. Small numbers of Whitworths were used to equip select Confederate marksmen in sharpshooter units during the last years of the Civil War.

Sticklers for historical accuracy see some faults in the Pedersoli Whitworth, as Pedersoli apparently used a shortened standard P53 stock rather than a Whitworth specific stock and equipped the gun with Enfield brass mounts, although the original Whitworths had iron mounts. One thing everyone agrees on, however, is the Pedersoli Whitworth’s shooting qualities are excellent. One friend of mine critical of the gun’s historical details added that “Pedersoli arms have great bores and can shoot well.” Dixie offers a .451 hexagonal bullet mold and hexagonal wads, which are sold separately. Traditional six-gun

shooters should be happy with Dixie’s new “Revolver Reload Kit.” The kit has everything you need, except the powder, to reload your percussion ignition revolver, including round balls, felt Wonder Wads, and the new Wonder Seals. The kit has enough material for 24 rounds, or four complete reloads. Some shooters use the seals above the ball to eliminate the possibility of a chain or cross fire. A snug fit bullet would suffice for that, but the Wonder Wad is great because it sweeps fouling out of the barrel behind the ball. Most chain fires are ignited by an ill-fitting cap that has fallen off the nipple (cone), but shooting folklore from the 1950s, when revolver shooters used to smear Crisco on the cylinder chambers above the bullet, persists in some quarters, and seals are easier to apply. With blanks it might be a good idea to use both seals and wads, just to be on the safe side, however. Among the other new Dixie offerings for hand gunners are a traditional “slim Jim” style holster designed for the massive Walker Colt revolver and a revolver loading stand adaptable to both .36 and .44 caliber guns.

Revolver Reload Kit: Each kit contains everything you need, except powder and caps. Round balls, felt Wonder Wads, and the new Wonder Seals. Provides enough for 4 complete loads (24 rounds). .36 and .44 calibers.

MA6006 Reload Kit - .36 cal

MA6007 Reload Kit - .44 cal

Deadlines for Advertising or Editorial Submissions is the 20th of each month.

Email to: ads@civilwarnews.com

Joseph G. Bilby received his BA and MA degrees in history from Seton Hall University and served as a lieutenant in the 1st Infantry Division in 1966–1967. He is Assistant Curator of the New Jersey National Guard and Militia Museum, a freelance writer and historical consultant and author or editor of 21 books and over 400 articles on N.J. and military history and firearms.

He is also publications editor for the N.J. Civil War 150 Committee and edited the award winning New Jersey Goes to War. His latest book, New Jersey: A Military History, was published by Westholme Publishing in 2017.

He has received an award for contributions to Monmouth County (N.J.) history and an Award of Merit from the N.J. Historical Commission for contributions to the state’s military history. He can be contacted by email at jgbilby44@aol.com.

Dixie Gun Works 2019 Catalog. Still only $5.00.

By Shannon Pritchard

The original pair of brass raking spurs featured here are, to the trained eye, easily recognized as Confederate. The raking style spur (rowels sideways) is a distinctly Confederate military design. It allowed the rider to roll the rowels against the horses’ flanks rather than just giving a poke. I have often read of battlefield courier’s horses’ flanks being bloodied and torn by the rider’s spurs, and though the writer never mentioned the type of spur that did the damage, I think it very likely that it was done by severe application of the raking spur.

This particular pair of spurs is one of the rarest of all Confederate spurs; so rare in fact, that to my knowledge, another matched pair does not exist. The only published examples are excavated specimens. The existence of this non excavated pair allows us to see that the previously held opinion that the CS was cast into the spur is incorrect; the letters

CS Marked Raking Spurs

are actually stamped, but this could not be discerned when examining excavated examples. In hindsight, we should have recognized that the varied spacing gave proof that the CS was not part of the molding process.

This pair of spurs uses two 1860, New Orleans mint quarters as rowels. The spurs did not come from the manufacturer this way; perhaps the owner changed them out to go easy on his steed. Regardless of why, it is apparent that they have been this way for a long, long time. The leather keepers are original.

Shannon Pritchard has authored numerous articles relating to the authentication, care and conservation of Confederate antiques, including several cover articles and is the author of the definitive work on Confederate collectibles, the widely acclaimed Collecting the Confederacy, Artifacts and Antiques from the War Between the States, and is co-author of Confederate Faces in Color.

Confederate raking spurs, with original leather straps. (Photos courtesy OldSouthAntiques.com)

Note that the CS is stamped, rather than cast.

This pair of spurs uses two, 1860, New Orleans mint quarters as rowels, though very circumstantial, this points to a deep South origin.

Right: Closeup of the two, 1860, New Orleans mint quarters.

Improvements for the Reproduction

U.S. Model 1861

“Gettysburg, Penn. July 3, 1863. We went out and picked up Springfields and left our Enfields. Nearly everyone did so.”– Diary of William Livermore, 20th Maine Infantry.

The U.S. Model 1861 rifle musket occupies a unique niche in Civil War history. The quote in the heading is based on instructions given by Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain to Union soldiers deployed on Little Round Top during a lull in the battle of Gettysburg. Is this a form of latent provincialism on his part or was there another reason why Chamberlain would tell his fellow Maine-men to discard their issued arms and glean the battlefield for “Springfields”? The most obvious conclusion you might draw is that the machine made, parts interchangeable M1861s were more desirable than the handmade (mostly not parts interchangeable) imported English P 1853 Enfields.

Another quote that reinforces this preference for the M1861 is from Pvt. Orrin Cook of the 22nd Massachusetts Infantry, Co. B. Cook hailed from Springfield, Mass., and served in the Army of the Potomac. He was engaged in most major Eastern Theater battles including Antietam, Sharpsburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, the Wilderness, and Spotsylvania Courthouse. Cook was injured at the Wilderness in 1864, but it did not keep him down for long. When the regiment mustered out later in 1864, he transferred to the 32nd Massachusetts for the duration of the war. In his memoirs, Cook notes the following about the arms they were issued: “Some of our boys got Austrian rifles, some Enfield and others Springfield. I got the Enfield and (my comrade) Bob got the finest arm of the whole lot, a fine United States Springfield rifle.” The term “Springfield” was a

catch-all phrase used by soldiers for what the U.S. Government officially referred to as the U.S. M1861 rifle musket, whether they were manufactured at the National Armory in Springfield, Mass., or by one of about twenty private companies that produced them on contract as pattern arms. There were 756,567 M1861 rifle muskets manufactured during the Civil War. Springfield Amory produced 265,129; government contractors produced the remaining 491,438. William B. Edwards notes in Civil War Guns (Stackpole Publishing 1962 p. 25) that had Lincoln’s first Secretary of War Simon Cameron not committed the United States Government to procuring these private contractor produced U.S. Model rifle muskets, “there would have been little chance for the North in the latter stages of the war.” The U.S. rifle muskets made by contractors were marked with the year of manufacture and an identifying name while those produced by the National Armory were marked “US Springfield” with the year of manufacture. This all seems straightforward enough. Hence, if a Union soldier was fortunate enough to be issued “a fine United States Springfield rifle” the odds were about 2:1 that it would have been manufactured by a private contractor rather than the National Armory. Soldiers don’t seem to have cared, as long as they got one. In fact, oddly enough, there is anecdotal evidence that Union soldiers who captured the C.S. Armory variation called them “Richmond Springfields.”

If you happen to favor the reproduction M1861, every current reproduction comes marked one way only…”US Springfield” with a date of 1861. This by itself is somewhat problematic as less than ten percent of Springfield Armory’s total output was manufactured during 1861. For those of who care about such details, there is some good news to report. There are new options to lend a bit more historical accuracy to your reproduction

M1861. Gunsmith Todd Watts, email wattsdefarbs@gmail.com,

is now offering several government contractor variations for the M1861. Watts is perhaps best known for his work on reproduction Enfields and U.S. M1841s (Whitney and Harpers Ferry). Some years ago, he de-farbed my ancient mid-1970s vintage Parker-Hale Enfield as a LACo dated 1862. The case colors are still vivid on the lock plate. I also have an equally ancient (mid-tolate 1970s) U.S. M1861 made up of original and reproduction parts with a custom barrel made by Mike Yeck. It had one of the aforementioned “US Springfield 1861” reproduction Miroku lock plates that was always a sore point for me and it seemed time for an upgrade. I selected the “Philadelphia” variation, based on the initial government contract with John Rice that was actually filled by Alfred Jenks.

John Rice has an interesting story. He wrote Secretary of War Cameron on Oct. 2, 1861, offering to supply muskets for the Union. Rice was not himself a gun maker. He was actually a contractor for stonework at the U.S. Capitol building and a carpenter by trade, but he had many contacts “in the mechanical industries of Philadelphia.” He wrote in his correspondence to Secretary of War Cameron that “I can organize the manufacture of (US rifle muskets) at various places in Philadelphia and furnish from ten to twelve thousand by July 1, 1862…and furnish employment to a large number of workmen who are now idle.” Despite the apparent philanthropy, his offer was not accepted but, after “checking about in Philadelphia,” Rice came back with a new proposal to make 3,000 to 4,000 per month for twelve months commencing in Feb. 1862. This offer was accepted and on Nov. 21, 1861, he received a contract for 36,000 “Springfield pattern rifle-muskets.” The deliveries were to begin with 3,000 in Feb. 1862 and an additional 3,000 per month afterwards. The catch was that “in case of any failure to make deliveries to the extent and within the times specified all obligations of

the United States to receive and pay for any muskets…shall be cancelled and become null and void.” This meant that Rice, who never made arms in his life, had two and a half months to supply 3,000 M1861 rifle muskets. The U.S. government was also curious and inquired where his operation was to be located? He did not own a factory to manufacture parts or even a workshop to assemble the arms. He hoped to find premises near the Springfield Armory, so he could more easily deliver arms for inspection there.

Rice seems to have been somewhat unconcerned about these details and set about to have several lock assemblies made up that were delivered to Springfield Armory and passed inspection with gauges, as well as several ramrods which did not. He was also unsuccessful in his initial attempts at getting his iron barrels made before July 1862, and he sought an extension to the initial deadline. Rice entered contracts with at least ten subcontractors to provide various parts, at least some of whom had their own government contracts to fill, in addition to supplying any parts to John Rice. It appears he finally realized there was more to manufacturing parts interchangeable M1861 rifle muskets than making kitchen cabinets and sought in April 1862 to have the Government take the contracts off his hands or as Rice phrased it, “…be relieved of the liabilities.”

Did John Rice ever get any finished M1861s out the door? There are existing examples found with the lock plate marked “Philadelphia” and dated 1862. Claud E. Fuller notes in The Rifled Musket (Stackpole 1958) that the Philadelphia marked M1861s were fully produced by Alfred Jenks of Bridesburg Machine Works, but at a separate shop located in Philadelphia. William B. Edwards states in Civil War Guns that there is some evidence that Alfred Jenks (Bridesburg) took over the John Rice contract and supplied “Philadelphia” marked M1861s as a part of his government contract for 98,000 arms. Undoubtedly that was the case;

Jenks was already one of the subcontractors initially providing gunstocks and stock tips to John Rice, as well as parts to many other contractors. Claud E. Fuller states that the “Philadelphia” marked M1861s were all finished and provided by Alfred Jenks, while Edwards allows that “Rice was able to get a few arms finished…before defaulting on his contract.”

Alfred Jenks was not only the highest producing individual contractor but also one of the two private contractors with the fewest rejects after the rigorous U.S. government inspection with gauges at Springfield Armory.

Craig L. Barry was born in Charlottesville, Va. He holds his BA and Masters degrees from the University of North Carolina (Charlotte). Craig served The Watchdog Civil War Quarterly as Associate Editor and Editor from 2003–2017. The Watchdog published books and columns on 19th-century material and donated all funds from publications to battlefield preservation. He is the author of several books including The Civil War Musket: A Handbook for Historical Accuracy (2006, 2011), The Unfinished Fight: Essays on Confederate Material Culture Vol. I and II (2012, 2013) and three books (soon to be four) in the Suppliers to the Confederacy series on English Arms & Accoutrements, Quartermaster stores and other European imports.

US Model 1861 “eagle” stamp. Image courtesy Todd Watts.

Philadelphia” contractor lock plate stamp. Image courtesy Todd Watts.

Submitted by Stephen Davis

This article, “Atlanta and Nashville,” is in the Augusta Constitutionalist of February 5, 1865. It is signed “G. W. Y.” On the 7th the paper issued a correction, “G. W. Y. should have been G. W. S.,” leading us to conclude that the author was Gustavus W. Smith, who was living in Augusta at the time. General Smith was John Bell Hood’s distant cousin, whom Hood visited in early February as he passed through Augusta on his way to Richmond after his resignation from army command.

We believe Hood was already writing his report of the Atlanta and Tennessee campaigns, and may have shown a draft of it to Smith, or at least talked with him about its contents. Together the two men apparently decided upon planting this article in the Southern press as a means of conveying Hood’s narrative of events. As such it is very one-sided and self-serving for Hood, but it is possibly the clearest and most succinct articulation of his viewpoint in print. We therefore present it in full, for the first time, we think, in the historical literature.

The “G. W. Y. article” was

Clippings from the Past

reprinted in the Richmond Sentinel of Feb. 17, 1865, which is the text reproduced here.

From the Augusta Constitutionalist, Feb. 5. Atlanta and Nashville.

Generals are often deprived of commands by the chief executive officers of their country, because public opinion sometimes demands it, and it may be that the Executive is opposed to the plans of the General. Sometimes they are not properly supported by the government and retire from the service, satisfied that others who are more fortunate in possessing the confidence and good will of the Executive, would be far more likely to achieve success in war. At other times generals voluntarily retire from commands, although strongly supported by both the government and their own army, because public opinion is expressed through the newspapers severely censuring the plans and movements devised by them.

General Bragg commanded the army of Tennessee lying in front of the enemy at Chattanooga, covering Atlanta. The army was

in great part opposed to him; the press and the people were opposed to him. His removal was demanded. The President yielded to this after a long struggle; Bragg was removed and Joseph E. Johnston assigned to the command.

About the 7th of May Sherman advanced upon Johnston then lying at Dalton. It is conceded by all that Johnston’s army at that time was in the highest effective fighting condition in every respect. After Polk joined him, the army numbered about 65,000 effective men. Johnston on the 14th of July had been forced back across the Chattahoochee, having lost all of North Georgia, and over 20,000 of his men without bringing on a general engagement. The spirit of the army was almost ruined by constantly retiring—always on the defensive, fatigued almost beyond endurance by digging trenches for personal security, its morale was not only badly injured—it was almost lost. The enemy holding their own in numbers, were every day becoming more energetic and defiant.—When Johnston crossed the Chattahoochee, beaten back to the very suburbs of Atlanta, he

was relieved of his command by Mr. Davis, and General Hood was placed in command of the army on the 18th of July.—Never, probably, was a young officer promoted and assigned to the command of any army under more difficult and trying circumstances.

We are informed that General Hood has been relieved of the command at his own request. This, no doubt, was caused by the fact that the press and the people were censuring his operations with great severity, calling loudly upon the Executive to replace General Johnston [SIC Hood], and fast creating in the minds of all his sick and absent soldiers as well as upon many subordinate officers and privates in his army, the impression that Hood is a good fighter but has no head.

The enemy, too, join in depreciating his capacity as a military leader. This may be for a purpose, as well as they may be especially meaning in the violent opposition manifested towards this young General by certain parties in our own country.

Before entering upon the following statement of facts and opinions, it is proper to state the writer of this article is no friend of

Jefferson Davis. Hood took command of the army near Atlanta on the 18th of July. He immediately changed the policy of the campaign from the defensive to the active offensive.

On the 20th, he attacked the enemy in position, and if Hardee’s corps had executed the part assigned to it, what was only a partial success, would have resulted in a complete victory. This, Hardee himself admitted, and stated that he could not get his orders obeyed.

Again, on the 22d, Hood attacked the enemy and the partial success of Hardee demonstrated conclusively, what the result would have been had Hardee executed the orders given him by General Hood, by which he was required to completely turn the position of the enemy—if to do this he should have to march as far as Decatur or even beyond.

The fortifications of Atlanta were of little if any strength, at the time Hood took command of the army, and the position was by nature very far from being advantageous—still he held Sherman at bay for more than forty days, twice during that time attacked and would have beaten

National Military Park Eisenhower National Historic Park

the enemy had his orders been executed. This was the state of affairs on the 30th of August. Hood lost during this time less than seven thousand men, but not one inch of ground. His army in the meanwhile was regaining much of its former spirit and morale.

Nothing could as yet be said against Hood’s practical generalship. Johnston in seventy days had lost the strongly fortified position between Dalton, all the strong defensible positions between Dalton and Atlanta, and with them all North Georgia—he had lost more than twenty thousand men, and the fighting spirit of his army had been materially impaired—so far certainly there was nothing to indicate that Johnston in his campaign showed any superiority over Hood. On the 30th of August, Hardee, with his own corps and that of Lee’s, was ordered to attack that portion of the enemy which had crossed Flint river, in the direction of Jonesboro.’ He was ordered not to cross the Flint river for the purpose of attacking, but on his arrival to attack and beat back whatever forces he might find between Flint river and the Macon and Atlantic railroad. The enemy had two small corps in position. Had they been badly beaten, it was supposed that Sherman would move to their support, and leave his fortifications, thus

enabling Hood, with a large portion of the forces under Hardee, and Stewart’s corps from Atlanta, to strike between Sherman’s army and the river, without having to strike his strong fortifications, which already extended from the river to West Point railroad. The fact was impressed upon General Hardee that upon the success or failure of this attack depended the fate of Atlanta. Hardee had more men on the decisive point than Sherman had.

His attack failed most signally. Our troops, after a short contest, retired from the field, with a loss of only about 1,400 men in the two corps. Thus, for the third time, was Atlanta played for and lost. Every time the orders of the commanding general were right, and the want of success was due to failure in their execution. At least such are known to be the opinions of Lieutenant General Stewart and Lieutenant General Lee, and other separate commanders under Gen. Hood.

The complete failure of Hardee’s attack at Jonesboro, placed Sherman’s army in position to destroy Macon and Columbus, and release 34,000 prisoners at Andersonville, turning them loose to incite rebellion amongst the slaves in Southwest Georgia, leaving the women and children, the non-combatants and the property of all that section a prey to the released prisoners, and

Vin Caponi Historic Antiques

We carry a very large inventory of Colt and Civil War firearms including muskets, carbines, rifles and accoutrements. Our inventory of historic antiques and firearms begin at the early collectors level and range all the way up to the advanced collector and investors level.

negroes, acting at their instigation. To prevent this Hood had to place his army between Sherman and Macon. Atlanta had, therefore, to be evacuated. But its fall is not fairly attributable to want of capacity and military ability on the part of Hood. Immediately after Hood took his new position at Lovejoy’s, Sherman retired to Atlanta, thus clearly proving that the enemy was not at that time in condition to continue the contest any further. This was the first retrograde movement forced upon his [sic him] between Dalton and Lovejoy’s. Sherman commenced to fortify Atlanta for permanent occupation, and he proclaimed that through this “Gate City” he would subdue and hold all Georgia.

The first great problem for General Hood to solve was how best to prevent this. Let any man in Georgia, be he soldier or not, ask himself what would have been the probable result had Hood fortified his position, and awaited Sherman’s preparations and reinforcements? Had he done this, in all human probability the enemy would at this time not only have held Atlanta and all North Georgia, but Macon, Columbus, Augusta and Savannah would have been taken and strongly fortified, with lines of communication in every direction made perfectly secure by works which the enemy knew perfectly well how to construct, and garrisoned in such way that their power would have been fastened upon us.

North Georgia is ours. The enemy have given up the almost impregnable fortifications which they constructed at Atlanta.—‘Tis true, they occupy the city of Savannah, but that port was closed to us already.— He marched through the State, but did not conquer and could not hold it. Who compelled Sherman to abandon Atlanta and left him to choose only between the sea coast, or retiring into Tennessee?

Gen. Hood believed that if he acted strictly upon the defensive, the enemy, strengthened and reinforced as all knew he soon would be, could compel him at any time to fall back, and this policy would inevitably result in the ultimate loss of the whole State by piecemeal. There was still another and very serious consideration which induced him to assume the active offensive, one which no commander can safely disregard. The morale and esprit de corps of the best army in the world can be ruined by retreating and digging. No one understands this better than General Hood. The public mind was prepared for the fall of Atlanta when Johnston’s army crossed the Chattahoochee.—But

after Hood had succeeded in holding the place for more than a month, they seem to have concluded he could and ought to hold it forever. When it did fall, with [sic without] stopping to inquire into the causes, he was at once charged with incompetency by the press; and this was so general and oft repeated as to cause serious doubts in the minds of many of his men in regard to his capacity as a leader. Hood had two objects in view; one was to get Sherman’s army out of the stronghold of Atlanta, the other to bring the army back to the highest point and spirit which it possessed in the beginning of the campaign at Dalton.

He, therefore, determined to take the initiative, and moved upon Sherman’s rear, destroying thirty miles of his railroad communication between Marietta and and [sic] Tunnel Hill. This compelled Sherman to withdraw his main army to the vicinity of Dalton.—Hood then moved by way of Gadsden to the Tennessee river, intending to cross in the vicinity of Gunter’s Landing, which would have forced Sherman to withdraw into Middle Tennessee. Before crossing, Hood considered it necessary to have the assistance and co operation of the great cavalry leader of the West for the protection of the trains of his army. By some mischance the orders to General Forrest did not reach him

in time. This rendered it necessary for Hood to move his army to Florence, in order to effect the required junction with Forrest. This movement caused sufficient delay to enable Sherman to repair his railroad, and crowd through from Nashville provisions sufficient to enable him to move from Atlanta to the coast with a large portion of his army. But for this compulsory movement of Hood upon Florence, Sherman could not have placed in Atlanta provisions enough to have justified his attempt to move a large force from this point to the coast. Sherman promptly availed himself of the opportunity, pushed provisions into Atlanta, divided his army and commenced his movement through Georgia. Gen Hood had then to decide which portion of this divided army he would attack. To turn back and pursue Sherman in Georgia would in the minds of his soldiers have been a compulsory retreat. They were by this time fully up to the highest fighting standard. A large portion of his army were Tennesseeans, and as seeming retreat without a fight might well have produced a very depressing effect upon the army. Besides, Hood knew that Sherman had barely sufficient provisions with which to make the march to the coast and a very short supply of ammunition. He therefore inferred that Sherman would not

stop to besiege the fortified cities of Georgia before reaching the coast and that a march through the State, beyond damage to railroads, would produce no important military result.

Thomas had in Tennessee the smaller portion of Sherman’s army. If Hood could not beat that he had a poor chance for coming up with and beaten [sic beating] Sherman. Thomas beaten, Nashville in our possession, the road to the Ohio river would be open, and Sherman would not be able to remain in the swamps of the Southern coast, with Hood’s army largely increased by recruits from Tennessee and Kentucky on the Ohio river, threatening the heart of the Northern country. Hood, for these reasons, determined to attack Thomas—moreover, he believed if he attacked Thomas and failed—it would be better than to have Thomas to follow him either into Alabama or Georgia without a battle. Certainly in his mind, it was better than having the combined armies of Sherman and Thomas, with uninterrupted railroad communications behind them slowly and surely fastening their hold upon all the vital points in the interior of Georgia, which he could not have prevented by acting upon the defensive. In his opinion the only possible way of preventing this result, was to possess himself of the railroad between Atlanta and Nashville.

We have yet to examine the question, how the campaign against Thomas was conducted by Hood from Florence. He moved upon Columbia, (and forcing the enemy to abandon it,) turning the fortified position of Pulaski. They crossed Duck river and took position upon the north bank and fortified themselves. Hood crossed higher up, and succeeded in gaining position near their line of communications at Spring Hill. The reason why this masterly and successive movement did not result in the destruction or capture of eighteen thousand of the enemy’s infantry, and all their artillery and trains, is well known in Hood’s army, and it is not necessary to allude to it further. The soldiers who were there know well whose head conceived and caused the movement to be executed, and who failed to inflict the fatal blow when all was ready prepared for it. The enemy, after making this narrow escape, retreated rapidly to Franklin. Captured dispatches indicated that the enemy contemplated fortifying Franklin, and holding the line of Franklin and Murfreesboro’. It being inexpedient to attempt a flank movement, and this being the last chance to

crush the enemy before he could reach the strong fortifications at Nashville, it was necessary to attack as soon as the troops could be put in position. The courage and conduct of the army in this fiercely contested struggle proved, beyond a doubt, that its old fighting spirit was restored, and stands in marked contrast with the conduct of the same troops at Jonesboro.’

After this decisive victory, Hood pushed forward to Nashville and fortified his position for the purpose of cutting off Thomas’ army from the garrisons of Murfreesboro, Knoxville and Chattanooga, thus forcing him to abandon these fortified positions, giving up that whole section of the country, or coming out to attack Hood in position.—Thomas did attack, and whilst all was going on well along Hood’s whole line, one division unaccountably gave way, which resulted in the retreat of the whole line in disorder.—In this struggle before Nashville, Hood was beaten by a giving way of a division—producing an almost immediate panic which could not be remedied. Notwithstanding the confusion and disorder, in which the troops left the field, they were soon rallied, and though the enemy made a vigorous pursuit, the army with its material safely crossed the Tennessee river—and the campaign ended.

This was not the first offensive campaign attempted by us during the war. Lee has made two, one into Maryland, ending with the battle of Sharpsburg; another into Pennsylvania, which culminated in defeat at Gettysburg. What great results were gained by either? Hood is charged with being a reckless fighter. In his record there is no Malvern Hill, or any approach to the like of it. It is no part of the present purpose to criticize General Lee’s military operations, or comment upon the mistakes or misfortunes of the leader battling so courageously in the suburbs of the Capital of the Confederacy.

Lee is, above all others, the favorite General, both with the Executive and the people, has been vested with almost plenary powers in regard to officers, men and materials, and stands first in the estimation of the armies of the country. Notwithstanding all this, there are those of high position competent and proper judges, too, who know Hood best, and are acquainted with the facts connected with his campaign, who believe that Hood in high capacity for active offensive war and characteristics of a great General, is fully equal to Lee himself—and that when their campaigns are made the subject

of fair military criticism, the facts in regard to those known, the records will show that not only in tangible and advantageous results, but in management and generalship Hood’s will compare favorably with either of Lee’s. It is true that some of the railroads in Georgia have been broken up by the enemy. But suppose Hood had not made his movement upon Sherman’s rear, and had allowed the combined armies of Sherman and Thomas, with railroad communications uninterrupted between Nashville and Atlanta, to move upon Central and Southern Georgia.—The chances all are those that the whole of Georgia would have been occupied by the enemy.

But whatever may be the differences of opinion in regard to Hood’s capacity, his management of the campaign and its results, the army under him, after all its hardships, fatigues and battles, has returned in fine spirits and effective condition, and may all be justly proud of their achievements, saving only the unfortunate few who, in an evil moment,

gave way, or failed to do what was justly and fairly expected of them.

When Lieutenant General Stewart, Lieutenant General Lee, Major General Forrest, and other commanders under Hood, express their unqualified conviction that the campaign failed in producing all the great results which could have been expected under the most favorable circumstances, not from any mistake upon

the part of their general, it is not unreasonable to ask the press and the people not to condemn, at least until they know something of the facts. The sentiments of a commander, and the officers and men of an army, are certainly better judges of the capacity of their leader than outsiders, be they presidents, legislators, soldiers, citizens, correspondents, or editors.

G. W. Y.

Author Publisher’s Award of Literary Excellence

Steal My Dog I Steal Your Cat

“I little thought, when I faced the storm of bullets at Edwards’ Ferry, [Va.] and escaped a soldier’s death upon the field, that it was only to be left by my country to die upon the gallows.” – U.S. Col. Milton Cogswell

On April 17, 1861, C.S.A. President Jefferson Davis issued a proclamation, “inviting all those who may desire, by service in private armed vessels on the high seas,” to apply to become legal pirates for the Confederacy. Lacking a navy, Davis decided to combat U.S. President Abraham Lincoln’s blockade by authorizing private ships to attack Union shipping and warships for profit. Several captains seized the opportunity to turn privateer. On

May 16, the Ocean Bark, at the mouth of the Mississippi River, became the first ship captured. The Federal Navy in turned captured privateers. The privateers expected to be treated as POWs. To their horror, they were put on trial as that scourge of all mankind – Pirates! Davis vowed to treat Federal prisoners the same as the captured privateers. Soon he had his chance. On July 18, the 13th N.Y. Volunteer Infantry had engaged in a fight at Blackburn’s Ford, Va. As the men included volunteers from his congressional district, the Hon. Alfred Ely considered it his duty to visit them. Ely obtained a pass from U.S. Gen. Winfield Scott, hired a carriage and set off to visit the men near Manassas, Va., on July 21. Ely had the bad timing of his visit coinciding with the First Battle of Bull Run.

On October 22, in Philadelphia,

Penn., the courtrooms were packed with the national political elite for the separate trials of five men from the privateer Jefferson Davis. The fate of the privateers was of avid interest around the nation and across the pond. Three days later, Capt. William Smith was sentenced to death by hanging. Three more men were sentenced to the same.

On October 23, in New York City, the dean of the New York bar, Daniel Lord, teamed up with renowned criminal defense lawyers James T. Brady and Algernon Sullivan, to defend the 12 crew members of the privateer Savannah. Lord had a personal interest. The first mate of the Savannah was the son of Lord’s Yale classmate. Before the trial began, Sullivan had corresponded with Confederate officials on his clients’ behalf.

U.S. Secretary of State William Seward had Sullivan thrown in the Ft. Lafayette, N.Y., prison for seditious contact with the enemy. Sullivan was released on an oath of loyalty shortly before the trial began.

From the start, Lincoln wanted to treat the secessionists as criminals. His decision to “blockade” instead of close Southern ports was “to avoid complications” that might result in a foreign war. U.S. Congressman Thaddeus Stevens had protested that by doing so, the United States was being committed, “to conduct the war, not as if we were suppressing a revolt in our own States, but in accordance with the law of nations.” Now the decision to “blockade” was being used to the privateersmen’s advantage.

The Savannah’s defense team argued that the dispute wasn’t over the essential facts. It was over how to characterize them. Were the men legitimate privateers like the American privateers of the War of 1812? Or were they high sea robbers? “Lord fumed about a government that claimed to treat southerners ‘as enemies, for the purpose of confiscation’ but ‘as traitors and pirates, for the purpose of execution.’” After six days of listening to the lawyers’ arguments, the jury came back

deadlocked. Another attempt to reach a decision failed. In the end, the government simply couldn’t convince the jury that the past six months of fighting was not a war.

Meanwhile, in Richmond’s Libby Prison, Ely was held in the officer’s quarters. Both residents and tourists flocked to see the “Yankee Congressman,” inspiring jokes to charge for tickets. On November 10, Ely was in the officer’s quarters as C.S. Gen. John Winder entered. Winder had been ordered to select by lottery, men of the highest rank, to be treated as felons and to be executed if the privateers were executed.

Slips of paper with the names of the six Federal colonels in Confederate custody were placed “in a tin case nearly a foot in depth, and only large enough to admit the hand. After shaking up the ballots,” Winder requested the only non-military man, Ely, draw the name of the colonel “who should stand as a hostage for privateer Smith now condemned to death in Philadelphia.”

The attention of 75 Federal officers was fixed on Ely as he fulfilled his “painful duty.” The first name drawn was Col. Michael Corcoran, Ely’s “mess mate and intimate friend.” Thirteen more names were drawn from the tin. Davis had the names of

Libby Prison, Richmond, Virginia, April 1865; Colorization © 2012 civilwarincolor.com courtesy civilwarincolor.com/cwn. (Photos Library of Congress)

Hon. Alfred Ely of N.Y. - While witnessing the Battle of Bull Run, he was taken prisoner by Confederates and imprisoned in Richmond for nearly 6 months; Colorization © 2019 civilwarincolor.com courtesy civilwarincolor.com/cwn.

the selected officers widely published. The men were marched off to the county jail, “confined in one small room, about twelve by sixteen feet.”

On November 21, newspaper publisher turned privateer John P. Calvo, wrote a protest letter to Lincoln. Calvo had been captured on August 3 and had grown weary of languishing in a NYC prison. Calvo’s position was that if the War continued it would be a “dog eat dog”—“steal my dog I will steal your cat” situation. The men on both sides, “should be considered and treated the same. … if you still think and will have it that I am a Pirate for serving my country, in God’s name have me indicted, tried, sentenced and hung instead of having me imprisoned. … Do you suppose dragging us from pillow to port in irons as have been done, and confined and fed as we are now will make us loyal subjects under the Stars and Stripes any quicker? If so, you and those in power are and will be deceived!”

After over five months in captivity, Ely was exchanged for the Hon. Charles Faulkner, former U.S. Minster to France. On December 29, Ely arrived in Washington, D.C., and spent the evening at the White House. Ely described to Lincoln and Seward his experiences at Libby Prison, including pulling the names out of the tin.

At this point, Lincoln had to have realized that his efforts to portray secessionists as criminals

had failed. The privateers were quietly redesignated as POWs and eventually exchanged. The Confederacy did the same with their “hostages.” However, the strategy’s failure was a small price to pay. Lincoln would use international law to avoid the pit falls that could result in having “two wars on our hands at once.”

Sources:

• Fabian, John, Lincoln’s Code: The Laws Of War In American History

• Ely, Alfred, Journal of Alfred Ely, a prisoner of War in Richmond

• Clavo, J.P.M. Letter to Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 12, 1861

• Daly, Charles P. L.L.D., the Southern Privateersmen Pirates, Letter to Hon. Ira Harris, US Senator

Stephanie Hagiwara is the editor for Civil War in Color.com and Civil War in 3D.com. She also writes a column for History in Full Color. com that covers stories of photo graphs of historical interest from the 1850’s to the present. Her articles can be found on Facebook, Tumblr and Pinterest.

Gun Works, Inc.

The Atlanta Papers (cont.)

This month, we march on with our look into Sydney C. Kerksis’s The Atlanta Papers; a collection of Federal accounts from the Atlanta Campaign. Major W.H. Chamberlin of the 81st Ohio Volunteer Infantry delivered Paper No. 18—‘Recollections of the Battle of Atlanta’—to the Ohio MOLLUS Commandery. Chamberlin, who served on the staff of Major General Grenville Dodge (XVI Corps), provided a detailed account of the July 22, 1864, battle. Colonel Robert N. Adams, D.D., led the 81st Ohio Volunteer Infantry during the Battle of Atlanta and recalled ‘The Battle and Capture of Atlanta’ in Paper No. 19. Adams

stated the fighting proved “…the bloodiest and most decisive battle of the campaign,” then avowed, “General McPherson did take and hold that position, which proved to be the ‘key to Atlanta,’ but at the sacrifice of himself and thousands of his brave men.”

Continuing to focus on the fighting east of the city on July 22, Major General Dodge authored Paper No. 20, ‘The Battle of Atlanta.’ Dodge addressed a lingering question at the time, 1895, as to why the battle “…was never put ahead of many others its inferior, but better known to the world and made of much greater comment?” The general surmised the loss of Major General James McPherson in the fighting “… counted so much more to us than victory, that we spoke of our battle, our great success, with our loss uppermost in our minds.”

Lieutenant Colonel William E. Strong of McPherson’s staff, remembered his fallen chieftain in Paper No. 21, ‘The Death of General James B. McPherson.’

Strong opened his account with a strong statement: “Numerous accounts have been published, but none of them go into details, and none that I have seen are entirely correct.” Details indeed! Within the following 32 pages, researchers can glean valuable information about the general’s

death. Strong cites wartime reports, newspaper accounts, and other documents in his attempt to clarify when, where, and how the general fell. The writer numbered among the first to arrive at McPherson’s side after the fatal shot struck the officer, and recalled, “Raising his body quickly from the ground, and grasping it firmly under the arms, I dragged it…through the brush to the ambulance….” Shifting away from July 22, 1st Lieutenant Granville C. West, who served in the 4th Kentucky Infantry (mounted during Atlanta Campaign) penned ‘McCook’s Raid in the Rear of Atlanta and Hood’s Army, August 1864,’ Paper No. 22. West offered a general history of his regiment before detailing McCook’s attempts to break the rail lines servicing Atlanta. The writer criticized Major General George Stoneman, scheduled to meet McCook’s force near Lovejoy Station. Stoneman decided to liberate the prisoners at Camp Sumter in Andersonville; the cavalry general and a sizable portion of his command ended up prisoners themselves after the Battle of Sunshine Church. West suggested had Stoneman joined McCook, “our united forces would have been masters of the situation;” instead, they “remained there [Lovejoy] nearly all

The Atlanta Papers cover and spine.

Colonel Robert N. Adams, author of Paper No. 19..

Kilpatrick’s Raid Map.

day expecting him [Stoneman], and wasted some precious hours….”

The Chicago Board of Trade Battery made an appearance in Paper No. 23, ‘With Kilpatrick Around Atlanta,’ as 1st Lieutenant George I. Robinson of the battery recounted the attempt to break the Macon & Western Railroad, and the resultant engagements near Jonesboro. Robinson, a gifted writer, weaves an engaging narrative, one occasionally laced with dry humor. Recalling when he first learned Major General William T. Sherman had requested Brigadier General Judson Kilpatrick to lead his cavalry during the campaign, Robinson remembered even greater surprise “…when at about the same time the battery under my command was ordered to report to Gen. Kilpatrick.” Capturing more of the action covered in the previous chapter, 1st Lieutenant William L. Curry of the 1st Ohio Volunteer Cavalry provided Paper No. 24, ‘Raid of the Union Cavalry, Commanded by General Judson Kilpatrick, Around the Confederate Army in Atlanta, August, 1864.’ Like Robinson, Curry wrote a fluid-prose, and among his various accounts of the raid, he gave a thorough explanation of how cavalrymen damaged rail lines. “The men then

form along one side of the track in close order, and at command grasp the rails and ties and turn the track over, and sometimes a half mile of tracks is turned before a joint is broken.” Next, “… the men move along rapidly, and many rods of the track will be standing up on edge. If there is time, the rails are then torn loose from the ties by picks and axes, carried for that purpose; the ties are piled up and the rails on top of them, and the fires are fired; thus the rails are heated in the middle and bent out of shape…twisted around trees or telegraph poles.”

Concluding his lesson on cutting the rails, Curry added the final ingredient to the recipe “…the rails are left to cool.” In closing, he suggested, “…no doubt some of them are there yet [Curry wrote in 1898] to mark the trail of the cavalry raiders.”

Remember to check WorldCat http://www.worldcat.org for help in finding this source in a local library; search The Atlanta Papers + Kerksis. Researchers may also have luck in securing a copy of this 1980 Morningside Press publication from an online bookseller. Next month, we will complete the review of The Atlanta Papers. Until then, continued good luck in researching the Civil War!

Nobody even comes close to building a Civil War tent with as much attention to reinforcing the stress areas as Panther. Our extra heavy duty reinforcing is just one of the added features that makes Panther tentage the best you can buy!

PANTHER Catalog - $2 Web: www.pantherprimitives.com 160 pages of the best selection of historical reenactment items from Medieval era to Civil War era. Includes over 60 pages on our famous tents and a 4-color section. Your $2 cost is refundable with your first order. SEND for copy TODAY

Michael K. Shaffer is a Civil War historian, author, lecturer, instructor, and a member of the Society of Civil War Historians, the Historians of the Civil War Western Theater, the Georgia Association of Historians, and the Georgia Writers Association. Readers may contact him at mkscdr11@ gmail.com, or to request speaking engagements, via his website www.civilwarhistorian.net. Follow Michael on Facebook www.facebook.com/michael.k.shaffer and Twitter @michaelkshaffer.

Fort Donelson Anniversary Programs

By Craig Barry

The battle at Fort Donelson was an early turning point in the US Civil War that took place in mid-February 1862, right around St. Valentine’s Day. General Grant received national recognition for the victory, the first major Union success of the War. The capture of Fort Donelson and its garrison by the Union led directly to the capture of Nashville, Tenn., the capital and industrial center of the state.

Nashville remained in Union hands from Feb. 25, 1862, until the end of the war and, along with the victory at Stones River later in 1862, gave the Union effective control over much of Northern and Middle Tennessee. These two defeats struck a major blow to the Confederacy early in the war.

The annual anniversary programs at Fort Donelson National Battlefield commemorating these events are the unofficial start of the historic weapons demonstrations and living history schedule of events in Tennessee. The recent U.S. government shutdown forced cancelation of the Stones River anniversary programs late last year and left the programs at Fort Donelson up in the air until a week or two before the event.

Fortunately, the staff at Fort

Donelson was able to not only get back and running in time, but also get the necessary ground work done to put programs together on a very tight time line. Kudos go to park ranger Susan Hawkins and her staff for their work in that regard. For those of us who enjoy participating in these programs, we were very grateful for their efforts. The dates selected were Feb. 9-10, 2019, …among the last possible just in case the U.S. government shut things down again as had been threatened when the park temporarily reopened a few weeks ago.

The weather was the usual mix of clear, very cold, and sunny on Saturday with slightly less cold but rainy and wet on Sunday. On Saturday morning, the weather channel reported temperatures of about 20 “that feel like 8 degrees.” This is seasonable for those parts in mid-February but this much can be said for certain, no matter what your winter kit may include to keep your body warm, fingers struggle with the dexterity needed to place a percussion cap on a musket under such conditions. There were about two dozen volunteers from the 9th Ky. Inf. (U.S.) on hand for the programs and the area around tour stop five (the site of Smith’s

attack) was cleared for the camp. The historic weapons and living history programs were held behind the original visitor’s center (closed for renovation for about three years now).

There were demonstrations of drill, marching in formation, loading in nine times, and historic weapons (musket) firing. For participants in the programs, it was an excellent chance to re-connect with friends who have not been together since late last year. Whatever challenges may have been with the cold and winter weather, a nice crowd of visitors braved the conditions and

the programs were all successfully completed as scheduled. Interest in the American Civil War remains strong in that part of Tennessee.

Craig L. Barry was born in Charlottesville, Va. He holds his BA and Masters degrees from the University of North Carolina. He writes Civil War News column “The Unfinished Fight.” He is the author of several books including three books in the Suppliers to the Confederacy series on English Arms & Accoutrements, Quartermaster stores and other European imports.

Ky. Inf. (US).

(Susan Hawkins, Fort Donelson Battlefield)

Winters)

Nic Miranda and Jason Brunner, 9th Ky. Inf. (US). (Elaine Winters)

National Civil War Memorial Gains Local Support

By Leon Reed Sculptor

Gary

Casteel

has been advocating development of a National Civil War Memorial for two decades. He feels he may be closer to the project’s go-ahead than ever before. “If you go to the National Mall in Washington, you’ll find monuments to the soldiers who fought in World War II, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, even World War I,” said Casteel. He noted “They’re even developing one for Desert Storm.” “But, “he observed, “there has never been a national memorial to the Civil War,” but he thinks his latest proposal may be on course.

The city of Taneytown, Md., about 12 miles south of Gettysburg sits on one of the three main routes used by the Army of

the Potomac to get to the battle. Since an October presentation to the Borough Council and a visit by most of the Borough officials to Casteel’s studio on Baltimore Street in Gettysburg, Casteel has gained the support of the mayor and most of the town council. A site on the edge of town has tentatively been selected.

“The Memorial is intended to educate the present generation about the war by telling stories about important events and participants,” said Casteel. “It is a Civil War memorial and is only concerned with the events from April 1861 to April 1865.” He believes the memory of the Civil War and the sacrifices of millions are in danger of being lost. “This generation is the last chance to

get this monument built.”

The memorial will consist of a monumental circle with walls containing scenes of the war and portraits of key individuals who were important during the war. In the center of the circle is a bench with two old soldiers speaking to a child about their experiences.

Key events include the firing on Fort Sumter, Gettysburg, and Appomattox. Individuals portrayed include military figures such as Lee, Grant, Stonewall Jackson, and Meade while civilians portrayed include Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, diarist Mary Chesnut, and poet Walt Whitman. Some eyebrows have been raised by the portrayal of Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth. But Casteel

argues that the memorial is depicting individuals who played a leading role and that there is no suggestion that he is being honored.

Casteel is one of the most prominent sculptors of Civil War subjects. Among his Civil Warrelated projects are the statue of General Longstreet at Gettysburg National Military Park, two smaller sculptures in Gettysburg; one honors Wesley Culp and his brother, the other honoring Civil War musicians; a statue in Lexington Park, Md., honoring African American soldiers who fought in the war; a Confederate

POW memorial at Point Lookout, Md.; and a monument to soldiers from North Carolina at South Mountain, Md.. He also recently prepared sculptures of a World War I doughboy and Lady Liberty at Carlisle Barracks, Penn., and has undertaken a project to create high quality miniature versions of Civil War monuments at Gettysburg and elsewhere.

Leon Reed is a former congressional aide, defense consultant, and U.S. History teacher. He lives in Gettysburg and writes military history books.

Casteel testifying at a Taneytown Borough Council meeting.

Taneytown Borough Council visiting Casteel’s studio.

Nationally recognized sculptor Gary Casteel in his studio with some of his sculptures.

Passing on a Passion for the Past

By Joe Bordonaro

Scattered throughout communities across the United States are small groups of dedicated individuals who strive to preserve our nation’s history. One such is the Lawrence Township Historical Society in Cedarville, N.J. On the evening of Feb. 19, 2019,

members of the local reenacting community gathered together to make a presentation on Civil War history to the LTHS. They were led by local resident, Dan Casella, who made his passion for passing on the past literal by bringing his son, Sebastian, to the event. The presentation was very well

received and a new link between local historians and living historians has been forged. Perhaps other reenactors will consider doing the same, especially those who may be stepping down from an active participation in reenactments. Sharing your passion with people in your community,

Shenandoah Civil War Associates Civil War Institute

The Seven Days Campaign

June 14-16, 2019

Saturday:

• Lee’s Headquarters

• Beaver Dam Creek/Mechanicsville

• Gaines’s Mill

• Lunch at the Cold Harbor picnic area

• After lunch, finish up Gaines’s Mill and Savage’s Station

• Yellow Tavern Battlefield

Sunday:

• Savage’s Station

• White Oak Swamp

• Glendale/Frayser’s Farm

• Malvern Hill

Friday and Saturday evening dinners included with dinner speakers Frank O’Reilly and Jeff Wert. Includes two nights lodging at the picturesque Virginia Crossings Hotel in Glen Allen, Virginia.

For information:

Total cost $495.00

Go to our website at shencivilwar.org or email shencivilwar@gmail.com

Registration Contact:

Conference Services at James Madison University (540) 568-8043

especially the young, is an excellent way to pass your passion for the past on to the next generation. The following information about the present Lawrence Township Historical Society building was provided by the Society: “The present home of the Lawrence Township Historical Society, located at 177 Main Street in Cedarville, N.J., was originally a schoolhouse in Stow Creek Township. It was brought to Cedarville in the late 1920’s or early 1930’s by Frank H. Tongue, the local funeral director, for use as a funeral parlor. The building was brought here in sections…”stained glass windows” replaced the original tall windows… (and were obtained) from a chapel at Girard College…The first meeting of the Society was held in April 1980 with 31 charter members attending…Monthly business meetings at 177 Main Street are held on the third Tuesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. and are concluded with interesting programs. The public is always cordially invited to attend these meetings.”

Joe Bordonaro is a USAF veteran (1973–1977), Glassboro State College graduate (1980), Catholic school teacher (St. Joseph’s ProCathedral, 1983–1988), and retired public school teacher (Mullica Township School, 1988–2009). He has been involved with Civil War reenacting/living history since 1999. Joe began submitting articles to the Civil War News in 2005 and has been covering events for the News on a regular basis since 2016. Joe lives in Mount Laurel, NJ, and has been married to his wife Karen for 29 years. If you wish to contact Joe, you may send an email to joe1861@gmail.com.

Colin Zimmerman and Dan Casella show an original rifle musket. (Katherine A. Peisochenske)

Colin Zimmerman displayed some of his collection of Civil War items at the meeting. (Joe Bordonaro)

Dan Casella and his son Sebastian stand by a display of Dan’s Civil War items. (Joe Bordonaro)

Join tour guide Robert E.L. Krick joined by Jeffry D. Wert as we visit.

LTHS President Mary Ellen Walker presided at the meeting. (Joe Bordonaro)

Aboard the Ironclad Ram Arkansas with Naval Surgeon H.W. Macrae Washington

By Bob Ruegsegger

His earthly remains are interred near the moss-covered brick wall that marks the inner burial ground surrounding Ware Church in Gloucester County, Va. Encircled by family members who have also gone to their rewards, Dr. H.W. Macrae Washington presumably rests in perfect peace. On the Washington family monument, the years of his birth and death are inscribed: 1835 – 1915. On his grave, there is a rusty cast-iron Maltese cross bearing a wreath, flag, and letters CSA in relief.

As a student at the College of William and Mary in 1852, Washington could never have imagined that he would resign his commission, along with 499 other Southern officers, in the United States Navy in 1861 and offer his services to a fledgling Confederate Navy.

While Captain Sidney Smith Lee, Captain Franklin Buchanan,

Commander Matthew Fontaine Maury, and Surgeon H.W.M. Washington all tendered their resignations in 1861, the United States Naval Register 1862–63 officially, and incorrectly, lists their names and the names of 136 other Southern officers as dismissals rather than resignations, perhaps out of vindictiveness.

While Washington served as surgeon aboard the gunboat CSS Chattahoochee and ironclad CSS Fredericksburg, his most dramatic encounter with history occurred while he was surgeon aboard the ironclad ram CSS Arkansas

Begun in Memphis and hastily completed in Yazoo City, Miss., the Arkansas successfully, albeit briefly, challenged the US Navy Mississippi River squadron above Vicksburg.

Construction of the formidable twin-screw ram Arkansas began at Fort Pickering, a landing below Memphis; after the fall of New Orleans, the vessel was towed to Greenwood, Miss., on the Yazoo River for completion. Under pressure of the Federal advance up the Mississippi, Lt. Isaac Newton Brown and a large workforce composed of slaves and soldiers worked 24 hours a day to finish the vessel.

With a crew of 200 sailors, soldiers, firemen, and boys the CSS Arkansas steamed down the Yazoo River from Liverpool Landing toward Vicksburg to take on supplies. The Federal ironclad Carondelet, ram Queen of the West, and the gunboat Tyler met the Confederate ironclad descending the Yazoo River while they were on a reconnaissance mission. The Arkansas, 165 feet in length and armed with powerful naval guns, rifled cannon, and Columbiads, ferociously engaged the Federal force, disabling the Carondelet and chasing the other enemy vessels down into the Mississippi River.

With ailing engines and significant visible damage, the Rebel ironclad fought her way past Farragut’s stunned fleet anchored in the Mississippi and arrived under the guns of the Vicksburg batteries to a cheering crowd that had observed her valiant struggle on the river.

The heroic dash of the Arkansas down the Yazoo and Mississippi rivers to Vicksburg was not without considerable human cost. The Arkansas casualties were 16 men killed and 17 wounded. Federal losses, according to accounts published in Northern papers,

were over 120 men killed or wounded.

During the historic clash between Arkansas and the Federal fleet, Surgeon H.W.M. Washington, as well as Assistant Surgeon C.A. Morfit of Maryland, must certainly have, to say the least, had their hands full tending the dying and the wounded below the ironclad’s gun deck. “I was taken below, wounds were dressed, and returned to my gun shortly afterwards,” noted Acting Master’s Mate John A. Wilson, an Arkansas crew member. Wilson suffered minor wounds in the arm and leg from flying iron and wood fragments when a shell pierced the port side of the armored casemate and exploded. “In this engagement, it would be invidious to mention any particular man or officer for acts of bravery; all hands did their duty well, honestly, and courageously,” added Wilson.

“The scene around the gun deck upon our arrival at Vicksburg was ghastly in the extreme. Blood and brains bespattered everything, whilst arms, legs, and several headless trunks were strewn about,” wrote Wilson, an eyewitness. “The citizens and soldiers of the town crowded eagerly aboard, but a passing look at the gun deck was sufficient to cause them to retreat hastily from the sickening spectacle within.”

The remainder of that dramatic day was spent burying the dead, sending casualties ashore, cleaning the vessel, and carrying out repairs. When Wilson was transferred to a hospital at Edwards Station, he wrote that he found Surgeon Washington and Lt. Barbot of the Arkansas presumably treating the casualties or recovering from their own wounds.

After having been through such an ordeal, Dr. Washington could never have any doubts about what he had done during the engagement in terms of handling the casualties, but he must have had some doubt as to exactly what transpired upon the river while his was up to his elbows in gore. Washington was apparently so much a part of the action that he evidently was unable to comprehend the overall picture. Thirty-four years after the engagement, evidence of his request for a detailed account of the action in which he participated appeared in Confederate Veteran.

“Dr. H. W. M. Washington, of North, Virginia, served on the CSS Arkansas, and would like to see some account of her performances about Vicksburg,” noted S.A. Cunningham, editor.

The Arkansas, doomed from the beginning because of inadequate engines, saw two additional actions in her brief but exciting career. While undergoing repairs to her engines, armor, and smokestack under the protection of Vicksburg’s shore batteries, the Arkansas was attacked by the Federal ironclad Essex and the ram Queen of the West. Although the Federal assault was successfully repelled, seven of the ironclad’s crew were killed and six more injured.

In spite of the fact that her engines were in poor working order, the Arkansas was ordered down the river to support a Confederate attack on Baton Rouge. The Arkansas never made it to Baton Rouge. She ran aground when her engines failed completely and could not be repaired. With the Federal fleet bearing down on the disabled ironclad, the situation was indeed hopeless.

After running out her guns and setting the ironclad ablaze to avoid Federal capture, her officers and crew went ashore. A well-aimed shell fired from the Federal ironclad Essex sealed her fate by striking the magazine and causing a violent explosion. The Confederate vessel, utterly destroyed, settled quickly into a watery Mississippi River grave somewhere just above Baton Rouge.

Washington survived the CSS Arkansas by more than 50 years. Although he subsequently served aboard the ironclad CSS Fredericksburg on the James River, he never again saw combat comparable to that he experienced aboard the Arkansas.

The echoes of the ironclad’s arsenal have long since dissolved into muffled silence, and the courage of her stouthearted crew has faded into the fabric of American history. The fragmented remains of the CSS Arkansas have settled deep into the Mississippi mud.

Dr. H.W. Macrae Washington reposes in comparative tranquility today in a partially shaded family plot at Ware Church with only the soothing hum of light traffic on John Clayton Memorial Highway [Route 14] to disturb his eternal rest.

Bob Ruegsegger is an American by birth and a Virginian. His assignments frequently take him to historic sites throughout Virginia, the Mid-Atlantic, and the Southeast. His favorite haunts include sites within Virginia’s Historic Triangle—Jamestown, Yorktown, and Williamsburg. Bob served briefly in the U.S. Navy. He is a retired educator and has been an active newspaper journalist for the last twenty years.

CSS Arkansas steamed through the Union fleet into Vicksburg on July 15, 1862. Ten of her crew were killed and fifteen were wounded. This riverfront mural in Vicksburg depicts the gallant CSS Arkansas as the ironclad ram successfully challenged the ships of the Federal navy

Dr. H.W. Macrae Washington rests in peace in Gloucester, Va., surrounded by his kin.

Washington Monument This monument marks the burial site of Dr. Washington and his relatives. The site includes the grave of George Washington.

Lincoln and his Generals

This occasional column highlights prints and printmakers from the Civil War. It discusses their meaning and most importantly, the goals of the print maker or artist.

Peter Kramer was born in either Munich or Zwiebrucken, Germany, in 1820 or 1823. He was a trained painter, dabbling in watercolors and miniatures, finally devoting himself to the intricacies of lithography. He migrated to the United States in 1848 where he joined the prolific Philadelphia lithography firm

of Peter S. Duval, a relationship he enjoyed until striking out on his own to set up a partnership with the Rosenthal lithography firm in 1857. A few prints bearing the company name of Kramer and Rosenthal have been noted. The following year he turned up in Germany where he was “expelled for caricaturing the king.” By all accounts, according to one author, he was “said to be a man of extraordinary talent.”1

Returning to New York just before the Civil War broke out, Kramer opened his own studio

where he began doing portraits of politicians and military figures. In 1865, he produced “Lincoln and his Generals.” It is known as a vignette because it has no usual borders on all four sides. It pictures Lincoln sitting on a rock conferring with Admirals David D. Porter and David G. Farragut. Seated or standing opposite Lincoln are Sherman, Grant, Sheridan, and Thomas. According to Harold Holzer, et. al., the print portrays the commander in chief performing his duties and is “one of the few

prints to portray Lincoln out of his natural milieu.”2 He sits on a rock instead of his office chair and none of the trappings normally shown in a mid-Victorian print are present. With the war nearly won, not so much by the Navy, but by the four generals depicted here; Kramer placed the two admirals separated from the main conversation, causing them to appear to be merely onlookers rather than participants. Lincoln continues to dominate the scene as “all eyes are turned” toward him. The print was originally issued uncolored, in black and white, but hand colored examples have been noted.

Kramer turned the print over to Alphonse Brett, who had a lithography shop in Boston as early as 1852, and in New York; the latter well into the 20th Century. Brett is credited as the printer; the New York publishers, Jones and Clark, and C. A. Asp, in Boston, are unknown.

Because of the print’s realistic depiction of the heroes of the rebellion, the print was photographed, reduced and sold as a carte-de-visite with a new title: “Lincoln and his Generals Before Richmond.” Civil War

scholars will recognize the profile of Lincoln as Brady’s famous photograph that later became the portrait for the Lincoln penny.3

Endnotes:

1. Harry Peters. America On Stone: The Other Printmakers to the American People. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1931, 255.

2. Harold Holzer, Gabor Boritt, Mark E. Neely, Jr. The Lincoln Image: Abraham Lincoln and The Popular Print, New York: Scribner Press, 1984, 134. Holzer et. al. used this print as the cover image of their book.

3. Ibid.

Salvatore Cilella is retired after 43 years in the museum field. His last position was President and CEO of the Atlanta History Center. He is the author of several articles and books. His most recent books are Upton’s Regulars: A History of the 121st New York Volunteers in the Civil War (U. Press Kansas, 2009) and The Correspondence of General Emory Upton, 1856–1881 (U. Tennessee Press, 2017) edited. He is currently editing the intimate love letters between Emory and Emily Upton.

“Lincoln and his Generals.” L-R: Porter, Farragut, Lincoln, Sherman, Thomas, Grant and Sherridan [sic]. (Library of Congress)

Of all the imported arms utilized by the U.S. government during the American Civil War, the Suhl Contract Model 1861 Rifle Musket is probably one of the most desirable and most difficult to obtain for a collection. In fact, the authors of Firearms from Europe (2nd Edition) describe the gun as “one of the rarest of all Civil War weapons” and further note that “only a handful are known to exist.”

The details regarding these handmade Germanic copies of the U.S. 1861 rifle musket are not particularly clear, but it appears that the guns were probably produced by Christian Funk of Suhl, a town located in the German state of Thuringia. The guns were most likely imported by William Hahn of New York. According

to U.S. Ordnance records, Hahn delivered 481 “German Muskets, Springfield Pattern,” at prices that ranged from $14.50 to $16.50 each. The deliveries were made in two lots, with 179 delivered March 7, 1862, and the balance of 302 being delivered on July 15, 1862. Schuyler, Hartley & Graham of New York delivered an additional 400 “Suhl Rifles” and “Suhl Rifle-Muskets” to the U.S. Government between February 17 and March 10, 1862. However, the pattern of these arms is not noted in the delivery documents. The majority of the Germanic rifle muskets delivered by Schuyler, Hartley & Graham were of the Enfield pattern, making it likely that these 400 guns of “unspecified pattern” were the Enfield pattern that was also

produced in Suhl, and not M1861 types.

The Suhl “Springfield” was essentially a handmade copy of the U.S. M1861 rifle musket. It was a .58 caliber muzzleloading rifled musket with a 40 inch round barrel. The breech area of the musket had a pronounced octagonal section, making it somewhat bulkier in that area than standard US muskets. As the guns were handmade, they did not feature interchangeable parts. This meant that the U.S. Ordnance Department considered them “2nd Class” arms, even though they were of the standard .58 caliber.

Extant surviving examples of these rare guns are known with various markings, but the two consistent features on all known examples are the unique “Spread Winged Eagle” on the lock plate and the assembly numbering of the component parts of the gun. Assembly numbering varies in location and style between known examples. Some show the numbers on every single part, down to the necks of the screws; some show less consistent numbering, with variations as to exactly where the assembly numbers are applied. The fact these numbers are actually assembly or batch numbers is proved by the fact that the numbers encountered are always rather low; typically under 50 to my knowledge; I have examined two different Suhl M1861s that were numbered “19.” In examining two fine condition examples recently, I had the opportunity to fully disassemble the guns, including removing the 1858 pattern rear sights. I did this to confirm that the sights were assembly numbered to the guns. What I found was quite interesting. The gun that was assembly numbered “20” over its entirety was numbered “31” under the sight base and in the rear sight dovetail. The fact that the barrel, was numbered “20” on its bottom, matching the other assembly numbers, but numbered “31” in the dovetail, as was the sight, suggested that

maybe the 31 was more of a serial number than an assembly or batch number. This was supported when I disassembled number “19” (the second gun I had seen with that number) and found that it was numbered “152” under the rear sight and in the dovetail. This proves almost conclusively that these markings relate to the number of guns produced, rather than being a secondary assembly number.

Some known examples are marked CH. FUNK / SUHL on their locks, while some bear no maker’s mark at all. In some cases, this same mark is found on the interior of the lock plate and/ or on the bottom of the barrels. At least two styles of “US” markings on the lock are known, and proof marks vary among the handful of known specimens, with some marked externally while some are marked under the barrel. All known examples are dated 1861, with the exception of one dated 1862, are marked on the lock and usually on the top flat of the breech. Some are known with U.S. inspectors’ cartouches on the stock flat, and some are known with no such marks. At least one example is known with an “OHIO” stamp, but that would have been applied by the state Ohio when it received several lots of surplus and second-class arms from the U.S. Government in 1863–64 to recompense the state for arms it had provided to its volunteer troops at the beginning of the war.

Some authors have referred to the guns as having stocks made of “maple” or “light colored European walnut.” From my observations of a handful of extant examples, the guns appear to be beech, the typical stock wood used in Prussian arms of the period. It is possible, however, that a contract to produce U.S. pattern arms would have specified the wood used in the stocks, so some may have been stocked in a light colored European variant of walnut.

In a departure from the U.S. M1861 lock design, but typical of European percussion muskets, the half-cock notch is just barely above the cone (nipple), allowing the hammer to act as a cap safety to keep it in place. While a U.S. musket can be (and was supposed to be) capped at half cock, these guns require the hammer be pulled to full cock for capping, and then lowered to the half cock position where it would be so close to the cone that the cap could not fall off.

One interesting fact rarely noted is that most of the finer condition examples known retain at least some remnants of tin

plating. When I first encountered this a few years ago I assumed the plating was a post war addition, possibly from display in a Grand Army of the Republic (G.A.R.) Hall collection. Since then, I have examined other examples that show the exact same finish, suggesting that the guns, or at least a portion of them, may well have been delivered tinned.

The Suhl Contract U.S. Model 1861 Rifle Musket pictured in this article is a particularly fine condition example. Nearly every part of the gun is marked with the assembly number 20. In some cases, the marks are weak or difficult to see, and in others the oddness of European style “2” die used make a weakly struck mark initially appear to be a different number. All primary interior lock parts are stamped with the matching assembly number 20. The interior of the lock is also stamped, above the mainspring, CH. FUNK / SUHL. The exterior of the lock is clearly marked with the date 1861 horizontally to the rear of the hammer, and with the unique (Spread Winged Eagle) forward of the hammer in the upper center portion of the lock, behind the bolster. The front edge of the lock is marked U S, with the same style mark applied to the buttplate tang. The top of the breech flat is clearly marked with a matching 1861 date as well. There are no other external marks on the barrel other than the date on the breech. The bottom of the barrel is marked with the same CH. FUNK / SUHL mark found inside the lock, as well as with a variety of foreign assembly and proof marks. The bottom of the barrel is marked with two deeply depressed diamond shaped proofs that appear to have a script, lower case “g” inside them; it almost resembles the number “6.” The bottom of the barrel is also marked SUHL and 8. The bottom of the barrel and the bottom of the breech plug are both assembly numbered 20. This same assembly number is present inside the lock as noted, on the inside neck of the hammer, on the bottom of the buttplate, inside the trigger guard, on the necks of the screws, and on the forward side of the swivel lug found on the middle band and on the face of the nose cap. I have seen examples where even the ramrod was numbered. While this appears to be an absolutely correct, original Suhl contract ramrod (the tulip heads are not quite the same as the U.S. ramrods, being somewhat more geometric and less smoothly rounded), I could not find a number, but it could have been worn off or poorly struck as well. The external markings

The German Made Model 1861 Springfield

Interior lock markings of Suhl M1861 showing the assembly number 20 and the CH Funk, Suhl marking. This same two-line Funk mark is found under the barrel of this gun as well.

Assembly #20 on the front lug of the middle barrel band. remain extremely crisp, and sharp throughout, with only some assembly numbers showing any particular wear or weakness. The internal markings remain quite crisp as well. The metal also retains much of the thin period tin plating.

The gun retains its original and correct multi-leaf rear sight, copied from the U.S. M1858 pattern sight. This indicates that the pattern gun that Funk used to produce these rifle muskets was produced prior to July 1861, when the Ordnance Department adopted the new M1861 pattern rear sight, designed by Elisha K. Root of Colt’s Patent Firearms. The sight base even includes the “steady pin” and the barrel has a “steady pin notch,” features that were standard on U.S. M1855 rifle muskets from 1858–1861; a feature that was quickly phased out on the M1861 and only appears on the earliest of those rifle muskets.

While the stock shows no U.S. inspection cartouches, this is not uncommon on extant examples. The wood of this gun is crisp enough that it is unlikely that the cartouches were worn or sanded off; they were simply never applied. Most arms purchased on the open market by the U.S. Ordnance Department, rather than by an official U.S. manufacturing contract, did not receive any sort of Ordnance Department inspection markings. The stock has a light brown color with a slightly orange tone that is almost honey colored; this is reminiscent

of the Germanic beech wood found in Potsdam and Lorenz musket stocks. The wood to metal is very fine throughout, every bit as good as the fit and finish found on many U.S. contractor made guns of the period.

It appears unlikely that more than a few hundred of these German made M1861 rifle muskets were purchased during the course of the war and there are truly only a handful of these guns known today, with many of them in institutional collections. The scarcity of these guns make them a “Holy Grail” for the advanced collector of unique, imported Civil War martial arms. The fact that they are such close copies of the M1861 rifle musket means that it is worth paying close attention to arms for sale at Civil War and antique arms shows, as you might sneak up on one of these rarities one day because you know about these guns and the seller might not.

Tim Prince is a full-time dealer in fine & collectible military arms from the Colonial Period through WWII. He operates College Hill Arsenal, a web-based antique arms retail site.

A long time collector & researcher, Tim has been a contributing author to two major book projects about Civil War era arms including The English Connection and a new book on southern retailer marked and Confederate used shotguns. Tim is also a featured Arms & Militaria appraiser on the PBS Series Antiques Roadshow.

Overall view of Suhl M1861 Springfield Rifle Musket, assembly #20. (All photos by Tim Prince)

Exterior lock markings on Suhl M1861 assembly #20.

Breech view of Suhl M1861 #20 showing the breech date and the M1858 pattern rear sight, note the “swept wing” sight leaves that were changed to flat topped leaves with the adoption of the M1861 rear sight.

Assembly #20 on in the triggerguard. These assembly numbers appear on nearly every part of the musket.

Women’s History Month Offers Opportunity to Spotlight Rising Star in Civil War Public History

By Meghan Hall

More than 2,500 miles separate Sarah Kay Bierle from some of the most significant battlefields on the East Coast. That distance might scare some less-enthusiastic historians off, but Bierle hasn’t allowed living on the West Coast to prevent her becoming a rising star in the Civil War field. Each week, tens of thousands of readers lean on her expertise, and she has a unique perspective that helps draw in a wide demographic of readers.

Bierle serves as the managing editor for the Emerging Civil War blog. In this capacity, Bierle handles many daily tasks for the blog and keeps an eye on other tasks and collaborations Emerging Civil War is involved with.

Bierle, who graduated from Thomas Edison State University with a Bachelor of Arts in History, said she always had a special interest in history. Several years ago, she stumbled upon the Emerging Civil War blog and decided to submit a contribution. Her first blog post appeared on the Emerging Civil War site in May 2015. From there, said Chris Mackowski, Editor-in-Chief for Emerging Civil War, Bierle,

“worked her way up.”

Bierle said that joining the Emerging Civil War community was a way for her to foster her love for history. Bierle calls Southern California home, so her geographic location sometimes deterred her from finding others who shared her passion for the Civil War. “I always felt a bit lonely in terms of my interest in history.… Being part of Emerging Civil War gives me a whole network of people; I can call them up or send them an email, then let the conversations begin.”

At 24 years old, Bierle has proved an invaluable part of Emerging Civil War’s editorial board. Mackowski said that

Bierle has brought a new variety of offerings to the blog.

“Emerging Civil War started out as a bunch of military historians, people who are generally interested in the battles.… There are a lot of other aspects to the Civil War aside from the military,” said Mackowski. “Sarah is one of the historians who has started working with us over the years who’s interested in some of these other aspects of the war, beyond just the ‘blood and guts.’ I think that creates a better-rounded understanding of what the war was about.”

Bierle said some facets of the war she enjoys focusing on are cultural and social implications. She works with contributors in a monthly series, highlighting

aspects of the Civil War that have a tendency to be overlooked.

Mackowski said that some of the series have included women’s history month and black history month, but she has also coordinated series on Civil War railroads, artillery, and Civil War cooking.

Those who know Bierle understand that she wants to keep the memories and stories of the Civil War alive. “The passion she brings shows through in her work,” said Chris Kolakowski, Emerging Civil War’s chief historian.

Kolakowski said that Bierle’s approach of covering the war’s human component has “helped attract new audiences and helped expand the breadth of our offerings, which makes us more relevant to a wider group of people.”

Bierle said, “If you can make someone laugh or make someone cry or get a little teary eyed, you can make them remember what they’ve learned.”

Bierle said that she feels passionate about sharing Civil War history because, “In some ways it still influences the questions we face today in the modern world. It’s important to see where we’ve come from.… Maybe we can find a better way forward.”

In addition to her work with Emerging Civil War, Bierle began a small business called Gazette665. She felt starting this was a unique way to engage her local community in Southern California.

Sarah has honed her craft in telling Civil War stories enough

that she will soon add the 32nd book to the Emerging Civil War book series published by Savas Beatie.

“I wasn’t sure if I wanted to write a another book,” Bierle admitted. However, she said that a trip to Virginia, all the way across the country from her home in Temecula, Calif., changed her mind. “I went to New Market battlefield and it was a really special place,” she said. “I knew I wanted to be able to share that story.”

Bierle said that she’s been honored and excited to work with Emerging Civil War and to explore opportunities inside the field of history.

Bierle’s not the only one who’s excited about her time at Emerging Civil War, though. Both Mackowski and Kolakowski spoke fondly of Sarah and her remarkable work. Mackowski said he was impressed by Bierle’s strong presence in a field of history that is often male-dominated. “Her presence as a young female is really important for our content, and for our audiences, and for the overall story we’re trying to tell, said Mackowski. “I think it’s pretty cool that we’ve got a young woman who is working in public history in a way that is able to impact that story so significantly.” Her work, he said, reaches tens of thousands of readers a week.

“I’m glad she’s part of the team. I look forward to hearing a lot more from her as we go forward,” said Kolakowski. “Sarah is one of the young, bright, shining stars of Emerging Civil War.”

Sarah Kay Bierle

Sarah at New Market Battlefield while she was researching her upcoming ECW book Call Out the Cadets: The Battle of New Market.

Stuart Scouts for Ride Around McClellan

By Carl L. Sell Jr.

This is the first of two articles about Jeb Stuart’s local scouts who led his large cavalry force during rides around Major General George McClellan’s Union army in 1862. The second article reports on the Chambersburg Raid will appear in a future Civil War News.

Before he set off on his Ride Around McClellan in June 1862, Brigadier General Jeb Stuart made sure he knew exactly where he was going.

Familiar with most of the route, he wanted to make sure there would be no wrong turns or delays. After all, his reputation with his new commander, General Robert E. Lee, was on the line. The success of the ride would lead to Stuart being named a major general a month later.

Stuart drafted two lieutenants from New Kent County to lead the way from Old Church to the Chickahominy River, a stretch of the route largely unknown to Stuart and his regular scouts. Jones Rivers Christian and Richard Edgar Frayser grew up in the area and knew the way. In fact, Christian was born at “Sycamore Spring” plantation on the Chickahominy, just where Stuart wanted to cross. Both Christian and Frayser were members of

the New Kent County Dragoons, which became Company F, Third Virginia Cavalry; both enlisted on June 28, 1861.

Christian first led Stuart’s column to a little-known ford on his family’s property. However, the stream was too wide and the water too swift to get everyone safely across. They diverted to the nearby site of Forge Bridge, but found it destroyed by the high water. After a herculean effort using boards and timbers from a nearby abandoned warehouse, the bridge was rebuilt and the column got safely across. The bridge was then set on fire to stop any Union pursuit.

Prior to being selected by Stuart to help lead the way from the Old Church to the Chickahominy, Frayser was largely unknown. However, his intimate knowledge of New Kent County caught Stuart’s eye and a star was born. Not only did Frayser help lead the way, he was chosen to convey news of the safe journey to Stuart’s wife, Flora, and Virginia Governor John Letcher in Richmond.

Christian, born in 1835, was one of five boys who had grown up on the plantation and had spent most of his life there. He had been elected a second lieutenant on April 25, 1862, and elevated to first lieutenant on Oct. 24, 1862, followed shortly thereafter with

promotion to captain on Nov. 11. He served directly with Stuart until the end of the Seven Days Campaign, then returned to his company.

On May 8, 1864, during the Wilderness Campaign, Christian was captured and sent to Fort Delaware on an island in the middle of the Delaware River. He then was sent to Morris Island in Charleston Harbor, S.C., where he became one of the “Immortal 600,” used as human shields to protect Union artillery from nearby Confederate guns. Frayser also was captured and sent to Charleston.

Christian was transferred to a prison at Hilton Head, S.C., and remained there for the rest of the war. He was paroled on June 16, 1865. Returning to Richmond, he worked as a clerk in the city’s post office. Suffering from neuralgia, he entered the R.E. Lee Camp Soldiers Home in Richmond where he died May 20, 1895. He is buried in Hollywood Cemetery. Christian never married.

Frayser’s arrival in Richmond after the Ride Around McClellan was greeted with acclaim. Governor Letcher, Stuart’s cousin, was so elated with the news that he presented Frayser with a gubernatorial order for a sword of his choosing. Stuart appointed Frayser as his signal officer and elevated him to captain. His role as a signal officer would produce other assignments as the war progressed. On May 12, 1864, the day after Stuart was mortally wounded at Yellow Tavern, Frayser was captured at Spotsylvania Court House.

After three months in prison at Fort Delaware, Frayser was sent to Morris Island Prison in Charleston Harbor, S.C. Despite the poor conditions, all the prisoners survived six weeks as human shields. Frayser was sent back to Fort Delaware and then exchanged in February 1865 because of poor health. He returned to duty with the Army of Northern Virginia and was paroled at Appomattox.

The son of a Methodist minister born in 1830, Frayser was orphaned early in his life and worked in a local store in New Kent County to earn his keep. As a young man, he moved to Richmond to work in the post office. In 1854, he returned home to start his own store before enlisting in the Confederate army.

After the war, Frayser worked for a newspaper in Richmond, earned a law degree, and opened his own practice. He died Dec. 22, 1899, and is buried in Richmond’s

Hollywood Cemetery. His wife, Mary Armistead Frayser, who was ten years older, died in 1891. No children are listed.

recently was restored by the Stuart-Mosby Historical Society. Sell also has written books about his great grandfather and great uncle, both of whom survived Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg. Carl can be contact by email at sellcarl@aol.com.

J.E.B. Stuart.

(Library of Congress)

Walker, had formed a line of battle and positioned artillery. “With this assurance the tide was quite checked,” Gibson continues, “and, placing a strong guard of cavalry across the road, Colonel Walker moved his command to the front, compelling every able-bodied soldier to fall in.”

Perspectives on Stones River

The muzzles of a hundred cannon belched forth fire, shot, and shell, and the earth and air were tremulous with the terrific vibration. – Brig. Gen. Richard W. Johnson, U.S.A.

General Richard Johnson’s Division held the extreme right of the Federal line in the battle that erupted shortly before 6:30 a.m. on the last day of 1862. The explosive Confederate attack wrecked the offensive battle plan devised for that Wednesday by Union army commander William S. Rosecrans. Instead General Rosecrans fought a desperate defensive battle to keep his army intact and to keep open the pike between Murfreesboro and his base in Nashville.

In this column we will hear the voices of some officers at the receiving end of the Confederate assault against the Army of the Cumberland, with emphasis on the brigades of Johnson’s division on the far right, and of the division to his left, led by Brig. Gen. Jefferson C. Davis. We will examine the writings of several brigade commanders and others, and observe from their perspective this sanguinary struggle on the first day of the Battle of Stones River.

Let’s begin with officers who took charge of Johnson’s two far right brigades when their commanders were put out of action. We will then move across the battlefield toward the Federal left.

Brig. Gen. August Willich’s brigade was the rightmost infantry unit in the Federal line. Captured at the very outset of the assault, Willich was succeeded in command by Col. William Gibson. Gibson’s report describes the brigade’s action on that hectic morning, as it was pushed from its position on the Franklin Road and driven to the Nashville Pike three or four miles to the north. Gibson states that at 6:25, “The enemy advanced upon our position with four heavy lines of battle, with a strong reserve held in mass…. His left extended a great distance beyond our extreme right, and was thrown forward, so that his lines were, to some extent, oblique to ours…. To the right of our position…he took position with an immense force of cavalry. His lines were advanced with great rapidity, and his force could not have been less than 35,000, besides cavalry.”

To Gibson’s left, Brig. Gen. Edward Kirk’s brigade collapsed at the very outset of the battle; according to Peter Cozzens, within five minutes of the opening

GEORGIA’S CONFEDERATE MONUMENTS

In Honor of a Fallen Nation

Gould B. Hagler, Jr.

This unique work contains a complete photographic record of Georgia’s memorials to the Confederacy, a full transcription of the words engraved upon them, and carefully-researched information about the monuments and the organizations which built them. These works of art and their eloquent inscriptions express a nation’s profound grief, praise the soldiers’ bravery and patriotism, and pay homage to the cause for which they fought.

www.mupress.org

866-895-1472 toll-free

volley. This breakdown exposed Gibson’s left flank to the Confederate assault just as other Confederate units swept around his right.

Gibson’s report continues: “With cavalry on their right, infantry assailing them on the left, and heavy masses rushing to the assault in front, [my] regiments were directed to retire as the only escape from annihilation or capture.”

Gibson provides a graphic description of the flight of his regiments and of the entire right wing: “[W]e moved rapidly and with some disorder to the Nashville road, closely pursued by the enemy’s cavalry. Here the colors of the Thirty-ninth Indiana were captured…. A complete panic prevailed. Teams, ambulances, horsemen, footmen, and attachés of the army, black and white, mounted on horses and mules, were rushing to the rear in the wildest confusion.”

The flight was stopped when it reached a point where another brigade commander, Col. Moses

Kirk’s brigade, next in line, was commanded by Col. Joseph Dodge after Kirk was wounded early in the battle. Dodge writes that shortly after daylight the Confederates attacked “on our front and right in immense force.” Infantry and artillery failed to halt the attack. “The enemy then moved to the left oblique, or nearly, by his left flank, until his center was opposite our extreme right, changing direction to his right as he did so, so as to bring his whole force upon our most exposed point.” His men held their ground until the enemy was 20 yards distant, according to Dodge, then were “forced to retire, having no support and seeing that it was a waste of life to contend in that position with at least twenty times the number of men I then had left.”

The brigade fell back in stages, but was unable to “hold [the enemy] in check…, owing to our weakened condition and lack of all support.” The men made their way back to the Nashville Pike, where late in the day remnants of the brigade and other retreating units, curled into a roughly semi-circular line facing southwest, and held on.

Col. Philemon Baldwin commanded the Third Brigade of Johnson’s Division. Held in reserve, it was ordered forward

when the Confederates attacked. In his report Baldwin states that, as he was deploying, “the enemy, in immense masses, appeared in my front at short range, their left extending far beyond the extreme right of my line.” Baldwin’s infantry and an artillery battery “poured a destructive fire into their dense masses, checking them in front, but their left continued to advance against my right.”

The brigade fought for half an hour, but retired when “the enemy flanked…my right and were pouring in an enfilading fire. Had my line stood a moment longer it would have been entirely surrounded and captured.” The brigade pulled back gradually and “succeeded, after making several short stands in the woods, in forming…near the railroad.” Were there 35,000 Confederates in the assaulting force against the Union right, as Gibson and Johnson both say in their reports? Rosecrans’s recent biographer, David Moore, could count only 11,000. Did Dodge face odds of twenty to one? Certainly not, but the exaggerated numbers indicate the fury of the assault and confusion it created on the Federal right.

As the brigades of Johnson’s Division pulled back to avoid being trapped, the division to their left, under Brig. Gen. Jefferson C. Davis, also faced a fierce attack.

In his report Davis states that when the Confederates attacked Kirk’s and Willich’s brigades at sunrise, “These troops seemed not to have been fully prepared for the assault, and with little or no resistance, retreated from

Gen. Richard Johnson’s Headquarters by Adolph Metzner. (Library of Congress)

their position, leaving their artillery in the hands of the enemy.” This retreat, adds Davis, “left my right brigade exposed to a flank movement, which the enemy was now rapidly executing, and compelled me to order Post’s Brigade to fall back and partially change its front.”

Davis recognizes his brigades’ “veteran courage” as they clashed in a fight that was “fierce in the extreme on both sides.” They get lower marks for their behavior later in the day, when, after retreating to a point near the Nashville Pike, Davis attempted “to form my lines and resist [the enemy’s] further advance.” Few regiments responded to the order, Davis reports, and some “skulk[ed] like cowards.”

The accounts of Davis’s brigade commanders read much the same as the reports of officers leading brigades to their right. As the Federal line lost its integrity, each commander pulled back when his men found themselves fired upon from two or even three directions. The report of Col. William Carlin is especially noteworthy.

Shocked by the suddenness and force of the assault, Carlin quickly sent a message to the commander of his reserve regiment to bring his unit forward.

“To my surprise,” Carlin writes, “I received a reply from Colonel

Alexander that he was already so hotly engaged that he could not come forward. The startling intelligence was also at this moment communicated to me…that all our forces on our right had left the ground.” Carlin’s men, like the others, fell back precipitately toward the pike and the railroad.

Col. William Woodruff, commanding another brigade in Davis’s Division, describes the scene as his regiments’ retreated. “The ammunition of the regiments now entirely failing and a perfect rout appearing to have taken place, the brigade fell back to the ground occupied on the morning of Tuesday. At this time the whole wing was in the utmost confusion, and I used every endeavor to rally and organize them, but without avail…. Reaching the Murfreesborough pike, a stampede or panic commenced in the wagon-train, but… it was stopped, and, by a vigorous charge of cavalry, saved from the enemy.”

The Confederate assault on the Federal line also came close to breaking through on Davis’s left, where Brig. Gen. Philip Sheridan’s Division fought. The fighting here was fierce, as evidenced by the deaths of all three of Sheridan’s brigade commanders, but here the Union forces fought more effectively than the units further to the right. Rosecrans’s

Capture of Gen. August Willich by Adolph Metzner. (Library of Congress)

Stones River National Cemetery, where many of the Union’s battle dead are buried. (Gould Hagler)

Looking southwest from the Nashville Pike, terrain crossed by Confederates in the assault on Federal lines. (Gould Hagler)

Greg Ton

biographer gives much credit to Sheridan, who in his view “fought one of the great fighting retreats of the entire war,” as does Cozzens, who describes at length Sheridan’s stubborn 90-minute stand near the Wilkinson Pike.

This division too ended the day in the new line along the Nashville Pike, a line bolstered by units shifted from the left as those on the right bought time with their fighting retreat.

Day one of the Battle of Stones River ended here, near the intersection of the pike and rail line leading to Nashville, three or four miles northwest of Murfreesboro. It was a very hard day for the Army of the Cumberland, as the brigade commanders’ reports bear witness.

However, the Confederates suffered great losses as well, with casualties over 30% (according to Moore). In the end Gen. Braxton Bragg’s Confederate army failed to cut the Nashville Pike and trap the Federals. The initial attack was, for time, a stunning success, but the fight exhausted the attackers’ strength. The panic was halted; Bragg’s forces were at the end of the day repulsed; the Union army was intact.

January 1 was quiet. On the 2nd Bragg ordered an assault on the Union left, which failed. Believing that Rosecrans would be reinforced, Bragg withdrew toward Tullahoma.

The writings of these Federal officers paint a vivid picture of the battle. We see the shocking impact of the attack; we see men confused and dismayed as they are assailed from several directions at once. We see officers trying to rally their men, failing and failing again, but ultimately succeeding, at one point aided by the bayonets of a fresh regiment. Frangas, non flectes is a wellknown motto. Flectas, non franges would be more appropriate for the Army of the Cumberland on Dec. 31, 1862. It bent, and bent to

The N-SSA is America’s oldest and largest Civil War shooting sports organization. Competitors shoot original or approved reproduction muskets, carbines and revolvers at breakable targets in a timed match. Some units even compete with cannons and mortars. Each team represents a specific Civil War regiment or unit and wears the uniform they wore over 150 years ago. Dedicated to preserving our history, period firearms competition and the camaraderie of team sports with friends and family, the N -SSA may be just right for you.

For more information visit us online at www.n-ssa.org.

the very limit, but ultimately did not break.

Next month we will take a look at the reports and other writings of the Confederates who led this attack at what they named the Battle of Murfreesboro.

Sources:

• Peter Cozzens, No Better Place to Die: The Battle of Stones River, University of Illinois Press, 1990

• R.W. Johnson, In Peace and War: A Soldier’s Reminiscences. Big Byte Books, 2014 (Originally published in 1886)

• David G. Moore, William S. Rosecrans and the Union Victory: A Civil War Biography, McFarland & Company, 2014

• Phillip H. Sheridan, The Personal Memoirs of P.H. Sheridan, Charles Webster & Company, 1888

• O.R. Series I, Volume XX, Part I, Reports of Philemon Baldwin, William Carlin, Jefferson C. Davis, Joseph Dodge, William Gibson, Sidney Post, and William Woodruff

Several websites contain excellent maps showing troop movements at different stages of the battle. Most useful are the sites of the American Battlefield Trust, the National Park Service, and Wikipedia.

Gould Hagler is a retired lobbyist living in Dunwoody, Ga. He is a past president of the Atlanta Civil War Round Table of Atlanta and the author of Georgia’s Confederate Monuments: In Honor of a Fallen Nation, published by Mercer University Press in 2014. Hagler speaks frequently on this topic and others related to different aspects of the Civil War and has been a regular contributor to CWN since 2016. He can be reached at gould.hagler@gmail.com.

Subscribe

CivilWarNews.com

Civil War Catalog

Featuring a large assortment of Civil War and Indian War autographs, accoutrements, memorabilia, medals, insignia, buttons, GAR, documents, photos, & books. Please visit our fully illustrated online catalog at www.mikebrackin.com

Free copy mail catalog

Mike Brackin

By Jack W. Melton Jr.

Hidden Evidence

A Look Inside Civil War Artillery Projectiles

"Through Jack’s superb photography; the collector and professional can now view an extensive exposure to sectioned projectiles. This is new for the average person in that for the first time since radiography; one can examine the internal makeup of a shell."

CWO4 John D. Bartleson Jr., U.S. Navy EOD

Author of Civil War Explosive Ordnance 1861–1865

What do they say?

Jack Melton’s latest endeavor, Civil War Artillery Projectiles – The Half Shell Book, is a remarkable addition to Civil War artillery ammunition literature. For archaeologists and collectors the clearly written text and the excellent photographs provide a wealth of information to properly identify recovered shells and burst fragments. For bomb squad and EOD specialists this book should be on every units’ shelf. The material found in these pages will help EOD personnel identify what has been found, whether or not it is dangerous, and how to inert the round without the necessity of destroying an important historic object. This book takes Civil War artillery ammunition studies to a new level.

Douglas Scott Adjunct Research Faculty, Colorado Mesa University. Author of Uncovering History: Archaeological Investigations of the Little Bighorn.

Wow. I have been reading a lot of different books on ordnance from this era, but this one takes the cake. Most of the other books drift off in directions that are not helpful with the ordnance specific information I am usually looking for. But this book stays on task and topic from start to finish.

flame’scommunicationchannel.Theblackpowderburstingchargewaspouredinloosearoundthebullets.Thismethoddid notworkverywellandoftenonlysucceededinblowingthefusesout.Projectilesfilledwithbulletsusedascaseshotarerare. Thisspecimenwasrecovered,alongwithotherConfederateandUnionprojectiles,fromthepost-CivilWardumpsitelocated neartheConfederatePowderWorksinAugusta,Georgia.

Inthisexample,riflebulletswereutilizedasthecaseshotmaterialincluding3-ring.58caliberbullets,3-ring.69caliberbul lets,andU.S.ring-tailSharpsbullets.IthasabrassBormannsupportplug(underplug)thatiscountersunkonbothsidesof

• 392 pages of full color photographs with descriptions

• Covers projectiles, fuses, canister, grapeshot and more

• 850 photos, drawings, radiographs, patents and maps

• A must for every serious artillery enthusiast

Tom Gersbeck

MFS, Graduate Faculty, Arson-Explosives Investigation (AEI), School of Forensic Sciences, Oklahoma State University

Jack Melton’s new book Civil War Artillery Projectiles – The Half Shell Book, promises to be one of the most important volumes on Civil War artillery in recent times. Anyone who has studied the wide variety of Civil War projectiles knows that what is inside is just as important, and maybe more so, than what is outside the shell. In this book, cutaway shells are graphically explained with superb color photographs and detailed notes. They reveal important details and differences in a variety of similar projectiles that tell us U.S. from C.S. and between type variations, in a way that no other approach has ever done. It is supremely helpful in explaining to others just how a shell works, whether it is still dangerous or not, and why.

Les Jensen

Former Curator of the Museum of the Confederacy

Three Swords Discovered

Dear John:

In 1972, my wife and I purchased our first home from a very nice elderly couple. They were moving into a retirement facility and taking very little with them. They told us we could have everything that was left. After moving in, I climbed up into the attic above the garage to take a look around. To my surprise, I found a treasure trove of items, including two sets of old golf clubs, a WWII army pistol belt and holster, and three swords. The swords were in poor condition with rust on two of

the blades. The scabbard for one sword was literally falling apart. Unfortunately, I tried to clean the rust from the swords and worsened their condition. On one sword, I can make out flowers and crossed cannons sketched on the blade, with “CSA” near the hilt. I have been told that the “CSA” sword is probably a Confederate artillery officer’s sword. Any idea what I have based on the attached photos? Jim

Dear Jim: All three swords are Civil War

era. The knight’s head cruciform guard, straight bladed militia sword was made and used from the 1840s to well after the Civil War, often with fraternal or society markings. Yours with maker’s mark of Shannon, Miller & Crane dates after the war. You see photographs and images with this identical style sword with militia officers and even Civil War militiamen posed with similar examples. A typical price asked at trade shows for this style sword is about $100-150.

The Germanic style horseman’s saber is most likely an English variant of a Prussian 1788 Dragoon saber. Even though the pattern is German, most examples I see are English maker marked. This was a popular heavy cavalry saber of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Without a scabbard, in average “as found” condition, regardless of origin, examples can be found priced for about $300, though I see two English maker-marked examples priced on eBay for $450 and $695

today; they haven’t sold.

Your Confederate sword is a classic example of a model 1850 foot officer’s sword made by Boyle & Gamble of Richmond, Va. Though your photographs are not great for showing the blade etching, you can still see an area of brighter metal changing to gray metal (about an inch or so on ricasso) which is the interface

in the blade where more malleable iron was blacksmith welded to steel. Collectors often call this interface a “fault” but this is a unique feature to this and a few other Confederate manufacturers. Just like its U.S. counterpart, the sword was regulation for a lieutenant or captain, the company grade officers. Often the blades are in such poor condition, etching

Three swords discovered in a home purchase; a very nice home warming gift from the past owner.

The “1” stamped on bottom of guard is an assembly number. The etched sunburst is near the ricasso on this side of the blade.

is not visible at all, but some were not etched. How discernible and aesthetically pleasing the blade etching presents itself determines the price as there is no added historical value. Since it was found in a New Yorker’s retirement home with other effects, it was probably a Union souvenir. I can read the quite clear “CSA” etched near the ricasso; this tells me the blade may clean up a little and reveal a name or motto that would add value.

The sword appears “as found,” missing most of the leather grip but retaining the original single copper wire wrap. The scabbard in pieces can be restored (and should be done by a professional) since you have all three original mounts that appear to be in very good condition with dark patina.

You can find similar swords priced at trade shows and auctions in the range of $4,000 to $7,000. The value at the higher end depends on what can be seen on the blade and the overall aesthetics as restored. It will bring more if an identifying name is found, perhaps scratched on the dark grungy scabbard throat.

John is an certified appraiser with International Society of Appraisers specializing in Civil War memorabilia. He authenticates and

evaluates other rare and valuable historic items as well. His website is www.civilwardealer.com.

He is coauthor of the book Confederate Bowie Knives (2012) by Jack Melton, Josh Phillips and

John Sexton, that was published by Mowbray Publishing, Inc. Send “Ask The Appraiser” questions and photographs to civilwarappraiser@gmail.com.

Scabbard may be broken, but the leather can be easily restored by a good conservator. The three brass mounts are very good and this scabbard, though rough, protected the delicate blade etching.

This hilt from a classic Boyle & Gamble foot officer’s sword still retains the original copper wire wrap though most of the leather has chipped away.

A small “C.S.A.” is etched vertically near ricasso. The change in metal color is due to the blade “fault” where iron and steel were welded.

From the Editor

Years ago, as a young writer in Goddard College’s M.F.A. program, I had a classmate who dreamed of one day being able to walk through her home with stacks of her own books everywhere. It sounded like a lovely dream, to be honest.

It’s not an idea you can think about too much, though, because the logistics can easily get in the way: Why would I have stacks of my own books everywhere? Are there a lot of copies of one book or a few copies of several? How

many titles? Are they remaindered copies? Why would my wife put up with this?

But the idea of being surrounded by one’s own hard work and words, in tangible form, represents a kind of rewarding comfort. In a way, I feel like I have been immersed in that sort of experience the past couple of months, surrounded by books from the Emerging Civil War Series.

Two years ago, my son Maxwell came into the world, and at that time, I told my colleagues I’d be able to commit to overseeing four ECWS books a year through the production process on a first-come/first served basis. As people finished projects, I’d put them into the queue, and I’d get to them as fatherhood allowed.

We managed to do slightly better than I’d originally forecast, thanks largely to some talented staff we brought on board to help with prep work and production. (Here’s a shout-out to Hannah Gordon, Chris Kolakowski, Sarah Bierle, and Tara Hatmaker!) And now that Maxwell is old enough to toddle and provide editorial

advice of his own, I’ve been kicking into higher gear to help clear the backlog.

So, aside from the three titles we released in the fall, we’ve had two releases so far in 2019, with two more books at the printer now, and one more in production for a late spring release. Five books in a single season, and eight in six months, are both new records for us. That will bring us up to a total of 33 ECWS books from Savas Beatie (34 if you count our limited-edition booklet Traces of the Bloody Struggle: The Civil War at Stevenson Ridge, Spotsylvania Court House).

Plus we have four more ECWS books slated for fall release as well as two more books in our Emerging Revolutionary War Series (plus two books in our “Engaging the Civil War” Series with Southern Illinois University Press). In short, we have a lot of great stories coming your way in 2019. For me, the best part of it is that they’ve books written by historians I respect, whose work I admire and enjoy.

With all these books in the works, I feel immersed in a version of that comforting dream of my classmate’s from years ago.

Chris Mackowski Editor-in-Chief

The 2019 Emerging Civil War Symposium is fast approaching!

On Friday, Aug. 2, 2019, the Sixth Annual Symposium will once again kick off at beautiful Stevenson Ridge in Spotsylvania, Va. Tickets are going fast and, believe it or not, we are almost at capacity already.

Over the weekend, attendees will hear from numerous speakers presenting on this year’s theme, “Forgotten Battles of the Civil War.” Historians such as A. Wilson Greene, Chris Mackowski, Chris Kolakowski, James Broomall, and many more will delve into the battles of Romney, Wilson’s Creek, Secessionville, and others. The weekend will conclude with a battlefield tour of newly preserved ground at North Anna. It will be a weekend that you will not want to miss!

Do not miss your chance to attend this great Symposium before it sells out for the second year in a row! You can get your tickets ($155 each) and register, or find more information at https://emergingcivilwar. com/2019-symposium.

Emerging Civil War News & Notes

Steve Davis took a look at

American photography before the Civil War in an article titled “Transcends the Bounds of Sober Belief” in the March 2019 issue of Civil War News. Steve’s regular column, the “Critic’s Corner,” continued its look at letters home from a Texan soldier, and he also penned a “Small Talk Trivia” quiz focusing on Union generals in the Western Theater.

Meg Groeling will be one of the featured speakers at the Southwest Civil War Symposium on Saturday, March 23, 2019. The event is hosted by the Southwest Civil War Roundtable and will be held at 380 New York Street, Redlands, Calif. Meg will be speaking about the first assassination attempt on president-elect Abraham Lincoln as he traveled on the Inaugural Express through Baltimore. “Other than that,” she said, “we are waiting for our second grandchild to be born—any day now!” (And we’re pleased to report Emery Ellyce arrived safely on Feb. 18.)

Meg reviewed Angela M. Zombeck’s book Penitentiaries, Punishment, and Military Prisons: Familiar Responses to an Extraordinary Crisis During the American Civil War in the March 2019 issue of Civil War News.

Steward Henderson recently participated in the Untold Stories Program at Fredericksburg, playing the role of a corporal. Last year’s program was very successful, so the coalition of organizations presenting the program expanded the event to include vignettes in four downtown Fredericksburg churches. The Civil War portion was a recruiting scene at Camp Casey in 1864. Other vignettes portrayed scenes from the Revolutionary War, World War I, and World War II.

Chris Kolakowski reviewed Challenges of Command in the Civil War: Generalship, Leadership, and Strategy at Gettysburg, Petersburg, and Beyond—Volume I, Generals and Generalship by Richard Sommers in the March 2019 issue of Civil War News.

The Emerging Civil War Podcast

For February’s Emerging Civil War podcasts, co-hosts Dan Welch and Chris Mackowski kicked off the month talking with their award-winning colleague Dave Powell about his new book, Decisions at Chickamauga, part of the “Critical Decisions” series being published by the University of Tennessee Press.

For the month’s second podcast, Chris talks with Kris White about the “forgotten fall” of

1863. The first of a two-part podcast focuses on “the stations”: Bristoe and Rappahannock. Each podcast is only $1.99. You can subscribe at https://www.patreon. com/emergingcivilwar.

10 Questions . . . with Jon-Erik Gilot

Jon-Erik Gilot works as an archivist by day and is assisting with ECW’s archives behind the scenes by night. You can read his full background here: https://emergingcivilwar.com/2018/12/20/ jon-erik-welcome.

Q: Let’s start with the obvious question first: As a Civil War historian and a resident of West Virginia, how do you feel about West Virginia statehood?

A: As a resident of Wheeling— the birthplace of West Virginia— reminders of the statehood movement are all around. The first state capitol building sits just a block from my office, and the custom house (Independence Hall) sits just a few blocks beyond that, while an imposing statue of Francis Pierpont greets visitors on Market Street. Residents of western Virginia were a people set apart, kept under the thumb of the tidewater aristocracy and FFV’s that dominated Virginia politics in the 19th century. As Abraham Lincoln opined that our country could not exist as half slave and half free, it would have been tough sledding for Virginia to continue to exist as a state so sectionally divided. The Civil War was the vehicle that helped push that statehood movement over the finish line. Montani Semper Liberi (Mountaineers Are Always Free)!

Q: What aspect of the war in West Virginia/western Virginia fascinates you the most?

A: West Virginia was fighting a different kind of war, much more akin to what was happening in Missouri, Kansas, eastern Tennessee, and western North Carolina. The Civil War and West Virginia statehood very literally pitted families and neighbors against one another. It was a dangerous place to live, with

Jon-Erik Gilot

ECW Recent Releases.

Chris Mackowski

places like Romney and Beverly changing hands numerous times throughout the war. So I enjoy the human interest aspect of what was going on here. I’m also especially interested in the first campaign and the early days of the war in western Virginia. Many officers, both North and South, cut their teeth here in the summer and fall of 1861, and we can use those early days as a litmus test to gauge the leadership qualities these men would exhibit throughout the rest of the war.

Q: How did you get hooked on the Civil War?

A: I was lucky to have a mother who fostered my interest in history at a young age with books about Abraham Lincoln and trips to Gettysburg and Antietam. I also grew up in Mount Pleasant, Ohio, a small, historic town steeped in Civil War history. The first newspaper to advocate for the immediate abolition of slavery was published there (The Philanthropist, 1817). Benjamin Lundy, whom William Lloyd Garrison considered the “Father of American Abolitionism,” made his home there. Numerous Underground Railroad landmarks still dot the village. John Hunt Morgan’s men skirted the village in July 1863 with Federal soldiers on their heels. I was just surrounded in Civil War-era history.

Q: You’re an archivist in your day job. Obviously, archivists can be invaluable resources to Civil War researchers. Do you want to give a shout-out to your profession?

A: I started working with my local historical society at a young age and really got hooked on the visceral connection you feel when holding a historic document, artifact or textile. As the “keeper” of such history, it’s important to protect what we have, but equally important is accessibility. What good is having all of this stuff if it’s locked away and out of sight? That’s why I’m such a big fan of what Garry Adelman and Kris White are doing at the American Battlefield Trust in utilizing some amazing, rarely seen artifacts on battlefield visits and giving us behind-the-scenes virtual tours of some outstanding Civil War collections all across the country. Balancing access and preservation can be tricky, but I think it’s important that we constantly look for new ways for our material to reach a wider audience.

Q: Is there an aspect about your profession that’s commonly misunderstood?

A: White gloves! Archives seem to be most associated with

white gloves, and Garry Adelman likes to rail on the ‘uppity’ archivists who yell at him for handling artifacts without gloves. While I’d always advocate for using gloves when handling photos or negatives (fingerprints can damage emulsion), wearing gloves reduces our sense of touch, making us much more apt to accidently cause damage to a fragile document or book. So I’d tell Garry to go on with his bad self, as long as his hands are clean!

Lightning Round (short answers):

Q: Most overrated person of the Civil War?

A: Nathan Bedford Forrest...all day, every day.

Q: Favorite Trans-Mississippi site?

A: Wilson’s Creek, a crown jewel of our battlefield parks.

Q: Favorite Regiment?

A: I don’t know that I have one favorite, but I am fond of the 15th Ohio and 52nd Ohio, both incredibly hard fighting regiments raised around my hometown. I have substantial collections of letters and photos from both regiments that may one day make for a good book(s).

Q: What one Civil War book do you consider to be essential?

A: Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson remains an incredibly accessible book for anyone looking for a solid, onevolume overview of the conflict.

Q: What’s one Civil Warrelated question no one has ever asked you that you wished they would?

A: Let’s instead ask “What’s one Civil War-related question you wish no one would ask?” And that would be when my wife asks me “Do you really need another Civil War book?” Yes, Dear. Yes, I do.

Emerging Civil War Bookshelf

The latest volume in the Emerging Civil War Series is now on its way to bookstores: All Hell Can’t Stop Them: The Battles for Chattanooga—Missionary Ridge and Ringgold by Dave Powell. You can order signed copies of the book from publisher Savas Beatie.

All Hell Can’t Stop Them is a follow-up to Dave’s Battle Above the Clouds: Lifting the Siege of Chattanooga and the Battle of Lookout Mountain. Together, the two volumes tell the story of Ulysses S. Grant’s pivotal campaign as commander of all Union

All Hell Can’t Stop Them: The Battles for Chattanooga— Missionary Ridge and Ringgold by Dave Powell.

The next two volumes in the Emerging Revolutionary War Series. armies in the West.

To see how those volumes fit together with events in the east, check out The Great Battle Never Fought: The Mine Run Campaign by Chris Mackowski, released last November. Soldiers in the Army of the Potomac heard about Grant’s victory at Chattanooga just as they were setting out on their own campaign and called it “Good news to march on.”

Emerging Revolutionary War News

One of the most important and recognizable dates in the month of February is the birthday of George Washington, who was born on February 22, 1732, in the new-style calendar. Bonus points if you know what date was

written in the family Bible and the day his mother always said his birthday was?

However, this year, February had another important date. On February 3, 2019, in conjunction with Savas Beatie LLC, Emerging Revolutionary War announced the next two volumes in the Emerging Revolutionary War

Series. These volumes will cover the Valley Forge winter and the Monmouth Court House battle and campaign. Both are slated for release later this year. For updates on these releases and other great content on this era of American history, continue to check the blog,www. emergingrevolutionarywar.org.

Publishers:

Send your book(s) for review to:

CWN Book Review Editor Stephen Davis

3670 Falling Leaf Lane, Cumming, GA 30041-2087

Civil War News book reviews provide our readers with timely analysis of the latest and most significant Civil War research and scholarship. Contact Stephen Davis, Civil War News Book Review Editor. Email: BookReviews@CivilWarNews.com.

Blending old and new Civil War scholarship

Upon the Fields of Battle: Essays on the Military History of America’s Civil War. Edited by Andrew S. Bledsoe and Andrew F. Lang. Notes, index, 304 pp., 2018. Louisiana State University Press, www.lsupress. org. $48 cloth.

Reviewed by Thomas J. Ryan

Andrew S. Bledsoe and Andrew F. Lang set as their goal with this collection “to rectify the disparities between military and other histories of the Civil War” in order to bring a balance to the field of traditional or conventional military history and the “new” school of thought that links military history to broader themes in society. As a result, the editors see the essays in this collection as pushing the boundaries of the

current state of the field through innovation, and serving as an “antidote” for the type of Civil War scholarship that sows confusion about the Civil War and its consequences.

In his Introduction, Gary W. Gallagher characterizes these articles as a reflection of the “sea change” that Civil War military history has undergone over the past 20 years, while Earl J. Hess urges practitioners of battle history to widen the field by questioning past research and plotting a new agenda.

In this collection there are five articles in “The Contested Battlefield” category. First, Kenneth W. Noe tackles the subject of how the weather contributed to Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan’s misfortune on the Virginia Peninsula in 1862 during a five month-long siege and slog campaign that hampered his strategy and tactics. These weather-induced problems continued after Gen. Robert E. Lee took command of Confederate forces following the wounding of Gen. Joseph Johnston. However, Lee managed to gain a string of victories within a relatively brief period despite the poor weather conditions.

Next, Jennifer M. Murray examines Maj. Gen. George G. Meade’s “Golden Opportunity” to destroy the Army of Northern Virginia following the Union victory over Robert E. Lee’s army at Gettysburg in July 1863. Murray defends Meade against “detractors,” and stresses that Meade’s “primary objective was the protection of Washington, D.C.” Yet President Abraham Lincoln desired Meade to follow Maj. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant’s example of forcing the surrender of the Confederate army at Vicksburg. Though Meade wavered in his resolve to contest Lee once again, Murray concludes that Meade’s failure was “less of a damning testament of his leadership than an observation of a broader reality in military history.”

Andrew Bledsoe contributes an article examining “the unpredictable human element” in the art of command. Confederate Gen. Braxton Bragg is featured in this discussion, especially with regard to written orders. Bragg’s inability to convey clear and concise directives was exacerbated by his unpopularity with subordinates. As a result, Bragg’s failure to establish an effective command and control system is cited as the reason his forces were unable to gain a victory at McLemore’s Cove in Georgia in September 1863, despite the odds in their favor.

“The Looting and Bombardment of Fredericksburg” is John J. Hennessy’s contribution. Was Robert E. Lee’s decision to occupy the town of Fredericksburg the main cause of

its eventual destruction in 1862, or were Union forces given a free hand to seek retaliation the primary factor? Hennessy examines this question in the context of a war in transformation, in which the standard rules would not be followed.

The final essay in this category addresses the existence of guerrilla warfare on both the battlefront and the home front. Brian D. McKnight states this violence was “a means to an end.” Along the borderlands of Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky, widespread deprivation and fear resulted. Destruction of personal property and disruption of the normal lifestyles of perceived enemies generated retaliation from those with competing loyalties.

Another section is devoted to “The Soldiers’ War,” and also contains five articles. Andrew Lang begins with “The Limits of American Exceptionalism,” that evaluates how white Federal soldiers occupying the Confederacy in wartime understood the requirement for military power to preserve their “exceptional nation,” while at the same time they were also concerned about the transformation that would inevitably occur. In particular, black liberation would present imposing challenges to the liberators, former slave owners, and the newly-freed population as well.

Kevin M. Levin contributes an analysis of Confederate military executions that reveals surprising statistics about the frequency of this type of punishment. Executing soldiers, primarily for desertion, had a sobering effect on army units that were required to attend these frightening exhibitions. Nonetheless, Confederates on the whole tended to support execution as a deterrent for would-be deserters.

In the third piece, Keith Altavilla writes about Democrats in the Union army at the time of the 1864 presidential election. In “McClellan’s Men,” he describes the political atmosphere after almost four years of war during which the Lincoln administration had been unable to crush the rebellion, and the effect that had on the way in which Union soldiers would vote. Despite McClellan’s

popularity among the rank and file, Lincoln won their vote by a wide margin.

Brian Matthew Jordan focuses on the heavy losses the 107th Ohio Infantry Regiment sustained during the Gettysburg campaign, and its enduring aftereffects. In “The Hour That Lasted Fifty Years,” he recounts how the substantial casualty list led to additional suffering for members of the regiment in later years, particularly as a result of non-responsive governmental policies in caring for the needs of the 107th’s families and survivors. In the final contribution in this segment, Robert L. Glaze examines how the reputation of military leaders who succumbed early in the Civil War evolved based on emotion rather than performance. Albert Sidney Johnston had been the target of criticism for his performance as commander of a military department in the west, and there were calls for his resignation. However, his death on the battlefield led former critics to bemoan his loss as “a potential savior” of the Confederacy. Glaze concludes that “Johnston meant more to the people of the Confederacy in death than he ever did in life.”

Bledsoe and Lang set out to present a balance between traditional and more modern approaches to Civil War history and interpretation, and insure that these presentations would be the product of qualified professionals. Judging from the variety of themes the authors chose to address, they achieved the first part of their objective. The qualifications of the contributors are aptly reflected in the clear, concise and well-researched essays in this collection.

Thomas J. Ryan is the author of Spies, Scouts, and Secrets in the Gettysburg Campaign: How the Critical Role of Intelligence Impacted the Outcome of Lee’s Invasion of the North, June-July 1863. His latest book, with co-author Richard R. Schaus, titled ‘Lee is Trapped, and Must be Taken’: Eleven Fateful Days after Gettysburg, July 4-14, 1863 is scheduled for publication by Savas Beatie this spring.

How service and sacrifice have preserved our freedom

Brothers in Valor: Battlefield Stories of the 89 African Americans Awarded the Medal of Honor. By Robert F. Jefferson Jr. Photos, appendix, endnotes, index, 248 pp., 2018. Lyons Press, www.rowman.com. $26.95 cloth.

Reviewed by David Marshall

A Different Approach to a Familiar Subject

wounds in his right arm and both legs, Sergeant Carney picked up the fallen regimental flag after the color bearer was hit. He waved the flag for all to see and led the way to the parapet to plant the colors. After Col. Robert Gould Shaw was killed, Carney inspired his fellow soldiers forward. Even after sustaining his severe wounds, Carney proudly declared, “Boys, the old flag never touched the ground!” After this battle, Carney became the first African American to receive the Medal of Honor.

The War for the Common Soldier: How Men Thought, Fought, and Survived in Civil War Armies. By Peter S. Carmichael. Illustrations, notes, bibliography, index, 392 pp., 2018. University of North Carolina Press, www.uncpress. org. $34.95 hardcover.

Reviewed by Jeffry D. Wert

respective societies saw them as courageous and devoted to the cause. In their view, an individual soldier with physical and moral discipline formed the foundation of a victorious army.

African Americans have served in the American military throughout its history with distinction, but not always with equality.

Robert Jefferson Jr. has provided readers with insight into eightynine heroic individuals who have been awarded the country’s highest military award, the Medal of Honor. Since creation of the award in 1862, only 3,500 men and women have been recognized for their gallantry above and beyond the call of duty. Students are provided with lessons that everyone can learn from in this book.

Each individual recognized was courageous during military clashes of the past. Jefferson makes an important point: how these brave individuals had to deal with segregation and discrimination in their military service, as well as in their daily lives. The author makes an excellent point that U.S. citizens, soldiers and politicians have often questioned the capability and courage of African Americans on the battlefield.

Brothers in Valor is split into seven chapters, covering the Civil War, Indian Wars, Spanish American War, World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam as well as heroism in the twenty-first century. Biographies and photographs are provided for the 89 black soldiers, sailors and marines. Two of these recipients were Sgt. William H. Carney and Pvt. Milton Olive III.

William H. Carney was born a slave in 1840 but in January of 1863 gained the opportunity to serve in the 54th Massachusetts following the Emancipation Proclamation. During the second battle of Fort Wagner, South Carolina on July 18,1863, despite

Born in Chicago in 1946, Milton Olive III enlisted in the army and was assigned to a company in the famed 503rd Infantry Regiment, one of the most elite airborne units in the military. In the Vietnam War he fought in numerous combat actions in the Phu Cuong jungle against the Vietcong. During a firefight, a grenade was thrown in his comrades’ direction. Without thinking of his own safety, Olive picked up the live grenade and fell on it. He thus died a hero, saving several of his fellow soldiers from death and serious injury. Jefferson reports that President Lyndon Johnson awarded the MOH to this fallen hero on April 21, 1966. The author makes a significant point that this soldier’s record never mentioned his race or racial origin.

Eighty-seven other fascinating stories are included in this detailed, richly researched and comprehensive volume. Photographs of many of these brave men appear in a Pantheon of Heroes.

I wish Jefferson could have provided more examples of the racial hardships that the recipients endured during their service and in their private lives. Additionally, maps of the many wars and locations of the distinguished actions would have enhanced the narrative.

With these eighty-nine portraits, Brothers in Valor provides enthusiasts with a fresh perspective on the accomplishments and bravery of African Americans in the conflicts of the United States.

David Marshall has been a high school American history teacher in the Miami-Dade School district for the past thirty-two years. A life-long Civil War enthusiast, David is president of the Miami Civil War Roundtable Book Club. He has given presentations to Civil War round tables on Joshua Chamberlain, Ulysses S. Grant, Abraham Lincoln and the battle of Gettysburg.

Billy Yank and Johnny Reb have been the subjects of a shelfful or more of books. From Bell Irvin Wiley’s pathbreaking two volumes (1943, 1952), to more modern studies by such esteemed historians as James McPherson and James I. Robertson, Jr., their lives during the war have undergone detailed examinations and re-examinations.

Most, if not nearly all of the books, have focused on the daily lives and experiences of the common soldiery. What they wore, what they ate, the weapons they carried, their beliefs in their respective causes, their performances in combat, and even their sexual activities have garnered study. We know much about them from their own words in letters and diaries.

This new work by Dr. Peter S. Carmichael presents a different approach to the subject. He delves into not what the Billy Yank and Johnny Rebs thought, but “how” they thought about the reality of soldiering and the terrible conflict in which they found themselves.

Carmichael argues that soldiers on both sides entered into military service within cultural and ideological frameworks. He uses the term sentimentalism to describe these beliefs, asserting that the citizen-soldiers and their

For the men in the ranks, however, the experience of a soldier’s existence in camp, on the march, or in battle made them pragmatists in how they viewed their lives in an army. The author maintains that the majority of Civil War soldiers adhered to cultural sentimentalism throughout the war, but their pragmatism caused conflicts within themselves in how they described the conflict’s reality. This caused the manner in which soldiers crafted letters to family and friends.

The author relies upon case studies of individual Union and Confederate soldiers to present his findings. Carmichael has selected men, as he states, of “all backgrounds.” Whether the men chosen by the author reflect the views of a majority of their comrades will likely generate debate among fellow scholars and serious readers of Civil War studies.

These case studies are supplemented by the voices of many of their comrades. The author’s research in unpublished material and published works is impressive, if not impeccable. He covers a gamut of topics—comrades,

camp life, combat, bravery, cowardice, desertion, military justice, facing the enemy, and defeat. He addresses even the relics and trophies that veterans either sent home or carried with them after the war and how those items affected the veterans’ connections to their own experiences and to the war itself.

Unquestionably, there were differences between the viewpoints and beliefs of Union and Confederate soldiers. The Federals tended to be empathetic to the plight of their foes and could look at defeats, such as the slaughter at Fredericksburg, with a critical detachment. Rebels, however, had nothing good to say about their enemy, and their adherence to the cause and the denial of impending defeat were characteristic of many of them. Each side reflected, in turn, the divergent cultural attributes of their respective societies.

The War for the Common Soldier is a serious and important work. Not all readers will agree with some of its arguments or conclusions, but the book merits an audience. It is both a thoughtful and thought-provoking study.

Jeffry Wert’s numerous books on the war include General James Longstreet (1993) and Gettysburg: Day Three (2001).

$39.95

Bill Arp, So Called

Book end and title page: This is Steve Davis’ personal copy. Photographs by Haley Hawk.

Fifty years ago, a writer for the Atlanta Constitution admitted that she did not know much about a regular columnist who had written for the paper in the late 1800s: Bill Arp.

Boy, did she take a thumpin’!

“Not know Bill Arp! Shame on you!” scolded one reader. An elderly Georgia woman wrote, “everybody who professes to be literate should know his name if not his works.”

Well, I won’t go that far, but I love Bill Arp’s writing, and am proud that I own a copy of his Bill Arp, So Called: A Side Show of the Southern Side of the War (1866). I had my granddaughter, Haley Hawk, take pictures of it for this article.

“Bill Arp,” of course, was a pseudonym. Charles Henry Smith was born in Lawrenceville, Ga., about thirty miles northeast of Atlanta, on June 15, 1826. He attended local schools and at nineteen entered Franklin College, now the University of Georgia. Smith showed his literary bent by editing a college newspaper. He never graduated, though; his father’s illness forced him to return home and run the

family’s general store.

Smith got married, studied law and joined a firm. In 1851 he took his wife and two children to Rome, Ga., seventy miles west of Lawrenceville. In Rome, Smith joined another law practice and acquired nine slaves by the time the war started. After Fort Sumter he joined a local militia company, which became part of the 8th Georgia Infantry. Traveling with it to Virginia, in June 1861 he was appointed regimental commissary with the rank of major.1

Smith’s calling, however, was not in the field, but on the newspaper page. When, on April 15, 1861, President Lincoln issued his call for rebellious Southerners “to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes,” a proclamation that Southerners frankly found hilarious, Smith decided to capitalize on the mood with an article in his local paper, the Rome Courier, written in dialect for funnier effect.

“Mr. Linkhorn—Sur,” it respectfully began, as Smith sought to explain to the president why he and his fellow Southerners could not, in fact, disperse. “The fact is, we are most obleeged to have a few more days, for the way things are happening, it is utterly onpossible for us to disperse in twenty days….I tried my darndest yesterday to disperse and retire, but it was no go.”2

As Smith later recalled in Bill Arp’s Scrap Book (1884), he read his draft letter to “Mr. Linkhorn”

before a few friends. One William Arp, a Roman resident, asked what pen name Smith would use when submitting it. “I don’t know yet,” the author replied. “Well, ‘Squire,” Arp answered, “I wish you would put mine, for them’s my sentiments.” Smith agreed that he would.3

I like what James C. Austin, professor at Southern Illinois University, wrote a half-century ago about what happened next.

Editors of other newspapers, in search of spicy copy, reprinted the letter. Its clean satire caught the fancy of a good many Southerners, and some months later the author wrote a second letter to Lincoln, then a third and a fourth. “Bill Arp,” the simple Georgia cracker, became known all over the South. The letters spoke the sentiments of the average man, they gave him something to laugh about in bitter times, and they rallied him to the Southern cause. As they continued to come—no longer addressed to President Lincoln—Bill became a Southern institution, a kind of national jester for the Confederacy.

Bill Arp continued to poke fun at the Northern president. “Mr. Linkhorn, sur, privately speakin,” he wrote in one letter, “I’m afeerd I’ll git in a tite place here among these bloods, and have to slope

Smith portrait: Born in Georgia in 1826, Charles Henry Smith entered the profession of law, joining a practice in Rome, fifty miles northwest of Atlanta.

out of it, and I would like to have your Skotch cap and kloak that you traveled in to Washington”— referring to the Southern legend that Abraham Lincoln, fearing assassination in Baltimore on the way to his inauguration, dressed in outlandish costume.4

A few decades after the war, Southerners were still talking about Bill Arp’s wartime writing. “During the war every soldier in the field knew Bill Arp’s last,” observed one writer in 1882. Henry W. Grady, the famed editor of the Atlanta Constitution, declared about that time, “I doubt

Forrest: After Bedford Forrest with 600 troopers tricked Union Col. Abel Streight to surrender his 1,500 men on May 3,1863, General Forrest was hailed as a hero in nearby Rome.

“Skedaddle

Title page, Bill Arp So Called: Some of Smith’s wartime articles were reprinted (though without “Bill Arp’s” funny dialect spelling) in Bill Arp So Called (1866). Not only was it printed in New York just a year after the war, but the publisher hired M. A. Sullivan to render more than a dozen woodcut illustrations to accompany Smith’s text.

in the Highway”: Smith and his family were in Rome when Sherman’s troops approached the city in May 1864. “Bill Arp” thus became one of the “Roman runagees.”

if any papers ever produced a more thorough sensation than did the letters written by Major Smith during the War.”5

Major Smith eventually received a medical discharge from the army, and returned to Rome. His further letters appeared in the Atlanta Southern Confederacy, addressing news of the day. Thus after Bedford Forrest hunted down the Yankee raider Streight west of Rome in the spring of 1863, Smith wrote “Messrs. Adair & Smith” (Confederacy editors George Adair and Henly Smith) on how Romans had lionized General Forrest in the city.

Smith was in Rome when Sherman’s forces approached the city in May 1864. He and his family joined most of the citizenry in a panicked flight from the city. But of course he turned his experience into a funny column, one of my very favorites. “Bill Arp, the Roman Runagee” was first published in the Atlanta Southern Confederacy on May 29, 1864. It was reprinted in Bill Arp’s Peace Papers (1873), a collection of articles written during and after the war. In the piece Arp describes the approach of Union forces toward Rome. “Not many days ago the everlasting Yankees (may they live always when the devil gets em) made a valyunt assault upon the sitty of the hills,” Arp explained, suggesting that Rome, Ga., like its Italian counterpart, was called the “city of the seven hills.”

But alas for human hoaps! Man that is born of woman (and there is no other sort that I know of) has but few days that is not full of trubble. Altho the troops did showt, altho their brass band music swelled upon the gale, altho the turkey bumps ris as the welkin rung, altho the commandin Genrul asshoored us that Rome wer to be held at every hazerd, and that on to-morrer the big battle wer to be fout, and the fowl invaders hurled all howlin and bleedin to the shores of the Ohio, yet it transpired sumhow that on choosdy night the military evakuashun of our sitty was preemptorly ordered.6

Like most Roman “runagees,” the Smiths resettled in Atlanta. On June 3, a local paper, the transplanted Memphis Appeal, announced that “’Bill Arp’—Chas. H. Smith, Esq., better known as ‘Bill Arp,’ attorney and counselor-at-law, has opened an office in this city, with Col. J.W.H. Underwood.”

He also continued to write for the Atlanta newspapers, and readers loved it. “Volo” wrote in from Roswell, north of Atlanta,

“we have received today’s Confederacy, and I assure you ‘Bill Arp’s’ letter was read with shouts and with ‘good’ from every tongue.”7

Smith was in Atlanta when the Yankees had gotten so close to the city that they were able, beginning on July 20, to fire artillery shells into Atlanta. The panicked citizenry began packing up and heading out, as Arp related, albeit (as usual) as a comic feature.

About this time the fust big shells kommensed skatterin their unfeelin kontents among the sububs of that devoted sitty. Then cum the big paniks….All sorts of peepul seemed movin in all sorts of ways, with an akselerated moshun. They ganed ground on their shadders as they leened forwerd on the run, and their legs grew longer at evry step….Kars was the all-in-all….The passenger depo was throngd with ankshus seekers of transportashun.

“Wont you let these boxes go as bagidge?” “No madam, its onpossible.” Just then sumbodys family trunk as big as a niter buro was shoved in, and the poor woman got desprite.

“All I’ve got ain’t as hevvy as that,” sed she, “and I am a poor wider, and my husband was killed in the army. I’ve got five little children, and my things hav got to go.” We took up her boxes and shoved em in. Another good woman axed very anxshusly for the Makon trane. “There it is, madam,” sed I. She shuke her hed mournfully and remarked, “You are mistakin, sur, don’t you see the injine is hedded rite up the State Road towards the Yankees?

I shant take any trane with the injine at that end of it. No, sur, that ain’t the Makon trane.”

By and by the shells fell as thick as Guvener Brown’s proklamashuns, causin a more speedy lokomoshun in the xsiled throng who hurrid by the dore….All day and all nite long the iron hosses were snortin to the ekoin breeze. Trane atter trane of goods and chattels moved down the rode, leavin hundreds of ankshus fases waitin their return. There was no method in this madness. All kinds of plunder was tumbuld in promiskuously. A huge parlor mirrer, sum 6 foot by 8, all bound in ilegant gold, with a barass buzzard a spreddin his wings on the top, was sot up at the end of the kar, and reflekted a butiful assortment of parler furnichure to match, sich as pots and kittles, baskets and bags, barrels and kegs, bacon and bedsteds, all piled up together.8

Smith and his family returned to Rome in December 1864, after

Sherman and his army had set out for Savannah and the sea. He resumed his law practice and in 1868 was elected mayor of Rome. A decade later the Smiths moved to Cartersville, the county seat of Bartow County.

“Bill Arp” continued to write humorous pieces on the War and Reconstruction for the Atlanta Constitution, whose editor, Henry W. Grady, became a close friend. These and his wartime articles were published in several collections. In Bill Arp’s Peace Papers (1873), the author muses on the republication in Richmond during 1864 of Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables. The book became a hit among Confederate soldiers in Virginia, who started calling it (and themselves) “Lee’s Miserables.” This prompted Bill Arp to comment, “sum frog-eatin Frenchman hav writ a book and kalled it ‘Lee’s Miserbels,’ or sum other sich name, which I spose contain the misfortunes of poor refugees in the wake of the Virginny army. Genrul Hood hav also got a few miserbels in the suberbs of his fiting ground….”

“Hood’s Miserables” has yet to catch on in the literature, but leave it to Bill Arp to give it a try. The famed writer died Aug. 24, 1903, and is buried in Cartersville’s Oak Hill Cemetery. At the funeral service, a clergyman declared that Bill Arp’s name “was known around the world.”9

Even Bill would have found that statement “a little steep.” But it was solidly grounded in the tradition of comic exaggeration that one sees so often in Southern literary humor.*

*I’ll give one of my favorite examples. In Life on the Mississippi (1883), Mark Twain comments on the mosquitoes swarming around Lake Providence, La. A local had told Twain that the insects were so huge as to be dubbed “Lake Providence colossi.” “He said that two of them could whip a dog, and that four of them could hold a man down,” Twain recorded. “He told many remarkable things about those lawless insects. Among others, said he had seen them try to vote.” “Noticing that this statement seemed to be a good deal of a strain on us, he modified it a little,” the writer continued; “said he might have been mistaken, as to that particular, but knew he had seen them around the polls ‘canvassing.’”

Endnotes:

1. David B. Parker, Alias Bill Arp: Charles Henry Smith and the South’s “Goodly Heritage” (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1991), 3-14; Richard Michael Allen, comp., The 8th Georgia Volunteer Infantry

What’s In A Name?

1. Two Union generals were named for this famous explorer who “discovered” the New World in 1492.

2. Another Northern general bore the name (in Latinized version) of this Italian explorer after whom “America” was named.

3. Four Federal and two Confederate generals bore the name of this first president of the United States.

4. Another four Civil War generals carried the name of this famous Pennsylvanian, author of Poor Richard’s Almanack.

5. One Federal general was named for Napoleon Bonaparte, but surprisingly two were named for this king of Sweden (reigned 1611–1632), credited with establishing his country as a world power.

6. Three Union generals were named for this president of

Regiment, 1861–1865 (El Dorado Hills CA: Savas Beatie, 2018), 36.

2. Ford Risley, ed., Dear Courier: The Civil War Correspondence of Editor Melvin Dwinell (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2018), 319 n. 2 (“he began writing satirical essays for the Courier”); Parker, Alias Bill Arp, 52-54.

3. Bill Arp’s Scrap Book; Humor and Philosophy (Atlanta: Jas. P. Harrison & Co., 1884), 7-8.

4. James C. Austin, Bill Arp (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1969), 19; Carole E. Scott, “Writing under the nom de plume ‘Bill Arp,’ Charles H. Smith achieved fame as the Confederacy’s jester,” America’s Civil War, May 2004, 16.

5. Anne M. Christie, “Civil War Humor: Bill Arp,” Civil War History, vol. 2 (September 1956), 103.

6. Parker, Alias Bill Arp, 57-58; “Bill Arp, the Roman Runagee,” Atlanta Southern Confederacy, May 29, 1864; Bill Arp’s Peace Papers (New York: G. W. Carleton & Co., 1873), 67-68.

7. “Local Intelligence,” Memphis Appeal, June 3, 1864; “Volo,” “On the Right Wing,” Atlanta Southern Confederacy, June 22, 1864.

the United States who served 1829–1837.

7. A Confederate and a Federal general bore the name of this famed American officer whose service bridged the War of 1812 to the start of the Civil War.

8. One Federal general was named after this third U.S. president.

9. Similarly, a Union general bore the name of this sixth president of the United States.

10. Finally, let’s hear it for classical composers. A Northern general carried the name of this Austrian composer who in his lifetime (1732-1809) wrote more than a hundred symphonies.

Answers found on page 46.

Steve Davis is the Civil War News Book Review Editor. He can be contacted by email at: SteveATL1861@yahoo.com.

8. Quoted in Stephen Davis, What the Yankees Did to Us: Sherman’s Bombardment and Wrecking of Atlanta (Macon: Mercer University Press, 2012), 127-28.

9. John D. Eidson, “Charles Henry Smith (‘Bill Arp’),” in Kenneth Coleman and Charles Stephen Gurr, eds., Dictionary of Georgia Biography, 2 vols. (Athens: University of Georgia, 1983), vol. 2, 895; Bill Arp’s Peace Papers, 81.

Stephen Davis, of Cumming, Ga., has long had an interest in Southern literature. At Emory University he took his Ph.D. in American Studies; his dissertation was titled “Johnny Reb in Perspective: The Confederate Soldier’s Image in the Southern Arts.” During his time as graduate student he had published “Mark Twain, the War, and Life on the Mississippi (Southern Studies, Summer 1979) and “Turning to the Immoderate Past: Allen Tate’s Stonewall Jackson (Mississippi Quarterly, Spring 1979).

Errors of Judgment, not Intent

The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant: Preserving the Civil War’s Legacy. By Paul Kahan. Illustrations, index, bibliography, 191 pp., 2018. Westholme Publishing, www.westholmepublishing.com. $28 cloth.

Reviewed by Wayne L. Wolf

A Major Western Battle from an Operational Standpoint

These included improving relations with Great Britain, promoting African-American political equality, and setting the United States on the path to becoming a world power.

Paul Kahan provides a well-written analysis of Ulysses S. Grant’s presidency and how political, economic and cultural forces unleashed by the Civil War defined many of his presidential decisions. Throughout his presidential tenure, Grant was consumed by Reconstruction. His vision of binding the nation together was always focused on the basis of justice and political equality for all, particularly newly freed slaves and Native Americans.

Early twentieth century historians like William Dunning charged Grant with being party to a vindictive Northern attempt to punish the South. Later historians, e.g., Kenneth Stampp and C. Vann Woodward, felt Grant did not do enough to advance black political and economic rights. Thus Grant was blamed by both historical schools for failures that ignored his need to curtail legislative dominance, deal with competing factions in the Republican Party, and manage a severe recession, international crises, westward expansion and a Northern electorate desirous of putting the war to rest. As more of Grant’s presidential papers have become available, the scandals associated with his associates have been placed in a proper perspective with his accomplishments.

Thoroughly researched, balanced in his assessment of events and objective in his analysis, Kahan would agree with Grant’s own assessment of his presidency that mistakes were made but they were “errors in judgment, not intent.” Furthermore, Grant’s military career became the prism through which he understood the demands of his era. He was concerned that politicians would squander the victories won on the battlefields and that Northern support for sweeping political and economic change was shallow and ephemeral. Within this context, Grant can be seen as a politician-in-training not yet adept at using patronage to achieve legislative victories or besting Democrats who controlled the House of Representatives. Democrats were more concerned with embarrassing Grant by their frequent investigations, ostensibly to ferret out corruption, than cooperating to achieve tangible gains in the legislative arena.

Grant’s presidential era bears an eerie resemblance to the political landscape today. With a new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives from the 2018 elections, investigations will surely be used to hobble President Trump’s agenda and the politics of personal destruction will again reign in Washington.

Paul Kahan’s book is thus not only an excellent look into how Grant shaped the presidency from a background of no political experience, but how many of his dilemmas are evident in our current political climate. This book is highly recommended for a short but insightful look at Grant’s presidency and should be required reading for presidential historians and Civil War buffs.

Wayne L. Wolf is Professor Emeritus at South Suburban College in Illinois and the author of numerous Civil War books and articles, including Heroes and Rogues of the Civil War and Soldiers, Sailors and Scoundrels of the Civil War. He is past president of the Lincoln-Davis Civil War Roundtable

River of Death: The Chickamauga Campaign. Vol. 1: The Fall of Chattanooga. By William Glenn Robertson. Illustrations, maps, notes, bibliography, index, 680 pp., 2018. University of North Carolina Press, www.uncpress.org. $45 cloth.

Reviewed by Sam Davis Elliott

operational standpoint, the first phase of the 1863 campaign for the possession of Chattanooga.

Robertson’s eminent qualifications for this task are clearly reflected in his deep narrative. For years, in connection with his duties at the United States Army Combat Studies Institute in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Robertson led staff rides of mid-level officers (primarily majors) that studied the campaign on the ground, both inside and outside the Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military Park. Robertson gathered primary source materials continuously during that time, and the book blends the first-person viewpoints of soldiers and civilians in a manner that significantly enriches the text.

and the larger strategic picture are blended into a seamless, indepth treatment of this first phase of the Chickamauga campaign. Those readers with a familiarity of the Chattanooga area will particularly appreciate Robertson’s portrayal of the vast geographical scope of the movements in the approximately two-week period covered by the book, and students of the maneuvers that immediately preceded the battle of Chickamauga will note that the book ends on the cusp of a momentum shift from the Federals to the Confederates, as the large area of Federal operations that aided the capture of Chattanooga began to expose the widely-separated Federal columns to defeat in detail.

Although much ground has been made up in the last twenty years or so, it is fair to say that the Western Theater remains the figurative red-headed stepchild of Civil War scholarship. Only recently have we seen, for example, scholarly treatment of the individual battles of the Atlanta Campaign, or the battle of Knoxville. Timothy Smith has produced a campaign level trilogy of the Federal invasion of Tennessee and northern Mississippi in 1862 to rival Gordon Rhea’s Overland Campaign series, and David Powell’s recent Chickamauga trilogy matches any of the myriad of intense tactical studies of the fighting at Gettysburg.

Another deficiency has now been addressed. Until now, one area where Western Theater historiography lagged behind was a view of one of its most significant campaigns from an operational standpoint, similar to Edward Coddington’s classic The Gettysburg Campaign (1968). The U.S. military defines the operational level of war as the “level of war at which campaigns and major operations are planned, conducted, and sustained to achieve strategic objectives within theaters or other operational areas.” In Vol. 1 of River of Death, William Glenn Robertson has skillfully portrayed, from an

Introductory chapters cover each army and its commanders to the brigade level as they existed in July 1863, prior to the start of the campaign. Beginning in late August 1863, the Federal Army of the Cumberland, operating on a front of over one hundred airline miles on a diagonal line from East Tennessee through northwest Georgia to northeast Alabama, advanced on Chattanooga. The Confederate Army of Tennessee was eventually maneuvered out of the strategic little town on the Tennessee River, abandoning it to the Federals on September 9, 1863.

Robertson’s narrative outlines Federal Maj. Gen. William S. Rosecrans’ efforts at deception, and the thought processes and considerations that finally required Confederate Gen. Braxton Bragg to withdraw (he hoped only temporarily) from Chattanooga.

The relative strengths and weaknesses of the armies and their commanders, the logistical challenges each faced, the impact of the difficulties the terrain imposed on both armies,

Even if the study of the Western Theater is not the first love of the reader steeped in Antietam and Gettysburg, Robertson’s first-rate military scholarship is well worth the time it takes to read, if nothing else to lend depth to one’s understanding of the many moving parts of a Civil War army on campaign. For Western Theater enthusiasts, this book is the partial culmination of our long wait to hear from the acknowledged expert on this campaign, leaving us to eagerly anticipate Volume 2, which will cover the remainder of the Chickamauga Campaign presumably through the aftermath of the fighting on September 18-20, 1863.

Sam Elliott is a practicing attorney in Chattanooga, Tennessee, a member and former chairman of the Tennessee Historical Commission, and the editor or author of five books on the Civil War, the latest of which, John C. Brown of Tennessee: Rebel, Redeemer and Railroader was the winner of the 2017 Tennessee History Book Award.

Abridging Missouri’s Civil War

The Civil War Missouri Compendium: Almost Unabridged. By Joseph W. McCoskrie Jr. and Brian Warren. Maps, photos, notes, index, 237 pp., 2017. History Press, www.historypress.net, $21.99 paperback.

Reviewed by Kyle S. Sinisi

Civil War Missouri does not suffer for attention. In recent years, historians have produced a steady flow of books that justly reveal Missouri’s important role in the conflict. Books on slavery, guerrilla warfare, politics, unit histories and war tourism abound.

Joseph W. McCoskrie and Brian Warren have added their own entry into this increasingly crowded field with The Civil War Missouri Compendium: Almost Unabridged. The authors aim to provide “a roughly chronological overview of hundreds of the documented engagements that took place within Missouri’s borders.” They then deliver on this promise with an almost daily description of battles and skirmishes that left Missouri with the greatest number of combat actions outside of Tennessee and Virginia. The Civil War Missouri Compendium is thus a valuable, and unique, book that will be of use to the buff and tourist. However, the book will also frustrate its readers with numerous editorial errors, factual misstatements, and uneven research.

The strength of this book is its concept. Day-by-day, the authors reveal the combat actions of the Civil War in Missouri. The listings are encyclopedic in nature as they document places of action, list casualties, and briefly describe the events. Minor skirmishes usually receive a one-sentence description, while larger actions get several paragraphs. Occasionally, the authors go outside of combat to note important political milestones. Such is certainly the case with their entry on John C. Fremont’s proclamation of martial law and emancipation on August 30, 1861. The authors also mark many events, whether small or large, with sections variously titled “Why It Matters,” “Authors’ Assessment,” “Historical Situation,” “What If” or “What’s at Stake.” Although there is no real consistency for which events get these sections, the labeling can be helpful when trying to understand what is truly important in a book-length recitation of ambushes, raids, and skirmishes.

There are two other notable features. First, McCoskrie and Warren intersperse brief biographical sketches throughout their text. Here too, however, there is little consistency as to who receives treatment. For example, Joseph Shelby and John Marmaduke are sketched, but Sterling Price is not. In similar fashion, the authors sketch Bloody Bill Anderson, while providing no such information on William C. Quantrill. There are numerous other instances. One final feature of the book, and perhaps its most valuable, is the frequent inclusion of “Tourism Notes” that guide the reader to many obscure battlefield locations and internet sites.

Despite its virtues, The Civil War Missouri Compendium is significantly flawed in its research and editing. The authors have written the book for a popular audience. It thus lacks any form of direct attribution in its research. This is understandable, but it can be frustrating when the authors deal with obscure events and only reference the sourcing

of “local historians” or “some historians” in their text. No less frustrating, the authors at times suggest further research in the ubiquitous Official Records without indicating any specific location within the massive 128-part set. Given this approach to attribution, it is not surprising that errors and misstatements permeate the text. The authors frequently misspell or garble important names. The single-shot Sharps rifle becomes a “repeating fire” weapon. John Marmaduke is described as retreating to his “home base in Helena, [AR]” when that city was occupied by Union forces. The Militia Act of July 17, 1862 receives different definitions on different pages. Senator David R. Atchison is described as having a “staunch anti-slavery stance” and being an “abolitionist,” which, of course, would have surprised the slave-holding Atchison. Many problems surface with the entries pertaining to Sterling Price’s Raid of 1864. General Edmund Kirby Smith never ordered, or assigned, Price to “cross the Mississippi River into Illinois” to threaten Union supply lines in Tennessee. Joseph Shelby never joined Price at Fort Davidson following Old Pap’s attack on September 27. The 62nd USCT did not fight at the Battle of Glasgow, and John Marmaduke did not command 1,500 men of the Missouri State Guard at any point in the campaign.

These kinds of mistakes were avoidable, but the authors did at least anticipate that their work was not complete. The full title of the book, The Civil War Missouri Compendium: Almost Unabridged, hints at the problem. The authors explain the catchy subtitle as suggesting their intention “to improve the book in later editions.” The number of errors present in this edition suggest that the authors have plenty of work remaining.

Kyle S. Sinisi is a professor of history at The Citadel. He is the author of Sacred Debts: State Civil War Claims and American Federalism, 1861–1880 and The Last Hurrah: Sterling Price’s Missouri Expedition of 1864. He is currently at work on a biography of Samuel Curtis.

Handy Reference Highlights Colonels from Michigan, Ohio and

West Virginia

Colonels in Blue–Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia: A Civil War Biographical Dictionary. By Roger

D.

Hunt. Photos, bibliography, index, 216 pp., 2017. McFarland, wwww.mcfarlandpub.com/. $39.95 paperback.

Reviewed by Krista Castillo

and researchers have resurrected buried information offering new perspectives and fresh insights into one of history’s most researched wars.

Although Roger D. Hunt’s motivation is unclear, his Colonels in Blue series offers new life to a group of individuals often overshadowed by mythologized battles and leaders. Organized into volumes by region, the series serves as a biographical dictionary of individuals who achieved, but did not advance beyond the rank of colonel in the Federal army. Like the previous books in the series, the fourth volume, featuring colonels from Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia, is meticulously researched and organized.

In the spring of 1861, secession fever swept across the southern United States, cannibalizing the meager ranks of the regular army. President Abraham Lincoln faced the immense challenge of suppressing a growing rebellion with an estimated 5,000 officers and enlisted men. Although the Mexican War served as a proving ground for a number of future generals, few men of fighting age possessed military experience beyond that provided by loosely organized local militias. In addition to escalating the crisis, the president’s bold call for 75,000 loyal citizens for three months of service on April 15 initiated an enlistment process based on patriotic fervor, unbridled enthusiasm and social popularity, rather than on military experience.

To the detriment of early volunteer regiments, state governors tasked with meeting enlistment quotas appointed commanders more gifted in rallying men than in leading troops. Throughout the war, additional calls bolstered the ranks, and eventually able subordinates replaced the officers who failed to gain the necessary experience and leadership skills. By the war’s end, more than 2.6 million men and women had served in the Federal Army.

The vast scale of the war and the massive size of the military forces engaged generated mountains of data and documents scattered among various repositories. Over the past few decades, historians

Arranged by state, each section begins with a list of commanders in order by regiment, followed by each man’s biographical data in alphabetical order. Each biographical entry includes a general service record, personal data such as vital statistics, education, occupation, residences, and images when available. Although the title clearly highlights wartime service, Hunt further humanizes and affirms his deep interest in his subjects through the inclusion of postwar data. Shrouding the often messy process of research and data collection, Hunt’s sleek organizational style makes for easy reading. Even the most experienced researcher is sure to find unfamiliar gems hidden among his research and bibliographical notes. This handy reference is worthy of consideration by anyone with an interest in the Civil War-era Federal army.

Krista Castillo manages Fort Negley Visitors Center and Park in Nashville, Tennessee and serves as the president of the Nashville Civil War Roundtable. Fort Negley, built during the Federal occupation of Nashville, was the largest inland masonry fortification constructed during the war.

Definitive Book on the U.S. Model 1855 Rifle Musket

US Model 1855 Series of Small Arms. By John Willyard. Photos, endnotes, index, 224 pp., 2018. Mowbray Publishing, www.gunandswordcollector. com. $45.95 hardbound.

Reviewed by Craig L. Barry

the U.S. Model 1855 to evolve through a number of changes over its four years of production, 1857 to 1861.

book.

The U.S. Model 1855 rifle musket was so named because it was developed and approved in 1855 when Jefferson Davis was the U.S. Secretary of War. It holds an odd place in the history of American-made military arms. It was created during a transitional period of the mid-19th century, when new technologies and innovations were becoming feasible for military application. At that time the United States was not engaged in any major conflict. While all that was about to change dramatically in a few years, this lull in activity enabled

The most immediately noticeable characteristic of the U.S. Model 1855 small arm is a feature called the Maynard tape primer which resulted in a lock plate with a hinged door, a high hump and an arched hammer to fit around it. Maynard was a former West Point cadet and dentist by trade. In the mid-1840s he came up with the idea of “making primers of fulminating mixture to ignite by percussion…and secondly the mode of moving and measuring out the primers by the movement of the lock.” His notion was based on the premise that the act of priming the cone with a separate percussion cap was a major impediment under combat conditions. The original idea was used in the conversion of big bore flintlock muskets to the new percussion system beginning in the late 1840s. However, the Maynard tape primer was not a feature of the part-interchangeable .69 caliber U.S. Model 1842 smoothbore musket, although there was a prototype with a European-type back lock. It was also not a feature of the U.S. 1841 percussion rifle, which was originally .54 caliber. The odd lock primer design was instead reintroduced for the first generation of .58 caliber rifled arms, the socalled U.S. Model 1855 series of small arms and the subject of this

The U.S. Model 1855 has a kind of cult following today for several reasons. It looks different and yet because it was the direct predecessor of the U.S. Model 1861, at the same time much of it looks familiar. The barrel bands are held on with band springs, the bright finish on most of the iron parts (except the sight), the swelled ramrod with its tulip-shaped head, the arched hammer and the bolster with a cleanout screw.

The U.S. 1855 rifle muskets broadly fall into three (3) basic types.

1. Lock plate marked Springfield or Harpers Ferry 1857/8, with a walled (long range) ladder rear sight, and a brass nose cap.

2. Lock plate marked Springfield or Harpers Ferry 1858/9, with a solid base rear sight with three sighting leaves marked 1,3, 5 for yardage, and a brass (early/ transitional) or iron nose cap.

3. The same as #2, dated 1860/1 but with an iron nose cap only, and an iron patch box However, it is not unusual to encounter specimens that fall outside of these three broad categories or “types.” The author correctly points out that to fully understand these arms it is necessary to know how many were produced, as well as when, where and why they were made. It turns out there were quite a few more than the three broad variations listed above.

The author, John Willyard, has made a careful study of original correspondence (much of it unpublished) which sheds considerable insight into how and why various changes in the design were made. While it is fun to debate the idiosyncrasies found in original firearms, we must be mindful that we are looking back from a modern perspective. The armorers at Springfield and Harpers Ferry were not privy to subcategories and distinctions that we assign to their production now. The author uses the patience of a forensic detective to reconstruct production variations as well as the numbers stored at and shipped from the Springfield and Harpers Ferry Armories at different times. For example, as many have suspected, the quantity of arms traditionally reported as of Harpers Ferry 1861 production is somewhat inaccurate. Additionally, arms considered by collectors today as “transitional models” because of their lock and barrel dates were in fact partially finished production altered later when the supplies of the more current versions became exhausted.

For the valuable information contained, the many charts included in the appendices of this book are worth the very reasonable cover price all by themselves. In addition to the more commonly encountered rifle muskets, the author covers the rifles made at Harpers Ferry as well as

156th Gettysburg Battle Anniversary Reenactment & Living History Event

pistols, carbines, bayonets and cadet models. While virtually all of the U.S. Model 1855 series of small arms utilize the Maynard tape primer, the book includes the Springfield Armory Model 1855 rifle carbine, which does not. The 224 pages of text are supplemented with an extraordinary number (580) of high-quality color photos. The book that this most compares to is Claud E. Fuller’s classic, The Rifled Musket (1958). While the author does not state this specifically, I imagine that it was his intent for the book to create something along the lines of The Rifled Musket for the U.S. Model 1855 series of small arms.

The author points out his initial area of interest was with the U.S. Model 1861, and when he first encountered the earlier U.S. Model 1855, it piqued his interest and he began a lifetime of research which would culminate with the publication of this book. US Model 1855 Series of Small Arms ends (logically) with the destruction of the Harpers Ferry Armory in 1861, which is right about where The Rifled Musket continues the story.

The only criticism to offer here is the decision to use endnotes after the appendices instead of the much-preferred footnotes at the end of each chapter. This was ill-advised. Perhaps this reviewer is in the minority, but I read the footnotes and have often found that they contain important information that support and clarify the point made by the text. The endnotes here are crammed into two pages and treated as an afterthought to what is otherwise an excellent piece of research. Further, the endnotes are printed in such a tiny font as to almost require magnification to read. The publisher did, however, find enough room for three pages of color advertising at the end for their other books and magazines.

A former editor of The Watchdog Civil War Quarterly, Craig L. Barry currently writes the column “The Unfinished Fight,” published monthly in Civil War News. He has written four books as well as two volumes of essays on the material culture of the Civil War and two editions of The Civil War Musket: A Handbook for Historical Accuracy (2006, 2011).

A Deceiving Title

Lincoln’s Mercenaries: Economic Motivation among Union Soldiers during the Civil War. By William Marvel. Photos, illustrations, notes, bibliography, index, 360 pp., 2018. Louisiana State University Press, www.lsupress.org, $48 hardcover.

Reviewed by Joseph Truglio

an ample amount of documentation to press the premise home. In particular, he presents a plethora of letters sent home by soldiers to augment the point of the book. The result of this research is that financial stability is the sole, if not major reason, for enlistment. There is little mentioned about patriotism, abolition, or Union. I did feel that the presentation is more in tune to academics. This is a fact-based presentation and not in-step with other books by Mr. Marvel, which are told in a story mode.

I agree that money is a great motivator, particularly with lower-economic citizens, who made up the vast majority of enlistees. I am not sure I agree with the conclusions reached here, but do believe further study is warranted. This is the first serious attempt to broach this subject that I am aware of. It is little discussed in Civil War literature.

Something New in Civil War Prisoner of War Camp Historiography

Crossing the Deadlines: Civil War Prisons Reconsidered. Edited by Michael P. Gray. Illustrations, photographs, maps, tables, index, 272 pp., 2018. Kent State University Press, www. kentstateuniversitypress.com, $45 cloth.

Reviewed by Joseph A. Derie

Rails on Top Now”; “Black Union Guards and Confederate Prisoners of War”; and “Lost and Found on the Southern Side: The Resurrection of Camp Lawton.”

The editor and the authors of all the essays are specialists in their fields, public and private historians and archaeologists. As can be expected, their essays are knowledgeable, scholarly and extremely well researched, if at times a bit dry.

One niggling concern is the reference to the Civil War prisoner of war (POW) camps as prisons. A prison is designed to punish a person for a crime, a POW camp is not (although admittedly being incarcerated in a POW camp can feel like one is being punished, as the POW literature from the earliest writings attests.) The editor and authors accept the term Civil

War prison without questioning the appropriateness of its use.

Crossing the Deadlines brings new scholarship to a neglected area of the Civil War. Its best part is Part III, “Unearthing Material Culture, Resurrections and Reconciliation.”

This volume is not for everyone but will reward those with especial interest in the subject or those who want something different in their Civil War studies. It is recommended with those caveats.

Capt. Joe Derie is a longtime Civil War buff with a special interest in Civil War naval history and the Civil War in the West. He is a retired USCG officer and a licensed officer of the Merchant Marine, currently self-employed as a marine surveyor and marine accident investigator in Portland, Or.

According to Webster’s 7th New Collegiate dictionary, the definition of mercenary is “one who serves merely for pay.”

William Marvel presents a detailed case to prove this point. In 236 pages of text, divided into nine chapters, he attempts to drive this point home. Using charts to define the median income of each Northern state, he regales us with the economic motivation for Union soldiers’ enlistment. This is presented in the early chapters. Later chapters cover each year of the war, and the changing economic situation in the nation. The last chapter is a summation.

This is a well-written book with

This conclusion distresses me. Perhaps I am an old-school romantic but I have always felt that enlistees’ devotion to the Union was the prime motivator. I, as a student, need to delve further into this idea. I believe we need further studies with larger samples of demographic information on motivation.

That said, this is an intriguing study, worthy of consideration. My only reservation is the high cost of the book. I fear this will limit the audience and prevent it from getting the attention it deserves. Perhaps there will be an e-book or Kindle edition available.

Digital Issues of CWN are available by subscription alone or with print plus CWN archives at

The title of this volume has two meanings. Deadlines were lines parallel to, and some ten to fifteen feet back from, the interior of the walls of Civil War prisoner of war stockades which prisoners were not allowed to cross. This assisted the guards in keeping order by preventing prisoners from approaching the palisade and keeping them in a central area where they were easier to monitor. Deadlines can be seen most notably in Stalag Luft III, in the World War II movie epic The Great Escape.

The second meaning of the title is explained by the statement on the inside front flap of the dust jacket: “Crossing the Deadlines crosses those boundaries of old scholarship by taking on bold initiatives with new methodologies, filling a void in the current scholarship of Civil War prison historiography, which usually does not go beyond discussing policy and prison history.”

The volume is divided into three parts: Part I, “New Encounters, Sensing Nature, Society, and Culture in and out of Prison”; Part II, “Revelations in Retaliation, Race and the Repressed”; and Part III, “Unearthing Material Culture, Resurrections and Reconciliation.” Each part has three stand-alone essays discussing a relevant topic. Sample essays are: “Civil War Captives and a Captivated Home Front: The Rise of Prisons as Dark Tourist Attractions”; “De Bottom

Joseph Truglio, of Manchester, N.J., is president of the Phil Kearny Civil War Round Table.

Before making plans to attend any event contact the event host.

Deadlines for Advertising, Editorial or Events Submissions is the 20th of each month.

We strive to add all events submitted to us but do not guarantee that your event will be published. There is a 100 word maximum for each event. Email events to: ads@civilwarnews.com

March 23, Pennsylvania. Annual Grand Army Museum Luncheon

9130 Academy Rd. Philadelphia, Pa. “Lincoln’s Gamble: The Tumultuous Six Months that Gave America the Emancipation Proclamation and Changed the Course of the Civil War” by Historian Todd Brewster. For information; garmuslib@verizon.net; or 215-289-6484

March 29-30, Virginia. Civil War Show and Sale

The Northern Virginia Relic Hunters Assoc. will present its 47th annual Civil War show at the Fredericksburg Expo Center. The show will feature Civil War and World Wars I & II era relics, memorabilia along with a wide selection of antique guns and swords. Hours are 12 to 7 p.m. on Friday and 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturday. For information; contact Denny Chafin, 703-8552376 or civilwarshow@nvrha.com.

March 30, Pennsylvania. Civil War Preservation Ball

Pennsylvania State Capitol Rotunda, Harrisburg, Pa. 7 p.m. – 10 p.m..

Surrounded by the majesty and history of the Capitol Rotunda, the 16th Annual Civil War Preservation Ball benefits the Pennsylvania Gettysburg Monuments Trust. The trust helps fund repairs and maintenance of the more than 140 markers and monuments that honor Keystone State regiments and individuals on the Gettysburg battlefield. Sponsored by the Civil War Dance Foundation, the ball has raised nearly $100,000 to preserve the Pennsylvania monuments. Admission $35 single, $65 couple. For more information, visit CivilWarDance.org. Email: Info@CivilWarDance.org.

March 30-31, Tennessee. Civil War Show

52nd Mid-South Civil War and Military Show at the Agricenter Showplace Arena located at 105 S. Germantown Pkwy., Memphis. For information; Lee Ann Robertson at 662-279-0538, Sandy Parent at 901-652-7005, Don Harrison at 901-832-4708 or dharrison@aol.com.

April 1, New Jersey. Lecture

Walt Whitman’s enormous contribution to the Civil War will be the focus of this power point presentation. For three years Whitman tirelessly tended to the sick, wounded, and dying soldiers in Washington’s hospitals. The presentation will begin at 7 p.m. on the Blackwood campus of Camden County College. All are invited to the free presentation by Joseph F. Wilson that will take place in Civic Hall. Free parking. For info; joef21@aol.com.

April 6-7, Mississippi. Civil War Show

The 10th Annual Corinth Civil War Relic Show and Sale sponsored by the Col. W.P. Rogers, SCV Camp #321 will be held at the Crossroads Museum. Located at 2800 S. Harper Road exit on Hwy 45, just 1 mile south of Hwy 72 in Corinth, Miss., this show is expanded, larger and better than ever before. Sat. 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Sun. 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. For information; Dennis Brown, 662-212-4621/ducksu@frontier.net, Buddy Ellis, 662-665-1419/bellis@1960@ comcast.net or visit www.battleofcorinth.com.

April 6, Park Day at Fort Gaines

This annual event brings history enthusiasts together in an effort to help keep our nation’s heritage not only preserved but pristine. Volunteers will help preserve this important monument to honor the brave soldiers who fought and sacrificed in the American Civil War. Pre-register at the Fort Gaines is located at 51 Bienville Blvd. Dauphin Island, AL 36528, via facebook (fb.com/fort Gaines) or call 251-861-6992.

April 6, Virginia. Shenandoah University’s McCormick Civil War Institute in Winchester will host its annual spring conference from 8:30 a.m. – 4 p.m. “A House Divided...”: Dissent, Disagreement, and Subversion During the Civil War Era. Conference will focus on such topics as divisions within Jefferson Davis’ cabinet, Copperheads, Unionists in the Shenandoah Valley, and the ways John Brown’s raid created divisiveness. Presentations by historians Dennis Frye (Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, retired), Paul Quigley (Virginia Tech), Jennifer Weber (University of Kansas), and Jonathan Noyalas (Shenandoah University). Registration fee of $50 ($25 for students with valid id) covers all presentations and lunch. For information or to register visit www. su.edu/MCWI, call 540-545-7293, or email jnoyalas01@su.edu.

April 12-14, North Carolina. Symposium

22nd Annual Salisbury Confederate Prison Symposium sponsored by the Robert F. Hoke Chapter 78, UDC. Event begins on Friday with Friendship Banquet, 3 lectures, music, and recognition of veterans. On Saturday there will be 4 lectures, lunch, door prizes, displays and books. Sunday there is a 10 a.m. Memorial Service for prisoners at the Salisbury National Cemetery and an 11 a.m. Service for guards at the Old Lutheran Cemetery. Tour of Prison site after lunch. $70 per person when postmarked by Mar. 22, $80 afterwards. Send checks to Robert F. Hoke Chapter 78, UDC, PO Box 83, Salisbury, NC 28145. For info; Sue Curtis 704-637-6411, southpawsagain@gmail.com.

April 14, Pennsylvania. Annual Symposium

General George G. Meade – Life & Legacy will be held at the Conservatory at West Laurel Hill Cemetery in Bala Cynwyd. For information; Jerry McCormick 215-848-7753; ged-winmc@msn.com.

April 27-28, Alabama. Thunder on the Bay 2019

Come celebrate the upcoming 155th Battle of Mobile Bay Sponsored by the 6th Alabama Cavalry and the Alabama Division of Reenactors. Event will be held at Fort Gaines Historic Site, 51 Bienvile Blvd, Dauphin Island, Alabama 36528. Battle will be held Sat. at 2 p.m. and a surrender ceremony at 3 p.m. On Sunday, there will be a 1 p.m. tactical. For information; 251-861-6992, via facebook (fb.com/fort Gaines) or call 251-861-6992.

April 27, Illinois. Civil War Show and Sale

Zurko Promotions presents The National Civil War Collectors Spring Show and Sale which will be held at the DuPage County Fairgrounds in Wheaton. Hours: 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Admission is $9 – includes admission to the CADA Collector Arms Dealers Assoc. Show. For information; www.chicagocivilwarshow.com.

May 1-4, Maryland. 6th Annual National Ed Bearss Symposium on Military Leadership & Combat

Featuring Ted Alexander, Steve Bockmiller, Dr. Richard Sommers, Martin West & others based in Chambersburg, Pa. Special guest Edwin C. Bearss will also join us. Exploring American military history! Tours of the following: Civil War sites in southern Pennsylvania including Monterey Pass; military history sites in Washington County, Maryland, including the Hagerstown Aviation Museum; the Forbes Campaign of 1758 featuring stops at Fort Ligonier, Bushy Run Battlefield and more. Talks also given by the historians listed above. For info visit www.CivilWarSeminars.org.

May 4-5, New York. Artillery School

The 31st Annual Artillery School will take place, at Old Fort Niagara in Youngstown, New York. Open to all branches of service, both Federal and Confederate. Registration fee is $7. Sponsored by the National Civil War Artillery Association and Reynolds’ Battery L. For information; Rick Lake, rlake413@aol.com or 585-208-1839. Registration Forms and additional information can be found at: www.reynoldsbattery.org.

May 4-5, Ohio. Civil War Show and Sale

42nd Annual Ohio Civil War Show & 25th Annual Artillery Show at Richland County Fairgrounds, Mansfield, Sat. 9-5, Sun. 9-3. Living history, cannon firing, field hospital, music, demonstrations. $7 ages 12 up. Seven buildings – One Gate Admission, Food and Handicapped Facilities, 30-Gun Artillery Show – Indoor/Outdoor, 6-Gun Battery Firing Demonstrations, Sutler’s Row, Civil War Field Hospital by the Society of Civil War Surgeons. Period Church Service Sun. Morning with Period String Music, Abe Lincoln Live Presentations, Living History Campfire by Brigade of American Revolution, 8th Pennsylvania Regiment, Period Music by Camp Chase Fife & Drums. For info; call 419-884-2194; or visit the website www.ohiocivilwarshow.com.

May 17-19, Georgia. Reenactment

The 155th Anniversary “Battle of Resaca” reenactment will be held on over 650 acres of the original battlefield. This event will have main camps located within the original US and CS lines. Camping allowed in or near the breastworks. Amenities include straw, hay and firewood; food and ice on site. The planned activities include main battles both days at 2 p.m., period dance, medical demo’s, cavalry competition, ladies’ tea, civilian refugee camp, period church

services and a memorial service at the Confederate cemetery. Handicapped parking is available. A portion of the proceeds will be donated to the preservation efforts of the Friends of Resaca Battlefield, Inc. A $150 bounty will be paid to the first fourteen 57-inch cannon and crews registered by May 1st. Reenactor registration fee is $10 due by May 1. For more information, www.georgiadivision.org or Battle of Resaca, P.O. Box 0919, Resaca, GA 30735-0919.

May

17-19, Virginia. Period Firearms Competition

The North-South Skirmish Association 139th National Competition near Winchester. Over 3,000 uniformed competitors in 200-member units compete in live-fire matches with muskets, carbines, revolvers, mortars and cannon plus costume competitions and historical lectures. The largest Civil War live-fire event in the country. Free admission, large sutler area, and food service. For information; www.n-ssa.org.

May 18-19, Virginia, Reenactment

Come join us for the 155th Anniversary Battle of New Market Reenactment, the nation’s oldest continual reenactment fought on the original battlefield. Reenactment battles held at 2:30 on Saturday, May 18th and at 1:00 on Sunday the 19th. Learn about the action in which 257 Cadets from the Virginia Military Institute made the difference between victory and defeat. Be sure to visit the Virginia Museum of the Civil War, the historic Bushong Farm and don’t forget to stroll through the camps or buying that special 19th century item on Sutler’s Row. For information: https://www.vmi.edu/museums-and-archives/virginia-museum-of-the-civil-war.

May 26, Pennsylvania. Annual Memorial Day Observed at Historic Laurel Hill Cemetery

Recreating the Original G.A.R. Decoration Day Service of 1868: The traditional Decoration Day service of the Grand Army Meade Post #1 will be recreated at Historic Laurel Hill Cemetery, 3822 Ridge Ave. Philadelphia at 12 noon. For information; 215-228-8200.

June 1-2, Pennsylvania. Lehigh Valley Civil War Days

The 11th Camp Geiger Reenactment will be held at Whitehall Pkwy., Whitehall, Pa. There will be a battle reenactment each day. This will include fighting in trenches and a tactical. Living History Street. Medical demos, historical personages, children’s activities and more. Period music and speakers each day. Sat. evening period dance. Sutlers and food vendor will be on site to serve reenactors and spectators. Water & wood is provided. Ice & straw available for small fee. Sutlers by invitation only. Registration fees – $10 until May 15, $15 after May 15. Sutler fees – $50 until Apr. 15, $75 Apr. 15 – May 15. No sutler registration after May 15. For information and registration forms visit our website at www.friendsofcampgeiger.webs.com.

June 1-2, Virginia. 155th Anniversary – The Action at Wilson’s Wharf

Pocahontas was the site of the May 24, 1864 Action in which United States Colored Troops defended the fort they built against an assault by Fitzhugh Lee’s Confederate Cavalry. Open to the public 10-4 Sat. and 10-3 Sun. $10/adults, $8/students. Battle reenactments 1 p.m. both days. Civil War living history weekend including a dress parade, mortar demonstration and family activities. For reenactors: campsites with James River views, Proud Hound Commissary, Friday night Officer’s Social, Saturday night live music, artillery fire and tactical. Free T-shirts. Discounted early registration by May 24. www.fortpocahontas.org.

June 1-2, Pennsylvania. Civil War Event at Pennypacker Mills

Daily battle, artillery demonstrations, military encampments, Civilian Street demos, performance on Sat. by the 28th PA Regimental Brass Band, music & songs on Sun. by Matthew Dodd. Herb Kaufman will speak on Civil War medicine. Mansion tours, museum shop and food vendor onsite. Free to the public. $2/person until May 1. $10/ person after May 1. Under 16, Free. Sutlers’ fee $25.00. Free firewood, water, straw & cake on Sat. For information 610-287-9349. Registration forms at www.ppmcivilwar.org.

June 8-9, Mississippi. Civil War Relic Show

Brandon’s 5th Interactive Civil War Relic Show sponsored by SCV Camp #265 will be held at City Hall located at 1000 Municipal Drive, Brandon. For information; contact Tim Cupit at 769-234-2966 or timcupit@comcast.net.

June 29-30, Pennsylvania. Civil War Show

Sat. 10 a.m. - 5 p.m., Sun. 9 a.m. – 2 p.m. Eisenhower Hotel & Conference Center Allstar Expo Complex, 2638 Emmitsburg Road, Gettysburg. The Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association’s Artifact and Collector’s Show features more than 200 vendors and over 300 tables of artifacts, swords, firearms, correspondence, books, photographs, documents and much more. Daily admission: Adults: $8. Children 12 and under free. Vendors contact: bsynnamon@gmail.com or call 717-334-2350. For more information visit www.uniondb.com or www.gbpa.org. Email: info@gbpa.org.

July 23-28, Maryland. Conference, Antietam: The Bloodiest Day

Featuring Ted Alexander, Scott Hartwig, Tom Clemens, Carol Reardon, Dennis Frye, John Michael Priest, Steve Recker, John Schildt and others based in Hagerstown, Md. Join us for the largest Antietam conference ever held led by expert historians! Detailed battlefield walks and specialized tours of the campaign such as Crampton’s Gap, Harpers Ferry, the C&O Canal during wartime, the Battle of Shepherdstown and more. Talks also given by the historians listed above. The full itinerary & pricing available on www.CivilWarSeminars.org.

July 27-28, Tennessee. Civil War Show and Sale

American Digger® Magazine’s Chattanooga Civil War & Artifact Show, Camp Jordan Arena, 323 Camp Jordan Pkwy., East Ridge, Tenn. Info: 770-362-8671 or 716-574-0465; email anita@americandigger.com or kesmas@ localnet.com.

Aug. 3, Alabama. 155th Battle of Mobile Bay Commemorative Day

The well-preserved ramparts of Fort Gaines have guarded the entrance to Mobile Bay for more than 160 years. Now a fascinating historic site, the Fort stands at the eastern tip of Dauphin Island where it commands panoramic views of the bay and the Gulf of Mexico. The event highlights Fort Gaines integral role in the Battle of Mobile Bay. The cannon will be fired every forty-five minutes in honor of the soldiers that fought in this pivotal battle. A living history day for the whole family. Demonstrations will be held all day in the Fort’s Blacksmith Shop.

Aug. 10-11, Georgia. Civil War Show and Sale

41st Annual show in Marietta at the Cobb County Civic Center, 548 S. Marietta Parkway, S.E., Marietta, Ga. 30060, hosted by the North Ga. Relic Hunters. $5 for adults; kids free. For more information see our ad on this page or visit www.NGRHA.com.

Aug. 31 & Sept. 1, New York. Reenactment

Civil War Reenactment at Museum Village, 1010 State Route 17M, Monroe, NY 10950. Looking for reenactors. Application is available at www. museumvillage.org. For information; Contact Christine Egan, 845-782-8248, ext. 5.

Small Talk Trivia Answers

1. Christopher Columbus. The generals were Christopher Columbus Andrews (1829–1922) and Christopher Columbus Augur (1821–1898).

2. Amerigo Vespucci. The general was Americus Vespucius Rice (1835–1904).

3. George Washington, of course. The six were George Washington Cullum (1809–1866); George Washington Deitzler (1826–1884); George Washington Getty (1819–1901); George Washington Gordon (1836–1911); George Washington Custis Lee (1832–1913); and George Washington Morgan (1820–1893).

4. Benjamin Franklin. The officers were Benjamin Franklin Butler (1818–1893); Benjamin Franklin Cheatham (1820–1886); Benjamin Franklin Kelley (1807–1891); and Benjamin Franklin Potts (1836–1887).

5. Gustavus Adolphus. The namesakes were Gustavus Adolphus De Russy (1818–1891) and Gustavus Adolphus Smith (1820–1885). To be fair to the French emperor, another three Civil War generals had either “Napoleon” or “Bonaparte” as their first or second name.

6. Andrew Jackson. The three were Andrew Jackson Hamilton (1815–1875); Joseph Andrew Jackson Lightburn (1824–1901); and Andrew Jackson Smith (1815–1897).

7. Winfield Scott. The opposing pair were Winfield Scott Featherston (1820–1891) and Winfield Scott Hancock (1824–1886).

8. Thomas Jefferson. The namesake was Thomas Jefferson McKean (1810–1870).

9. John Quincy Adams. Union general Quincy Adams Gillmore was born in 1825, a week before President Adams was inaugurated.

10. Joseph (or Josef) Haydn. The officer was Joseph Haydn Potter (1822–1892).

Even Stonewall

- 1 year USA Print

- 1 year USA Print &

- 2 year USA Print

2 year USA Print & Digital

- 1 year Digital only

Terms and Conditions

The following terms and conditions shall be incorporated by reference into all placement and order for placement of any advertisements in Civil War News by Advertiser and any Agency acting on Advertiser’s behalf. By submitting an order for placement of an advertisement and/or by placing an advertisement, Advertiser and Agency, and each of them, agree to be bound by all of the following terms and conditions:

1. All advertisements are subject to acceptance by Publisher who has the right to refuse any ad submitted for any reason.

2. The advertiser and/or their agency warrant that they have permission and rights to anything contained within the advertisement as to copyrights, trademarks or registrations. Any infringement will be the responsibility of the advertiser or their agency and the advertiser will hold harmless the Publisher for any claims or damages from publishing their advertisement. This includes all attorney fees and judgments.

3. The Publisher will not be held responsible for incorrect placement of the advertisement and will not be responsible for any loss of income or potential profit lost.

4. All orders to place advertisements in the publication are subject to the rate card charges, space units and specifications then in effect, all of which are subject to change and shall be made a part of these terms and conditions.

5. Photographs or images sent for publication must be high resolution, unedited and full size. Phone photographs are discouraged.

6. At the discretion of Civil War News any and all articles will be edited for accuracy, clarity, grammar and punctuation per our style guide.

7. Articles can be emailed as a Word Doc attachment or emailed in the body of the message. Microsoft Word format is preferred. Email articles and photographs: mail@civilwarnews.com