Civil War News

28 O n the evening of January 7, 1863, U.S. Gen. Egbert B. Brown, Cmdr., Southwest Division, received word that an estimated 2,000 to 6,000 men of C.S. Gen. John S. Marmaduke’s First Corps, Fourth Division, Trans- Mississippi Army, had left Arkansas and were en route to attack his headquarters and supply depot in Springfield, Mo. A Good Thrashing “[In support of Col. Emmett MacDonald] a thousand warriors sprang to their feet, and, with one wild Missouri yell, burst upon the foe.” – Col Joseph O. Shelby, Mo. Cavalry. Brown was outnumbered. Between the 18th Iowa Infantry and the 3rd Missouri State Militia (M.S.M.), Brown had about 825 men, plus 1,000 sick and wounded in tent hospitals and several hundred convalescents camped north of town awaiting transportation. Brown was contemplating abandoning the town, which was 70 miles from Arkansas and the nearest Federal railroad 100 miles away. The military and civilian population objected. Beginning in August 1862, all able-bodied men had been required to work a portion of their time building four earthwork forts and performing the hard labor of digging the trenches that surrounded them. Furthermore, the town had changed hands more than once. Residents had returned based on the premise that the Federals would protect the large military supply depot intended to support the Army of the Frontier in Arkansas. While he mulled retreat, Brown prepared for battle. Messengers were sent, calling up the militia and detached companies in the surrounding area to Springfield. Men from the 18th Iowa were sent to occupy Forts No. 1 and 2. Detachments from the M.S.M. were stationed to watch the roads west, east, and south of town. From the supply depot, 50,000 army rations were moved into the fortifications. A concoction made of “oil, turpentine, shavings and other inflammables” was prepared to blow the arsenal and magazine if needed. Brigade Surgeon Samuel Henry Melcher and Col. B.O. Carr, Chief Quartermaster, Army of the Frontier, offered to assist Brown. Melcher suggested arming Fort No. 4 with the “three old iron guns, two 12-pounders and a 6-pounder, lying on the ground down by the Presbyterian church.” In the hospital, Lt. Joseph Hoffman, Sgt. Christian Mindener, and seven privates of the 1st Missouri Light Artillery were awakened to man the guns. Gun carriages were made from the front wheels of three army wagons; blocks and wedges were substituted for elevating screws. Ample ammunition was sent to the fort. The arsenal issued guns to anyone able to fight. Melcher canvassed the sick and wounded in the hospitals to find 300 men who could hold a gun. Hospital cooks prepared rations and packed grub and medicine in haversacks. Under the command of nurses, stewards, and disabled commissioned officers, the Quinine Brigade

Surgeon Samuel Henry Melcher. Colorization © 2025, civilwarincolor.com. (National Museum of Civil War Medicine) 5 “marched totteringly but bravely out to the skirmish line.” Throughout the night, the townspeople prepared their action plan. Residents left town or went to Fort No. 1, which had two bronze 6-pdrs. emplaced. Some readied to shelter in their cellars during the fight. Rebel sympathizers prepared feasts for Confederate officers. All hid their money and valuables. On the last day of 1862, Marmaduke entered Missouri unprepared for his “march for foray on the border’s side.” Battle victories had yielded control of Arkansas to the Union and decimated the Confederates’ supply chain. His men “were indifferently armed, … thinly clad, [and] marched without baggage wagons or cooking utensils.” Marmaduke had split his column into three. Marmaduke, with Col. Joseph O. Shelby’s 1,800 men and Lt. Richard A. Collins’s two-gun battery, went to Ozark. Col. Emmett MacDonald’s 200-man regiment went to destroy the Lawrence Mill Fort, and Col. Joseph C. Porter’s Arkansas Cavalry, 800 men, advanced to Hartville. Scouts reported that Springfield “with its rich army stores, was weakly garrisoned, though strongly fortified.” Couriers were sent to MacDonald and Porter to meet at Springfield for a surprise attack. At sunup, Marmaduke arrived. He reconnoitered on the outskirts of Springfield while waiting for MacDonald and Porter. Brown, observing his foe through binoculars, knew the Rebel headcount had been overblown. Brown committed to the fight. On January 8, the Battle of Springfield began about 10 a.m. after MacDonald arrived. The fight pitted Marmaduke’s 1,870 men against Brown’s 2,099 “irregular troops and militia.” The Confederates advanced from the south. The Federal skirmishers retreated toward Fort No. 4. Brown gave residents minutes to grab their possessions before ordering about ten houses burned that obstructed the gunners’ view. About noon, U.S. Col. Walter King, 3rd M.S.M., and Shelby’s men began galloping toward their opponents, rapidly firing their carbines, galloping back, turning around, and repeating the action. King broke the pattern by forming a defensive line near Fort No. 4, holding off Rebels probing the streets, looking for weakness. Collins dragged in his battery and “was soon banging away.” U.S. Lt. Joseph Hofman, 1st Missouri Light Artillery, recruited from the hospital, exchanged “metallic compliments” from Fort No. 2. MacDonald charged, facing houses west of Fort No. 4. The 4th M.S.M. countercharged, driving the Rebels back. Shelby’s men charged to support MacDonald, scattering the Federals. The Rebels advanced “from house to house Col. Joseph O. Shelby, C.S.A. Colorization © 2025, civilwarincolor.com. (Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield; WICR 31493) Col. Emmett MacDonald, Missouri State Guard, C.S.A. Colorization © 2025, civilwarincolor.com. (Missouri Historical Society) 6 MID SOUTH MILITARY HISTORY & CIVIL WAR SHOW March 6 & 7, 2026 Friday 1-6 PM • Saturday 9-5 PM LANDERS CENTER I-55 at Church Rd, EXIT 287, Southaven, MS 38671 QUALITY RELICS FROM THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION - VIETNAM ERA CONTACT Donald Harrison: [email protected] • 901-832-4708 Facebook.com/MilitaryHistoryCivilWarShow The South’s Oldest Military History Show ADMISSION: ADULTS $10 (2 day pass $15) • CHILDREN 12 & UNDER FREE 15 minutes from Downtown Memphis FOOD TRUCKS • LIVE MUSIC & MORE ! BOOKS DOCUMENTS CANNONS ANTIQUE BOTTLES WEAPONS CURRENCY UNIFORMS HISTORIANS & SPEAKERS RELICS RE-ENACTORS PHOTOS & PRINTS NATIVE AMERICAN ARTIFACTS S tephanie h agiwara is the editor for C ivil W ar i n C olor . C om and C ivil W ar i n 3D. C om . s he also writes a column for H istory i n F ull C olor . C om that covers stories of photographs of historical interest from the 1850 s to the present .

USCC Massacre at Simpsonville, Kentucky Historical Marker #2283 in Shelby County. 9 For current events visit CivilWarEvents.com A closeup of the headstones. c harles h . b ogart has a ba from t homas m ore u niversity and an mcp from o hio s tate u niversity . h e is employed as a tour guide at the f ort b oone c ivil w ar b attle s ite in f rankfort , k y ., p ast - p resident of the f rankfort c ivil w ar r oundtable , and is a board member of the k entucky c ivil w ar r oundtable . h e has written several books and articles on military and naval history . wandering over the countryside. He stated that he would offer to help round up the cattle but lacked proper boots for working in the snow. Flint gave the partisan his boots so he could direct the men of Company E in rounding up the cattle. As the man left Flint, he told him that as soon as half of the cattle were rounded up, he would send them off to Louisville under the control of some of Company’s E men. This suggestion met with Flint’s approval. After eating his breakfast at the farmhouse, Flint rode into Simpsonville to purchase new boots. While he was in the general store trying on boots, Simpsonville was attacked and captured by Taylor’s Confederates. Flint hid in the store during the attack and avoided capture. After looting the town, the Confederate raiders rode off to attack some of the Fifth located two miles west of Simpsonville. Taylor’s men attacked on horseback, firing their revolvers at the men of E Company 5th USCC. The attack overwhelmed the men of E company who were unable to dismount and load their guns. The men of Company E were either killed during the attack or shot after they surrendered. All reports agree the men of Company E surrendered after failing to put up any resistance. Some 39 men of E Company were either killed or wounded in this attack. It appears the Confederates shot every member of the 5th USCC they encountered, treating them as armed slaves in rebellion. Official records state that while no Confederate was wounded in the action, 19 USCC soldiers were killed and 20 USCC soldiers were wounded, of whom four later died. After the War, Taylor boasted of killing the 5th USCC soldiers at Simpsonville and, for that matter, other Union men during the war. He was never tried for war crimes and lived post war as a respectful citizen. The 5th USCC dead found on the battlefield were interred by the citizens of Simpsonville in a hastily dug grave. A number of searches have been conducted to find this mass internment, but none have been successful. Recent investigation of the Simpsonville Massacre suggests that the members of the 5th USCC who were killed are buried near the present memorial and plans are ongoing to investigate the site. In 2010, Simpsonville area citizens banded together to create a memorial to recognize the sacrifice of the men of E Company 5th USCC. A 100-foot-long by 10-foot-wide plot of land on the south side of US 60 near the battle site was chosen. The monument consisted of a flagpole, historical marker, tablets explaining what happened, and 19 gravestones in two rows. Engraved in each gravestone is the wording “In memory of XXX, Private Co E 5th U S Col’d Cav, Civil War, January 25, 1865.” The suspected burial site is a few

N-SSA celebrates its 75th Anniversary with History, Competition and Camaraderie T he North-South Skirmish Association (N-SSA) held its 152nd National Competition October 3-5, 2025 at Fort Shenandoah near Winchester, Va. Member units compete in live-fire matches with original or authentic reproduction Civil War period muskets, carbines, breech loading rifles, revolvers, mortars and cannon. It is the largest Civil War event of its kind in the United States. In celebrating the 75th Anniversary of skirmishing, the N-SSA owes a great debt of gratitude to two remarkable men, without whose perseverance, determination and love of black powder shooting, the sport might never have existed; Jon L. “Jack” Rawles and Ernest W. “Pete” Peterkin. What originally brought them together was a photograph printed in the October 1949 issue of Muzzle Blasts , the official The 110th Ohio Volunteer Infantry took the gold medal in the rifle musket match. They are a consistent winner of this competition, with their skill, practice, and ability to clear targets quickly. Here, their eight-person team fires at 16 hanging clay pigeons, one of the five events in this company match. (Ericka Curley) 11 19th CENTURY LIVING HISTORY! James Country MERCANTILE 111 N. Main Liberty, MO 64068 816-781-9473 • FAX 816-781-1470 www.jamescountry.com Ladies – Gentlemen Civilian – Military • Books • Buttons • Fabrics • Music • Patterns • Weapons Mens, Ladies and Children’s • Civilian Clothing • Military Clothing • Military Accessories • Accoutrements Everything needed by the Living Historian! Our Clothing is 100% American Made! The home of HOMESPUN PATTERNS © Rob Bethke of the 3rd Maryland Artillery fires his .44 caliber, 1858 Remington in the team revolver competition. Muzzle blast and percussion cap fragments necessitate the dividers between each shooter of the four-person revolver teams. Sixty- eight teams competed in four events to clear their breakable targets in the least amount of time. (Niki Bethke) magazine of the National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association. One of the illustrations for an article on the opening of the Berwyn (MD) Rod & Gun Club showed Pete wearing a Union shell jacket and kepi while firing his Model 1863 Springfield rifle musket (which he had purchased nine years earlier for $5). That picture caught the eye and sparked the imagination of confirmed Southerner, Jack Rawles. Soon, Jack and Pete began to correspond. They soon learned they were kindred spirits, sharing a love of muskets and American history. Together they planned the first “shoot,” which took place as part of the Berwyn Gun Club’s annual match on May 28, 1950…and what was to be the North- South Skirmish Association was born. Today, the N-SSA is the country’s oldest and largest Civil War shooting sports organization with 3,000 individuals that make up its 200 member units. Each unit represents a Civil War regiment or unit and wears the uniform they wore over 160 years ago. The 152nd was another great national for the 110th Ohio Volunteer Infantry (OVI) winning three team matches and finishing second in another. They won the musket team match with a terrific time of 379.8 seconds for the five- event program. One hundred fifty-four teams participated in this N-SSA signature match of speed and accuracy. The 9th Virginia Cavalry won the carbine team match, besting the 110th OVI by 17.9 seconds. The 110th OVI won with a narrow 7.6 second margin in the smoothbore musket team match, defeating 134 other four-member teams. The 21st Virginia Infantry won another even narrower 4.2 second victory in the revolver match while beating 67 other teams. The 110th OVI took their third gold medal by winning the single-shot breech loading rifle match

M any American grocers in the mid-19th century began their business in the tea trade. The Antebellum United States was predominantly rural and agrarian. If food prices rose too high, farmers would plant and grow their crops or do without. However, this was not the case with tea, as it could not be successfully grown or was not widely cultivated in America, and it was challenging to find a substitute or do without. Despite the rise of coffee drinking, a significant tea culture persisted in America. This gave merchants a degree of leverage when it came to tea. In the late 1850s, a pound of tea sold at retail for the princely sum of $1. Two Maine men, George Hartford and George Gilman, were operating a finished leather goods shop in New York City. Although both were from Maine, paradoxically, they met in Missouri, decided to work together, and opened shop in New York City in 1856. In 1859, they recognized the potential for profit by buying tea wholesale at $1.75 per five pounds, directly from the Clipper ships it arrived on, and then retailing it at a discounted price. The strategy was two- fold: first, to cut out the middleman, and second, to make up for the volume that they surrendered with their lower profit margins. Coffee gained a foothold in post-colonial America when it became unfashionable to drink Tea due to British taxation and their monopolistic control of supply channels, as seen in the Boston Tea Party. However, comparing coffee to tea is difficult purely on a volume basis because a pound of tea goes much farther than a pound of coffee. In addition, they targeted middle-class New Yorkers instead of going after the more fashionable “carriage trade” made up of the city’s upper crust, which was not as price- sensitive. In this, they were shrewd, as the middle class was surging by the late 1850s, and so was the demand for affordable luxury goods. They opened a warehouse at 31-33 Vesey Street, in a location that was “…filled with tea, coffee and grocery houses. The competition is so brisk so that some stores employed solicitors who stand on the street and invite “8 O’CLOCK BREAKFAST COFFEE. ” The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (Library of Congress) 17 passers-by to step in and purchase. For this reason, goods are generally sold cheaper in Vesey Street than in any other part of the city.” Competitors claimed the Great American Tea Company’s prices were so low because they added adulterants to their tea products, which, of course, they did. And, in likelihood, so did all of their competitors. The Pure Food & Drug Act was not passed into law until fifty years postbellum. It was noted that “if this could be done so successfully with tea…it could be done with other lines of goods of universal demand.” This was soon to be proved correct by those merchants filling Civil War contracts. By the early 1860s, the Great American Tea Company had expanded into the coffee trade, a market that the U.S. Civil War generated significant demand for. Great American filled Union orders for coffee, which were later found to be adulterated with chicory. This is not as shocking as it sounds since the U.S. Government “… was sold thousands of pounds of something called essence of coffee which often did not contain any coffee at all.” This was true. Another study of suppliers from Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore found that 255 out of 376 suppliers filled orders with adulterated coffee. The essence of coffee was easily adulterated,

He Has A Great Work for Me to Do T his article focuses on the women who ministered to sick and wounded soldiers in the Civil War. From the moment war became a reality, women sought roles supporting the military. Some tasks (like sewing uniforms and knitting socks) could be meshed with home routines. But this level of activity was not enough for some. Hannah Ropes, who later served as a Civil War nurse, expressed her frustration with traditional female roles in an 1853 letter, “… why did you give this homely hen the wings of an eagle? Behold they flap heavily against her sides, for the want of proper use – and fret away the life which as yet finds no fit element, or finding, cannot, dare not, accept.” 1 With her only living son away at war, widow Rebecca Pomroy found herself living alone, and decided God was giving her an opportunity to nurse soldiers. She wrote to Miss Dorothea Dix, Superintendent of Army Nurses, offering her services on a Thursday. She received a response on Monday and started work at Georgetown Hospital on Thursday. She continued serving in Georgetown (and later Columbia) hospital through the end of the war. “I am very happy in mind, still have hold of my Saviour’s hand, and believe he has yet a great work for me to do.” 2 At the outset of the war, both U.S. and C.S. g o v e r n m e n t s anticipated an expeditious end t o h o s t i l i t i e s and made little preparation or a r r a n g e m e n t s for medical care of soldiers. Both eventually adopted systems of providing immediate care as and where possible, then (when feasible) removing soldiers to field hospitals in improvised facilities until they could be transported to larger and more permanent general General Hospital: Armory Square Hospital, Washington, D.C. 23 and convalescent hospitals. Many women who served as nurses did so in general hospitals, though some (including those who served on hospital transports) experienced field- hospital conditions. A much larger number ministered to sick and wounded soldiers in their homes. Only a small number of women provided any sort of immediate nursing assistance during battles or on actual battlefields. Traditionally, women were trained from childhood to provide health and medical care for family and friends. By the Civil War, a small handful of women had received formal training in medicine, but it was very unusual for women to imagine they would ever nurse anyone other than a personal friend or family member. The primary exceptions to this were Catholic nuns and others in religious orders with a mission to provide nursing care. Many Catholic nuns nursed soldiers during the war, and in some cases (as with the Visitation Convent in Frederick, Md.), even brought wounded soldiers into a cloistered compound. The rumor that women of ill repute worked in hospitals did nothing to improve the reputation of women nurses, and led to much suspicion about the sort of woman who might want to be nurses during the Civil War. Against this cultural backdrop, early in the war, Miss Dorothea Dix was appointed “Superintendent of Army Nurses” with a mission to develop and implement a program to recruit, train, employ and assign nurses for general hospitals. Her strict rules on age, appearance and deportment were intended to counter negative public opinions of women nurses. The Confederacy never developed an official or federal army nurse organization, but women found employment in general

McAllister Southern Sentinel on Georgia’s Ogeechee River Brandt Backus. This 32-pounder smoothbore cannon is positioned in an emplacement overlooking the Ogeechee River. Ogeechee riverfront in front of the fort. (Bob Ruegsegger photos) 29 F ort McAllister on the Ogeechee River near Savannah, Georgia, was an invincible Confederate stronghold during most of the American Civil War. The bastion’s sturdy earthen bulwarks and heavy artillery proved to be a challenging coastal defense against threatening Federal gunboats and ironclads. After repelling numerous intense Union naval assaults, the Georgia fort gained a well-deserved reputation for being nearly invulnerable, until December of 1864. “Fort McAllister was essentially a backdoor area for Savannah. This place guarded the Ogeechee rivers,” said Brandt Backus with Georgia State Parks and Historic Sites. “It wouldn’t lead you directly to Savannah, but it would lead you to within shooting distance,” he noted. “This ended up being a supply depot for the Confederacy. On top of that, it was meant to be a shield to keep the Union from coming in.” The bastion’s unique design, strategic location, and earthen fortifications helped absorb the impact of cannon fire much better than traditional brick or stone walls. It gave Confederate soldiers a distinct advantage. Thick earthen bulwarks, bombproof shelters, and revetments supported by wood protected the artillerists at Fort McAllister. With its riverine position, battery placement, hot shot furnace, and rifled cannon, the outpost on the Ogeechee River was intimidating, especially to Union gunboats and ironclads. After Union troops vanquished the Confederate defenders in December 1864 in a brief but intense struggle, the fall of the Confederate stronghold cleared the route for General Sherman’s capture of Savannah to wrap up his famous March to the Sea. In June 1861, the Dekalb Rifles began the construction of Confederate coastal defenses on Strathy Hall, Joseph McAllister’s plantation. Fortifications built with slave labor protected the entrance of the Ogeechee River from Union warships. The original battery on the river’s Genesis Point included four gun emplacements, an artificer’s shop, a hot shot gun and furnace, and a 10-inch mortar. Confederate artillerymen permitted only friendly ships to pass Fort McAllister after Fort Pulaski capitulated to Federal forces in April 1862. Fort McAllister’s guns prevented Union warships from sinking the Confederate side-wheeled steamer Nashville , originally commissioned as the privateer Rattlesnake in 1862. “CSS Nashville was a blockade runner the Confederates used quite often to get through the Union blockades,” said Backus who has worked at Fort McAllister for four years. “The Union figured out early in the war that if they could keep supplies from getting in they would cripple the Confederacy.” 30 b ob r uegsegger ’ s assignments fre Q uently take him to historic sites throughout v irginia , the m id - a tlantic , and the s outheast . h is favorite haunts include sites within v irginia ’ s h istoric t riangle —J amestown , y orktown , and w illiamsburg . b ob served briefly in the u . s . n avy . h e is a retired educator and has been an active newspaper J ournalist for over 25 years . In January 1863, the ironclad USS Montauk fired on Fort McAllister for five hours resulting in no substantial damage. The ironclad attacked the fort again the next month. A Union shell struck a cannon trunnion and the detached fragment struck Major John B. Gallie, the commanding officer, killing him instantly. Otherwise the attack caused little damage. Interior of Fort McAllister. CSS Nashville and USS Montauk exhibit. Location where Major John B. Gallie was killed. “What happened here was

Grand Strategy: General Robert E. Lee. Scholars focused on Lee tend to find his grasp of grand strategy lacking. (Virginia Museum of History and Culture) 33 I t is safe to say that, aside from President Abraham Lincoln, no other figure from the Civil War era has been the subject of more books and articles than General Robert E. Lee. A quick search of his name on Amazon.com yields over 1,000 results, most of which are publications from the last 40 years, reflecting Amazon’s recency bias. In contrast, searching the same term in the Library of Congress’s catalog produces over 44,000 books and pamphlets. There are 1,705,035 total records available online from the Library of Congress when searching for “General Robert E. Lee.” Many of these entries are likely duplicate editions, but even with repetitions, the main point remains: Robert E. Lee has attracted considerable attention over the years. This overwhelming focus on Lee has decisively shaped Civil War Studies. If an author is writing about the 1862– 1865 campaigns in the East, General Lee’s decisions take center stage. Crossing the Potomac into Maryland? Lee decided that. Entering Pennsylvania in the summer of 1863? Robert E. Lee made that decision as well. Gary W. Gallagher, an emeritus in the subject, has even called Lee’s ascension to command of the Army of Northern Virginia one of the war’s turning points. Lee’s presence on the historical scene is so unavoidable, in fact, that it overshadows the roles played in the war by nearly everyone else. One of the lasting effects of this Lee-centricity has been to overlook the influence of Jefferson Davis on Confederate military operations. Historians who have examined the Lee- Davis relationship, such as Steven E. Woodworth, Alan T. Nolan, Thomas L. Connelly, Christian Keller, and others, tend to argue that Davis and Lee differed on the importance of offensive versus defensive action. Davis usually comes away from these scholarly evaluations as having favored assuming a defensive posture, while the audacious Lee always sought to go on the attack. The eminent British military historian J.F.C. Fuller summarized this thesis as follows: “President Davis…had no grand strategy beyond a rigid defensive;” while Alan Nolan concluded, “it was Lee, not Davis, who proposed and initiated the movements of Lee’s army, movements that brought on its battles, including the Maryland campaign and Gettysburg.” 1 Zeroing in on Lee necessarily forces scholars to inquire about the general’s grand strategic vision, and on this score, he is usually found wanting. Judged as too focused on taking the war to the enemy, Lee is portrayed as squandering the Confederacy’s limited wealth and manpower on campaigns he could not win. Costly attacks inspired by Lee’s audacity, such as those at Malvern Hill and Gettysburg, are seen as illustrations of the general being out of touch with the limited resources available to him, leading to the conclusion that the Confederacy simply could not sustain the effort required for the type of war Lee fought. George A. Bruce, a prominent military historian writing more than 100 years ago, offered the following observation on the subject. His thinking still applies today: The population of the Confederate States was little less than half that of the Northern States. If the resolution of one was equal to that of the other, it would be easy to calculate the end of a war where the losses on each side in every context were equal. To illustrate, if a manufacturer or merchant worth a million dollars should enter into a trade warfare with a competitor worth two millions, and so aggressively carry it on

“Invited to Face Death on the Battlefield” T he Union victory in the Battle of Roanoke Island represented a significant threat to the Confederacy, effectively opening eastern North Carolina to invasion and securing control over Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds. The battle was accomplished with relatively few casualties and propelled Union General Ambrose Burnside into the national spotlight. Numerous accounts of the encounter exist from the over 10,000 Union soldiers who took part in the amphibious assault on the island. Among these is a narrative penned by twenty-four-year-old Joseph Herman Vaill of Company E, 8th Connecticut Infantry, who, alongside his comrades, was confronted with the reality of their first engagement in combat. Roanoke Island Sunday P. M. 9:30 o’clock February 9th 1862 Dear Father, You are probably all quiet in church at this present writing, little dreaming of what I have seen and heard for the last eight and forty hours. All is quiet just now and I have begged half a sheet of paper to write to you about our present situation and of the events of the past few days. On Wednesday morning the 5th, we weighed anchor and brought up the rear of the fleet. We were on the Propeller “ Sentinel ” carrying 4 guns and being in the 3rd Brigade, were ordered to the rear as guard. The weather was fine but rather cool and it was thought that we would reach our destination by 4 p. m. and have warm work before sundown. But our boys were in good spirits and every man was ready to do his duty. At about 4 or 5 p. m. we dropped anchor in the rear of the fleet and about 10 miles from the island. The weather came on thick at evening with rain. The Sentinel and Chasseur were put back about a mile to guard the fleet in the rear and several small gunboats sent ahead to sound and reconnoiter. The next morning we did not move but the small boats were in advance to lookout the ground. Friday morning the 7th, orders were to move on and so we did—the gunboats in the advance. At about 10 a. m., we saw smoke several miles up the channel which we took to be from the enemy on shore. For an hour or so, firing commenced in earnest from our gunboats and was answered quite rapidly from a fort on shore and by rebel gunboats above the fort. The rebels had previously obstructed the channels by driving in spiles so that our gunboats could not go by the fort without passing directly under the fort. During the whole afternoon the firing was continual by our vessels and answered less rapidly as the day wore on. A dense cloud of black smoke told us that the fort was on fire. Joseph Herman Vaill was promoted to quartermaster sergeant on May 28, 1862; promoted to 1st sergeant on Feb. 20, 1864; transferred to the 2nd Battalion, Veteran Reserve Corps on May 18, 1864; and mustered out on Sept. 20, 1864. (Matthew E. Reardon collection) 43 We were anxious to have the Sentinel go ahead and take part in the bombardment but unfortunately the boat was used as a water boat—making fresh water from salt—so that Gen. Burnside was afraid of her being disabled so left her as rear guard to the fleet. The transports were about 3 miles from the fort and at about 3 or 4 o’clock, the troops began to land on the island about 2 miles below the fort. Small steamers would take a load of soldiers

in Charleston Crisis in Charleston E very reader of Civil War News knows what happened at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. Everybody knows that Maj. Robert Anderson, U.S.A., commanding at Fort Moultrie, moved the garrison to Sumter in December 1860. Everybody knows that there was a failed attempt by President Buchanan to resupply and reinforce the garrison. Everybody knows that, after Lincoln took office, a second attempt was planned and launched. Everybody knows that on April 12, 1861, the Confederates under Brig. Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard began to bombard Sumter from a ring of shore batteries. Everybody knows that Anderson surrendered after a 34-hour bombardment. What else does everybody know? That I cannot say, but recently I had occasion to read some details about the evacuation of Fort Moultrie, the transfer of the garrison to Fort Sumter, and the subsequent goings on at the fort, in Charleston and in Washington between December 1860 and April 1861. I learned that there was a great deal I did not know about Sumter and the start of hostilities. In this column, I will write about some of these things. On November 15, 1860, Anderson was ordered to take command at Fort Moultrie on Sullivan’s Island. Like nearly all coastal fortifications, this fort was not ready for war. The larger one in the harbor, Fort Sumter, was unfinished after three decades of on-again-off-again construction. The neglect was understandable: no enemy had threatened the Atlantic or Gulf coasts for nearly forty years. Circumstances changed during the 1860 presidential campaign. South Carolina threatened secession if Lincoln won the election. When he did, it was certain that the threat was not an idle one. The hour was near. The fort on Sullivan was all but indefensible. It was designed, of course, to repel an attack from the sea. Its land side faced what was quite naturally assumed to be friendly territory. Sand dunes blown against the walls made a convenient ramp to the top. Nearby houses made perfect positions for riflemen firing into Moultrie’s interior. The garrison was a small peacetime force, not one beefed up for defense. As the tension mounted during the fall, the garrison’s engineer, General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard. (NARA) Interior of Fort Moultrie during the war. (Library of Congress) Interior of Fort Moultrie, same view, in 2018. (Jack W. Melton Jr.) 47 Capt. John Foster, did much to bolster the position, but a determined assault by South Carolina troops or even a mob would succeed. Anderson’s orders from the Buchanan administration were not models of clarity. On December 11, he was ordered (verbally by a messenger, Lt. Col. D.C. Buell) to defend his position “to the last extremity.” At the same time, he was told that he should not expose the lives of his men “in a hopeless conflict.” He was “to avoid every act which would needlessly tend to provoke aggression.” In addition to holding Fort Moultrie, he was ordered to keep possession of Castle Pinckney and Fort Sumter in the harbor. In the face of “immediate necessity,” he was authorized to move the entire garrison to either of the other two forts “to increase its power of resistance.” In late December, after South Carolina seceded and as tensions increased, the commander judged that the only way to increase his power of resistance was to move everything and everybody to Sumter. Numerous signs, including a direct warning from James Petigru, a respected Charlestonian and probably the only Union man in town, 1 convinced Anderson that it was time to act. He chose Christmas Day. After a weather-induced delay, he put his plan

, Ph.D. I cracked the book open carefully, conscious of its old spine. I didn’t know what shape its pages might be in, either. The book, an edition of Dennis Hart Mahan’s Treatise on Field Fortification that dated back to 1860, had some years on it. The cover had the weight of a relic under my fingertips. Under any conditions, this book would be a find. Sure, one can easily find it on Archive.org if one wants to read it. I can’t imagine too many people are planning attacks on 19th-century fortifications, though, so I don’t know how much of a readership it might have these days, but the book, first published in 1836, is one of those foundational texts The Book of General Stevenson that influenced the generation of Civil War officers and the way they waged war. I certainly won’t read this book. It’s too old, too fragile, too meaningful. Once upon a time, the book was a gift from Francis Bush Jr., a regimental quartermaster with the 44th Massachusetts who wrote his name and offered his compliments on the first page. Bush was “a most faithful and diligent officer in a very harassing branch of military service, and secured the hearty good-will of his comrades by his frank and obliging ways,” attests the regimental history of the 44th. Bush has inscribed the book to “Capt. T. G. Stevenson.” That’s “Thomas Greely Stevenson,” for whom my wife’s business, Stevenson Ridge in Spotsylvania, Virginia, is named. The ridgeline from which Stevenson Ridge gets its name runs from the north side of modern State Route 208, where the business is located, to the south side. On the morning of May 10, 1864, Stevenson—then a brigadier general commanding a division in Ambrose Burnside’s IX Corps— died during the battle of Spotsylvania Court House. He had inspected his line, then taken refuge behind that ridge with his staff, settling down for a late breakfast (or, some say, an early lunch) when a random overshot from beyond the crest of the ridge arced down and hit him in the head. “I heard the bullet strike with a peculiar dull thud as if striking in a pumpkin,” a staff member attested. This book, which I now have, once belonged to Stevenson, who had written his name and original unit, the 24th Massachusetts, on the inside front cover. He signs the book as “Col.” At the bottom of the page, he has signed it as “Brig. Gen. of Vols.” Stevenson’s 24th Massachusetts and Francis Bush’s 44th Massachusetts both served in the same brigade, which Stevenson commanded beginning in November 1862 following his promotion to brigadier. But what interests me is that Bush first inscribes the book to “Capt.” Stevenson. Stevenson had once served as a captain of the New England Guards, a Massachusetts militia unit that dated all the way back to 1812. Stevenson had served as the unit’s adjutant and then, in 1861, as a captain, as its commander. The Guards served as the wellspring for both the 24th and 44th, suggesting to me that Stevenson and Bush served in the militia together. The book is still so new to me, so I still have much to research, but this is my initial guess, anyway. I’ve spent a considerable amount of time with Stevenson over the past thirteen years, since marrying into the family “I HEARD THE BULLET STRIKE WITH A PECULIAR DULL THUD AS IF STRIKING IN A PUMPKIN,” A STAFF MEMBER ATTESTED. Quartermaster Frank Bush Jr. of the 44th Massachusetts ( 44th Mass. Regimental History ) 51 Brig. Gen. Thomas Greely Stevenson

A mericans tend to forget that politics in America has always been a blood sport. They also forget that America once held a presidential election in the midst of a bloody and tragic rebellion that claimed more than 700,000 lives. The election of 1864 pitted a beleaguered sitting president against a General-in-Chief he had previously “hired” and then “fired.” Major General George B. McClellan had been chosen by the Democratic Party to run against incumbent Abraham Lincoln. New York City printer, publisher, and anti-Lincoln agitator, George W. Bromley, used the power of his press to attempt to defeat Lincoln in the crucial election. Information on Bromley is scant. We do know that brothers George W. and Walter S. Bromley operated at 243 Broadway, New York, as civil engineers and publishers of county atlases. According to American print scholar and collector, Harry Peters, “Bromley and Co. were publishers of political caricatures, including ‘Political Caricature No. 2 Miscegenation or the Millenium of Abolitionism, New York, 1864,’ a strong anti-abolition caricature showing Lincoln and other white characters mingling on terms of social equality with negroes. Bromley made many caricatures during the Civil War period.” 1 In that election year, it appears that Bromley published at least four anti-Lincoln caricatures, three of which are in the Library of Congress, uncolored and in original black and white. Two are featured here. The Amon Carter Museum of Western Art in Fort Worth reports that “Bromley & Company…did several anti-abolition cartoons during the Civil War.” The museum holds a hand-colored copy of Political Caricature No. 4 which, “ridicules a Lincoln campaign ball, showing blacks and whites dancing together and in various stages of embrace. Some political leaders left the room before the ball began, says Bromley, but many stayed for the party. This print, he claims, is a ‘perfect facsimile of the room, etc., etc.’” 2 Bromley’s diatribes are an explosive potpourri of racist, political, and social commentary. “Simple emblems and symbols, and more or less complex allegories, not used in the first instances with humorous intent, were the raw materials of the early American graphic humorist,” wrote William Murrell in 1933. He characterized early caricatures as containing “a touch of exaggeration…here, a touch of the incongruous there, and that which began with solemn admonition rapidly developed into ridicule and burlesque.” 3 Bromley’s prints were the epitome of Murrell’s description. They conjured up images of “miscegenation”—a racist trope which animated anti-Lincoln supporters. It is unknown who the original artist of these inflammatory images is, but he or she portrayed a “ludicrous vision of the supposed consequences of racial equality in America” and attacked “the Republican espousal of equal rights.” Political Caricature #2 Miscegenation or the millennium of abolitionism takes place in a park and features Charles Sumner, Horace Greeley, Henry Ward Beecher and, of course, Lincoln. “Miscegenation” was a term first used in the 1864 election designed to accuse Lincoln and the Republican Party of fostering the intermingling of the races. It consists of five explosive tableaus showing African American caricatures talking with Lincoln, dining together, riding in a carriage together, embracing each other, and intermarrying. Not content with portraying emancipated blacks, the artist also lampoons immigrants. “A German onlooker (far right) remarks, ‘Mine Got. vat a guntry, vat a beebles!’ A well- dressed man with a monocle exclaims, ‘Most hextwadinary! Aw neva witnessed the like in all me life, if I did dem me!’ 55 Figure 1. Political Caricature. No. 2, Miscegenation or the millennium of abolitionism. (Library of Congress) An Irishwoman pulls a carriage holding a black baby and complains, ‘And is it to drag

President-Central Virginia Battlefields Trust Commemorating “The Battle of Spotsylvania Court House” Amidst History, Fellowship, and the Pursuit of Legacy B eneath an expanse of clear, generous September skies, the Central Virginia Battlefields Trust (CVBT) convened its Annual Conference over the weekend of September 11th through the 14th. The weather’s golden embrace seemed almost providential, as though the landscape itself recognized the gravity and warmth of the gathering, a company of history lovers, preservationists, and descendants connected by a shared devotion to the hallowed grounds of the Civil War. The conference adopted as its central theme the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House, a clash whose memory endures in the American psyche as one of the Civil War’s most relentless and tragic engagements. CVBT has preserved over 200 acres of endangered battlefield land in Spotsylvania to date. Fought from May 8 to May 21, 1864, Spotsylvania was a crucible in which General Ulysses S. Grant’s Union Army of the Potomac and General Robert E. Lee’s Confederate Army of Northern Virginia clashed in a protracted, brutal campaign. It became known as “A Season of Slaughter,” encapsulating the ferocity, determination, and grinding attrition that characterized the Overland Campaign. The conference’s opening was marked by an exclusive “Generals” day, held on a tranquil, privately owned 21- acre property beside the Po River. The present calm belied a past saturated in conflict, for this site had witnessed the tumult of battle. Historians Robert Lee Hodge and Dennis Gallahan, also the property owner, transported attendees to that chaotic era, recounting the maneuvers and fierce engagements that unfolded on this very ground during the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House. A highlight of the day was the reading aloud of a soldier’s letter home professing his inevitable death after being wounded and composed amidst the turmoil. The words, Group photo from the Spotsylvania Court House tour. (Lisa Van Winkle) 59 raw and immediate, wove together the anonymous pain and longing that defined so many soldiers’ experiences, reminding all present that history is most deeply felt in the stories of individuals. The “Generals” rank within CVBT, is reserved for those who contribute at least $1,000 annually in unrestricted funds in addition to regular dues and land appeals, was well represented. These enthusiastic advocates for battlefield preservation were treated to a program delving into the intricacies of “The Battle of the Po,” as many soldiers referred to it in their diaries. The day’s solemnity and learning found an uplifting counterpoint in a communal BBQ lunch, shared on ground once marked by war yet now consecrated by fellowship. The conference’s official opening on Friday was heralded by a half-day tour led by Dr. Chris Mackowski, a prolific Civil War scholar whose numerous books and articles have illuminated the many facets of Spotsylvania’s battles. Dr. Mackowski’s passion for history and deep knowledge set a tone of eager anticipation and attentive learning. A signature moment arrived at Massaponax Church, a dignified brick building completed in 1859, whose walls had witnessed the war’s shifting tides. Here, on May 21, 1864, General Grant himself paused, a moment preserved forever in Timothy O’Sullivan’s haunting photographs. Attendees explored the church’s interior, marveling at some original pews and layers of Civil War graffiti, painstakingly conserved under plexiglass. These scribblings, more often expansive correspondence between rival soldiers than mere signatures, provided a rare and tangible dialogue across enemy lines. Saturday’s main tour began promptly at 9 a.m., as two buses carried eager guests to the heart of the Spotsylvania Court House battlefield. Under the guidance of Dr. Mackowski, the group retraced the steps and strategies of the armies, visiting Todd’s

makes a good battle book? R eaders of military history will have a variety of criteria, but it is easy to agree upon a few standards. And because it eminently meets all of those I consider, I value John J. Hennessy’s Return to Bull Run: The Campaign and Battle of Second Manassas (1993, Simon & Schuster) as one of my very favorite Civil War battle books. Let’s see…where to begin? First of all, the subject has to be important, and the battle fought on Aug. 29-30, 1862 certainly was. For Gen. Robert E. Lee, Second Manassas was, in Hennessy’s fine words, “the happiest marriage of strategy and tactics he would ever attain.” Longstreet’s attack on the second day, with 25,000 troops, was the biggest assault Lee launched in the entire war. And when it succeeded, “Lee came as close as he ever would to destroying a Union army.” I remember reading this sentence two decades ago, and it has stuck with me ever since. The author’s narrative must be comprehensive. This doesn’t mean that the book has to be long--although, at just over 600 pages, this one is. Hennessy sets the battle in just the right perspective. After McClellan’s failure in the Seven Days, hardliners in the Lincoln administration wanted to shift away from McClellan’s gentlemanly style of leading an army to a harder war, one which would punish Southern civilians for their treason. Maj. Gen. John Pope, brought from out west, was thought just the man to do this. So Lincoln and Stanton created a new army of some 50,000 men and sent Pope forth with it into central Virginia to wreck farms while subsisting on the countryside. General Lee, rightly offended by “the miscreant Pope,” determined to “suppress” him before he could be reinforced by McClellan’s troops. Second Manassas, Hennessy writes, “would be his first full campaign as commander of the Army of Northern Virginia.” A good battle history has to capture the drama. Hennessy’s certainly does. Lee’s plan, sending Stonewall Jackson with half the army around Pope’s flank and into his rear, was audacious and brilliantly executed. Hennessy describes Jackson’s march—54 miles in 36 hours, Aug. 25-26—breathlessly, but the real fun begins when Jackson’s tired veterans captured Pope’s big supply base at Manassas Junction. “From boxcar to boxcar and warehouse to warehouse the men dashed,” he writes, “uncovering ever more desirable delicacies”: cakes, candy, oranges, canned oysters—you name it. For John Worsham of the 21st Virginia, it was French mustard. “To see a starving man eating lobster salad and drinking Rhine wine, barefoot and in tatters, was curious,” Worsham reflected. I’ll say. August 27, 1862 ranks as one of the most “curious” days of the war. The traits and performance of the key leaders must be thoughtfully depicted. Jackson is the hero here. “History must judge him,” the author contends, “as the man who by boldness and incredible speed made Lee’s greatest triumph possible.” In contrast is poor John Pope. He was laughably pompous, “I have come to you from the West, where we have always seen the backs of our enemies.” He was pitifully opaque, unable to perceive the danger crashing his way, as when he ordered his army to chase after Jackson and “bag the whole crowd.” On the morning of the 30th, Pope “was practically paralyzed with uncertainty.” When Longstreet began massing for his afternoon attack, Pope continued to disregard the warnings streaming into his headquarters. 63 s tephen d avis has been writing about the c ivil w ar for a long time —“ since J esus was in third grade ,” he

, Images, Maps, Bibliography, Index, 359 pp., 2024. El Dorado Hills, CA.: Savas Beatie. ISBN 978-1-61121-717-9. Hardcover. $34.95. Reviewed by John Fowler In May 1864, the Army of the Potomac under Major General Gordon G. Meade, but overseen by Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant, launched the long-awaited Overland Campaign against Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia. What transpired over the next two months was a savage struggle for the fate of two nations as Lee’s men fought tenaciously to avoid being pinned down in defense of the Rebel capital at Richmond while Union forces fought just as hard to limit the Rebel general’s freedom of maneuver. Following the Confederate strike on the Army of the Potomac in the thick woods of the Wilderness (May 5-7), Lee’s outnumbered force had mauled and stymied the Federals. Yet, unlike previous Union setbacks, Grant insisted that Meade bypass Lee’s entrenched Rebels and continue the advance. There would be no stalemate and certainly no retreat. Grant planned to swing around Lee’s right flank and advance southward toward a crossroads at Spotsylvania Court House. There the Federals would interpose themselves between Lee and Richmond, thereby forcing the Rebels to fight on more open ground. Lee, however, anticipated Grant’s move, and the Rebels won the race to Spotsylvania. The result was another brutal series of actions as the Federals attempted to break Lee’s lines and shatter the Army of Northern Virginia. The story of the Overland Campaign and the Battle of Spotsylvania has been recounted many times by several excellent historians. Among the most recent and best accounts that focus on Spotsylvania are William D. Matter, If It Takes All Summer: The Battle of Spotsylvania (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988); Gordon C. Rhea, The Battles for Spotsylvania Court House and the Road to Yellow Tavern, May 7–12, 1864 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1997); Gary W. Gallagher, editor, The Spotsylvania Campaign (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2010); Jeffry Wert, The Heart of Hell: The Soldiers’ Struggle for Spotsylvania’s Bloody Angle (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2012); and Chris Mackowski and Kristopher D. White, A Season of Slaughter: The Battle of Spotsylvania Court House, May 8–21, 1864 (Emerging Civil War Series. El Dorado Hills, CA: Savas Beatie, 2013). Given the breadth of information already in print, is another book on the Battle of Spotsylvania warranted? Author Chris Mackowski says “yes.” Mackowski, the editor-in-chief of Emerging Civil War, has already written on the subject and is intimately familiar with the battlefield. It is his contention that his expertise on the subject matter, his writing style, and his broad perspective can produce a 68 monograph that covers the battle in just the right amount of detail. Is he successful? Ultimately, readers will have to make that determination for themselves, but a perusal of the Emerging Civil War website will offer insight into Mackowski’s thoughts on the book and his reasons for writing. For example, the following link shows him discussing his belief that he has something new to offer, even if it is in presentation alone: https://emergingcivilwar. com/2024/10/14/writing-tempest-one-more-book-on- spotsy. Additionally, in an earlier posting on the site on September 19, 2024, Mackowski discussed book design. He explained his desire not only to capture the nature of the unrelenting combat that characterized the Overland Campaign and struggle for Spotsylvania but also to make the story engaging to readers by including page layouts that feature smaller blocks of text, photo inserts, maps, etc. Ultimately, he decided to use a day-by-day approach to telling the story. He hoped that his approach to

, Images, Maps, Bibliography, Index, 615 pp., 2025. El Dorado Hills, CA.: Savas Beatie, www.savasbeatie.com. Hardcover. $39.95. Reviewed by John Fowler Between November 1862 and January 1863, Union and Confederate forces engaged in a campaign that would culminate in the bloody Battle of Stones River. Although the savage struggle would result in approximately 25,000 combined casualties and severely cripple both armies, some historians have labeled the battle largely inconsequential since neither army routed the other and, more importantly, the Rebels, although forced to retreat from Murfreesboro to Tullahoma, were not driven completely out of Middle Tennessee. Such an interpretation, however, is short-sighted and requires a change in perspective. While from a military perspective it is true that the battle was essentially a tactical draw, it was an important Union strategic win. On the first day, the Confederate Army of Tennessee under General Braxton Bragg nearly drove the Union forces from the field, yet dogged resistance from Major General William S. Rosecrans and the Army of the Cumberland prevented a rout. Battered but not cowed, the Federals refused to retreat over the next few days, forcing the Rebels to concede and withdraw on the night of January 3. This caused consternation in the ranks of the Army of Tennessee, and morale plummeted. Moreover, the victory by Rosecrans was invaluable to the Lincoln administration. Coming on the heels of Union failures at Vicksburg and Fredericksburg, the success at Murfreesboro gave Lincoln a stronger position to prevent European recognition of the 69 Confederacy and keep the Emancipation Proclamation from appearing to be an act of desperation. Clearly, Rosecrans’ success had given Lincoln and the North a desperately needed victory in the winter of 1862-63 and must be viewed from that perspective. Daniel C. Masters’ Hell by the Acre presents another change in perspective of the battle as well. Masters is perhaps best known for his blog Dan Masters’ Civil War Chronicles, where he explores primarily the Western Theater from the point of view of the common soldier. Masters took his deep interest in the common soldier and infused it into a large (more than 600 pages/ 250,000 words) book covering the Battle of Stones River from the point of view of these men. Many fine books have been written on the struggle at Murfreesboro, including James Lee McDonough, Stones River: Bloody Winter in Tennessee (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1980); Peter Cozzens, No Better Place to Die: The Battle of Stones River (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990); and Larry J. Daniel, Battle of Stones River: The Forgotten Conflict Between the Confederate Army of Tennessee and the Union Army of the Cumberland (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2012). What makes Masters’ book unique is the shift in perspective from telling the story top down from the view of politicians and generals to bottom up from the perspective of the enlisted men engaged in the fight. This shift in perspective allows traditional accounts of how the campaign and battle unfolded to be corroborated by the points of view of other participants. It also allows for a deeper and richer understanding of the hardships of army life and the horrors of combat, as well as an appreciation for the courage and tenacity of the enlisted men, non- commissioned officers, and junior officers who were at the tip of the spear. Writing a book such as this requires extensive research and a deep understanding of and familiarity with primary source material. Masters clearly demonstrates his comprehensive knowledge of source material, his expertise in Civil War era combat, and his desire to honor the men who