A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defenses of Washington
Part I: Appendices A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defenses of Washington Part I: Appendices
United States Department of Interior National Park Service National Capital Region Washington, DC
Contract No. 144CX300096053 Modification# 1
Prepared by CEHP, Incorporated Chevy Chase, Maryland A Historic Resources Study: The Civil War Defens es of Washington Part I
Appendices Appendix A: Alphabetical Listing of Forts, Batteries, and Blockhouses Appendix B: Alphabetical Listing of Known Fortification Owners, Their Representatives, and Fortifications on Their Land Appendix C: Naming of Forts Appendix D: Correspondence Concerning Appropriations for the Defenses of Washington Appendix E: General Reports about the Defenses Appendix F: Supplement to Commission Report Appendix G: Mostly Orders Pertaining to the Defenses of Washington Appendix H: A Sampling of Correspondence, Reports, Orders, Etc., Relating to the Battle of Fort Stevens Appendix I: Civil War Defenses of Washington Chronology Bibliography Appendix A. Alphabetical Listing of Forts,. Batteries, and Blockhouses Civil War Defenses of Washington Page A-1 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix A
Appendix A: Alphabetical Listing of Forts, Batteries, and Blockhouses
Fortification Known Landowner or their Representative Fort Albany James Roach and heirs, J.R. Johnson Battery Bailey Shoemaker family Fort Baker · Sarah E. Anderson, Ann A.C. Naylor & Susan M. Naylor Fort Barnard Philip J. Buckey, Sewall B. Corbettt Fort Bennett Wm. B. Ross, Attorney John H. Bogue, B.B. Lloyd Fort Berry Sewall B. Corbettt Blockhouse south of Fort Ellsworth Elizabeth Studds' heirs, George Studds Blockhouse between Fort Ellsworth & Fort Lyon, also battery Henry Studds Fort Bunker Hill Henry Quinn Fort C.F. Smith Thomas Jewell Battery Cameron J.H. Phillips Fort Carroll Fenwick Young Fort Cass Mary Randolph Lee, United.States Government Fort Chaplin Selby B. Scaggs Fort Craven Selby B. Scaggs Fort Corcoran William H. Ross Fort Craig Septimus Brown, Samuel Carison (Causen??), __ Elliot Fort Davis . Major Sayles J. Bowen, Daniel F. Lee Fort DeRussy B.T. Swart Fort Dupont Michael Caton Fort Ellsworth Henry Rozier Dulany, Rebecca Ann Dulany Fort Ethan Allen Stephen & Mrs. E.M. Meredith Fort Foote Francis W. Rozier & wife, Mrs. M.A. Hill,, Benedict Edelin Fort Gaines William A.T. Maddox & Mr. Loughborough Battery Garesche &·nearby Blockhouse Margeret B. Dangerfield Fort Greble William Berry, Thomas M. Berry, Trustee, John C. Mcferron, Lucien and Miss Eliza Berry Fort Hagerty Owen & Mary Murray and heirs, Thomas Cozar, Guardian Battery Jameson John Veitch Fort Kearney · JohnMagee Battery Kemble William A.T. Maddox Fort Lincoln · John Veitch Fort Mansfield Thomas Dean family, Samuel Shoe~aker Fort Marcy Gilbert Vanderwerken Fort Martin Scott James Weaver, C & 0 Canal Co. Fort Meigs Mrs. Stow, Mr. Joseph Trimble Battery Parrott Ellen J. King, John H. King Battery Penn John Collins Fort Reno Giles Dyer, Mrs. [James C.] Dyer, Miles Dyer, Fort Reynolds George W. Chase, L.E. Chittenden, Edward B.Powell, Mary Walker Civil War Defenses of Washington Page A-2 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix A
Fort Ricketts J.H. Smith, George Washington Talburtt Battery Rodgers Samuel 0. Bogot, Manassas Gap Railroad Fort Runyon James Roach and heirs Fort Saratoga John B. Kibbey, William. Kibbey, Executor, Ann McDaniels Fort Scott L.E. Chittenden, Hunter family Fort.Sedgwick John Kennedy Fort Simmons S.F. & L. Burrows, Charles Shoemaker Fort Slemmer Henry Douglass Fort Slocum John F. Callan, L.E. Chittenden, Mary Walker Battery Smeade B.T. Swart Fort Snyder Joseph T. Jenkins, Thomas Jenkins, ( Z?)Badcock Williams Fort Stanton George Washington Talburtt Fort Stevens Emory Chapel or Emory Methodist Church, Elizabeth Thomas (?) Fort Strong Thomas Dawson, Allen Pearce Fort Sumner Albert Lodge Fort Thayer Charles B. Calvert, Executor Fort Tillinghast Columbus Alexander Fort Totten George Thomas Battery Vermont United States Government Fort Wagner Judson Richardson Fort Whipple Mary Randolph Lee, United States Government Fort Williams Samuel Cooper, Willam Silvey, George A. Smith, John Williams Fort Williard Samuel R. Johnson, Josiah Willard · Fort Woodbury John Lambden Fort Worth William Silvey 1
I Information in this appendix was found in the following sources: Reed Hansen, :'Civil War to Civil Concern: A History of Fort Marcy, Virginia." M.A. thesis in History, George Mason University, 1973, 13-14; National Archives and Records Administration, Archives I, Record Group 92, Records of the Office of the Quartermaster General (hereafter referred to as RG92), Special Files, 1794-1926, Entry 225, Consoli dated Correspondence File, 1794-1890, "De Russy, Fort (1865-66)," "Defenses of Washington, DC," "Ethan Allen, Fort (VA) (1864)," "Greble, Fort (MD, 1869)," "Fort Reno, DC, 1863-," "Slocum, Fort - D.C."; National Archives and Records Administration, Archives I, Record Group 77, Records of the Office of the _Chief of Engineers (hereafter referred to as RG77), Records of Detached Engineer Officers, Defenses of Washington, 1861-66, Entry 574, Land Releases, 1865, including "Defenses of Washington, List of transfers of Public property as compensation for damages and releases by the Claimants," December 16, 1865"; National Archives and Records Administration, Archives I, Record Group 29, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Microcopy. 653, Eighth Census of the United States, 1860 [hereafter referred to as M653], Rolls 102-104; Wynn E. Withans, "Preservation Plan for ·Fort C.F. Smith," Plan 830 (January 1986) [Found in Fort Ward, Cooling Papers, Research Files, "Mr. Lincoln's Forts" Box 2 of 2, folder- marked Fort C.F. Smith], 7; Ruth Ward, "Life in Alexandria County During the Civil War," The Arlington Historical Society Journal, VII, (October 1984), 3; Dorthea Abbott, Historian, to Gail Baker, Chairman, HALRB, September 20, 1990, Subject: History of the Hendry property, in Arlington County Central Library, Virginia Room, Vertical File, Civil War Forts-Fort C.F. Smith; Fort Myer Post, The History of Fort Myer, Virginia, 100th Anniversary Issue, June 1863, 1-2; A Narrative History of Fon Myer Virginia [1954?] Falls Church, VA: Litho-Print Press, n.d., l; Benjamin Franklin Cooling, III, and Walton H. Owen, II. Mr. Lincoln's Forts: A Guide to the Civil War Defenses of Washington. Shippensburg, PA: White Mane Publishing Company, 1988, 64; Civil War Defenses of Washington Page A-3 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix A
Judith ~eek Helm, Tenleytow11, D. C.: Country Village into City Neighborhood (Washington, DC: Tennally Press, 1981), 97, I 13, 119; Fort Ward, Cooling Papers, Research Files, "Mr. Lincoln's Forts" Box I of 2, 2nd folder; Washington at Home, 82- 83; RG92, Central Records,• Claims, 1839-1914, Claims Registers and Claims, 1839-1901, Miscellaneous Claims, Entry 843, Claims and Related Papers for Damage to Property by Troops in the Service of the United States, 1861-65, #189; RG92, Claims, 1839-1914,Claims Branch, 1861-1870, Document File, Quartermaster Stores, Rent, Services and Miscellaneous Claims, Entries 797 and 812, Civil War Claims, D-1393, H-3817 and 54- 1417; National Archives and Records Administration, Archives I, Record Group 94, Records of the Adjutant General's Office, 1700's to 1917 (hereafter referred to as RG94), Military Reservation Division, Early 1800's-1916, Entry 464, Reservation File, Early 1800's-1916, "Fort Foote"; RG77, Entry 18, Letters Received, 1826-66, SW4579, L.H.T. to B.T. Swart;·~G77, entry 171, Land Papers, 1794-1916, District of Columbia; Philip W. Ogilvie, "Elizabeth Thomas (1821-1917), multi-page document of events in her life and reproduction of numerous published accounts about her (1998); Benjamin Franklin Cooling, Jubal Early's Raid On Washingto11 1864 (Baltimore, MD: The Nautical and Aviation Publishing Company of America, 1989), 132, 134,; Benjamin Franklin Cooling, Symbol, Sword, and Shield: Defend ing Washington During the Civil War, Second Edition (Shippensburg, PA: White Mane Publishing Company, 1991), 80; Cooling and Walton, _Mr. Lincoln's Forts, 159; Cramer, John Henry Cramer,- Lincoln Under Enemy Fire: The Complete Account of His Experiences During . ' Early's Attack 011 Washi11gto11, (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1948), 24-25; William Van Zandt Cox, The Defenses of Washington-General Early's Advance on the Capital and the Battle of Fort Stevens, July 11 a11d 12, 1864. (Washington, I 907?), 4; Program for the Commorative Ceremony on The One Hundreth Anniversary of the Battle of Fort Stevens at Fort Stevens, Washington, D.C., 2:00 o'clock, July I I, 1964 (1964), "Aunt Betty," 2 pages; U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on the District of Columbia. Park Improvement Papers: A Series of Twe11ty Papers Relati11g to the Improvement of Park System of the District of Columbia, No. 4, Fort Stevens, Where Lincoln Was U11der Fire by William V. Cox (Washington, D.C.: The Government Printing Office, 1901), 2; #A2298, Major D.C. Houston to Brevet Major General Andrew A. Humphreys, Chief of Engineers, May 11, 1869; #A3624, William P. Craighill to Chief of Engineers, May 13, 1870; and #A3557, Samuel 0. Bogot to Chief of Engineers, April 20, 1870; Entry 36, Letters Received ("A File"), November 1867- November 1870, Correspondence Relating To Fortifications, Correspondence of Office Divisions, 1865-70, Records of the Central Office, RG77; Entry 36, Letters Received ("A File"), November 1867-November 1870, Correspondence Relating To Fortifications, Correspondence ·of Office Divisions, 1865-70, Records of the Central Office, RG77; "The Rambler" column, The Sunday Star, May 21, 1916--Part 4, page 7 and June 4, 1916--Part 4, page 6; Alan Virta, Prince George's County: A Pictorial History (Virginia Beach, VA: The Donning Company Publishers, 1984 & 1991), 121, 125; Anne Ciprani Webb, "Fort Strong on Arlington Heights," The Arlington Historical Magazine, 5 (October 1973), 34-39; Roy C. J?rewer, "Fort Scott-Past, Present, and Future," The Arlington Historical Magazine, 3 (October 1965), 40- 47; Jan Magnusson, "Fort Scott," The Arlington Historical Magazine, 2 (October 1964), 37A7; T. Michael Miller, "Jones Point: Haven of History," The Historical Society of Fairfax County, Virginia Yearbook, Volume 21 (1986- 1988), 39-42; T. Michael Miller, "The Saga of Shuter's Hill," The Historical Society of Fairfax County, Virginia, Volume 19, (1983), 80-83; "Alexandria Archaeology Investigates Shuter's Hill (1997), publication of Alexandria Archaeology, pages 1-2. AppendixB Alphabetical Listing of Known Fortification Owners, Their Representatives, and Fortifications On Their Land Civil War Defenses of Washington Page B-1 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix B
Appendix 8: Alphabetical Listing of Known Fortification Owners, Their Representatives, and Fortifications on their Land
· Known Landowner or their Representative Fortifications Columbus Alexander Fort Tillinghast Sarah E. Anderson Fort Baker Miss Eliza Berry Fort Greble Lucien Berry Fort Greble Thomas M. Berry Fort Greble William Berry FortGreble Samuel 0. Bogot Battery Rodgers Major Sayles J. Bowen Fort Davis Septimus Brown Fort Craig Philip .J. Buckey Fort Bayard S.F. Burrows Fort Simmons L. Burrows Fort Simmons C. & 0. Canal Co. Fort Martin Scott John F. Callan Fort Slocum Michael Caton Fort DuPont Samuel Carison (Causen??) Fort Craig Charles B. Calvert, Executor Fort Thayer George W. Chase Fort Reynolds L.E. Chittenden Fort Reynolds, Fort Scott, Fort Slocum John Collins Battery Penn Samuel Cooper Fort Williams Sewall B. Corbettt Fort Barnard, Fort Berry Thomas Cozar, Guardian Fort Hagerty Margeret B. Dangerfield Battery Garesche & nearby Blockhouse Thomas Dawson Fort Strong Thomas Dean family Fort Mansfield John H. Bogue, Attorney Fort Bennett Henry Douglass Fort Slemmer Henry Rozier Dulany Fort Ellsworth Rebecca Ann Dulany Fort Ellsworth Giles Dyer Fort Reno Mrs. [James C.] Dyer Fort Reno Miles Dyer Fort Reno Benedict Edelin Fort Foote Elliot Fort Craig Emory Chapel (Methodist Church) Fort Stevens Mrs. M.A. Hill Fort Foote Hunter family Fort Scott Joseph T. Jenkins Fort Snyder Thomas Jenkins Fort Snyder Thomas Jewell Fort C.F. Smith Civil War Defenses of Washington Page B-2 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix B
J.R. Johnson Fort Albany Samuel R. Johnson Fort Willard John Kennedy Fort Sedgewick John B. Kibbey Fort Saratoga William Kibbey, Executor Fort Saratoga John H. King Battery Parrott Ellen J. King Battery Parrott John Lambden Fort Woodbury Daniel F. Lee Fort Davis Mary Randolph Lee Fort Cass, Fort Whipple Albert Lodge Fort Sumner B.B. Lloyd Fort Bennett Mr. Loughborough Fort Gaines Ann McDaniels Fort Saratoga John C. Mcferron Fort Greble John Magee Fort Kearney Capt. William A .. T.. Maddox Fort Gaines, Battery Kemble Manassas Gap Railroad Battery Rodgers Mrs. E.M. Meredith Fort Ethan Allen Stephen Meredith Fort Ethan Allen Mary Murray Fort Hagerty Owen Murray Fort Hagerty Ann A.C. Naylor Fort Baker Susan M. Naylor ·Fort Baker Allen Pearce Fort Strong J.H. Phillips Battery Cameron Edward B. Powell Fort Reynolds Henry Quinn Fort Bunker Hill Judson Richardson Fort Wagner James Roach Fort Albany, Fort Runyon James Roach's heirs Fort Albany, Fort Runyon Wm. H. ( or B.) Ross Fort Bennett, Fort Corcoran Francis W. Rozier & wife Fort Foote Selby B. Scaggs Fort Chaplin, Fort Craven Shoemaker Family Battery Bailey Charles Shoemaker Fort Simmons Samuel Shoemaker Fort Mansfield Willan Silvey Fort Williams, Fort Worth J.H. Smith Fort Ricketts George A. Smith Fort Williams Mrs. Stow Fort Meigs Elizabeth Studds' heirs Blockhouse south of Fort Ellsworth Civil War Defenses of Washington PageB-3 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix B
George Studds Blockhouse south of Fort Ellsworth Henry Studds Blockhouse between Fort Ellsworth & Fort Lyon, also battery B.T. Swart Fort DeRussy, Battery Smeade George Washington Talburtt Fort Ricketts Fort Stanton George Thomas Fort Totten Elizabeth Thomas Fort Stevens Mr. Joseph Trimble Fort Meigs United States Government Fort Cass, Battery Vermont, Fort Whippl,e Gilbert Vanderwerken Fort Marcy John Veitch Battery Jameson, Fort Lincoln Mrs. Mary Walker Fort Reynolds, Fort Slocum James Weaver Fort Martin Scott Josiah Willard Fort Willard Z?)Badcock Williams Fort Snyder John Williams Fort Williams Fenwick Young Fort Carroll 1
1 Information in this appendix was found in the following sources: Reed Hansen, "Civil War to Civil Concern: A History of Fort Marcy, Virginia." M.A. thesis in History, George Mason University, 1973, 13-14; National Archives and Records Administration, Archives I, Record Group 92, Records of the Office of the Quartermaster General (hereafter referred to as RG92), Special Files, 1794-1926, Entry 225, Consolidated Correspondence File, 1794-1890, "De Russy, Fort (1865-66)," "Defenses of Washington, DC," "Ethan Allen, Fort (VA) (1864)," "Greble, Fort (MD, 1869)," "Fort Reno, DC, 1863-," "Slocum, Fort - D.C."; National Archives and Records Administration, Archives I, Record Group 77, Records of the Office of the Chief of Engineers (hereafter referred to as RG77), Records of De tached Engineer Officers, Defenses of Washington, 1861-66, Entry 574, Land Releases, 1865, including "Defenses of Washington, List of transfers of Public property as compensation for damages and releases by the Claimants," Decem ber 16, 1865"; National Archives and Records Administration, Archives I, Record Group 29, Records of the Bureau of the Census, Microcopy 653, Eighth Census of the United States, 1860 [hereafter referred to as M653], Rolls 102- 104; Wynn E. Withans, "Preservation Plan for Fort C.F. Smith," Plan 830 (January 1986) [Found in Fort Ward, Cooling Papers, Research Files, "Mr. Lincoln's Forts" Box 2 of 2, folder marked Fort C.F. Smith], 7; Ruth Ward, "Life in Alexandria County During the Civil War," The Arlington Historical Society Journal, VII, (October 1984), 3; Dorthea Abbott, Historian, to Gail Baker, Chairman, HALRB, September 20, 1990, Subject: History of the Hendry property, in Arlington County Central Library, Virginia Room, Vertical File, Civil War Forts-:--Fort C.F. Smith; Fort Myer Post, The History of Fort Myer, Virginia, 100th Anniversary Issue, June 1863, 1-2; A Narrative History of Fort Myer Virginia [ 1954 ?] Falls Church, VA: Li tho-Print Press, n.d., 1; Benjamin Franklin Cooling, III, and Walton H. Owen, II. Mr. Lincoln's Forts: A Guide to the Civil War Defenses of Washington. Shippensburg, PA: White Mane Publishing Company, 1988, 64; Judith Beck Helm, Tenleytown, D. C.: Country Village into City Neighborhood (Washington, DC: Tennally Press, 1981), 97, 113, 119; Fort Ward, Cooling Papers, Research Files, "Mr. Lincoln's Forts" Box 1 of 2, 2nd folder; Washington at Home, 82- 83; RG92, Central Records, Claims, 1839-1914, Claims Registers and Claims, 1839-1901, Miscellaneous Claims, Entry 843, Claims and Related Papers for Damage to Property by Troops in the Service of the United States, 1861-65, #189; RG92, Claims, 1839-1914,Claims Branch, 1861-1870, Document File, Quartermaster Stores, Rent, Services and Miscellaneous Claims, Entries 797 and 812, Civil War Defenses of Washington Page B--4 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix B
Entry 18, Letters Received, 1826-66, SW4579, L.H.T. to B.T. Swart; RG77, entry 171, Land Papers, 1794-1916, District of Columbia; Philip W. Ogilvie, "Elizabeth Thomas (1821-1917), multi-page document of events in her life and reproduction of numerous published accounts about her (1998); Benjamin Franklin Cooling, Jubal Early's Raid On Washington 1864 (Baltimore, MD: The Nautical and Aviation Publishing Company of America, 1989), 132, 134, ; Benjamin Franklin Cooling, Symbol, Sword, and Shield: Defending Washington During the Civil War, Second Edition (Shippensburg, PA: White Mane Publishing Company, 1991), 80; Cooling and Walton, Mr. Lincoln's Forts, 159; Cramer, John Henry Cramer, Lincoln Under Enemy Fire: The Complete Account of His Experiences During Early's Attack on Washington, (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1948), 24-25; William Van Zandt Cox, The Defenses of Washington-General Early's Advance on the Capital and the Battle of Fort Stevens, July 11 and 12, 1864. (Washington, 1907?), 4; Program for the Commorative Ceremony on The One Hundreth Anniversary of the Battle of Fort Stevens at Fort Stevens, Washington, D.C., 2:00 o'clock, July 11, 1964 (1964), "Aunt Betty," 2 pages; U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on the District of Columbia. Park Improvement Papers: A Series of Twenty Papers Relating to the Improvement of Park System of the District of Columbia, No. 4, Fort Stevens, Where Lincoln Was Under Fire by William V. Cox (Washington, D.C.: The Government Printing Office, 1901), 2; #A2298, Major D.C. Houston to Brevet Major General Andrew A. Humphreys, Chief of Engineers, May 11, 1869; #A3624, William P. Craighill to Chief of Engineers, May 13, 1870; and #A3557, Samuel 0. Bogot to Chief of Engineers, April 20, 1870; Entry 36, Letters Received ("A File"), November 1867-November 1870, Correspon dence Relating To Fortifications, Correspondence of Office Divisions, 1865-70, Records of the Central Office, RG77; Entry 36, Letters Received ("A File"), November 1867-November 1870, Correspondence Relating To Fortifications, Correspondence of Office Divisions, 1865-70, Records of the Central Office, RG77; "The Rambler" column, The Sunday Star, May 21, 1916-Part 4, page 7 and June 4, 1916-Part 4, page 6; Alan Virta, Prince George's County: A Pictorial History (Virginia Beach, VA: The Donning Company Publishers, 1984 & 1991), 121, 125; Anne Ciprani Webb, "Fort Strong on Arlington Heights," The Arlington Historical Magazine, 5 (October 1973), 34-39; Roy C. Brewer, "Fort Scott-Past, Present, and Future," The Arlington Historical Magazine, 3 (October 1965), 40-47; Jan Magnusson, "Fort Scott," The Arlington Historical Magazine, 2 (October 1964), 37-47; T. Michael Miller, "Jones Point: Haven of History," The Historical Society ofFairfax County, Virginia Yearbook, Volume 21 (1986- 1988), 39- 42; T. Michael Miller, "The Saga of Shuter's Hill," The Historical Society of Fairfax County, Virginia, Volume 19, (1983), 80-83; "Alexandria Archaeology Investigates Shuter's Hill (1997), publication of Alexandria Archaeology, pages 1-2. Appe~dixC · Naming of Forts Civil War Defenses of Washington PageC-1 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix C
Appendix C: Naming the Forts
GENERAL ORDERS, No. 18 HDQRS. ARMY OF THE POTOMAC, Washington, September 30, 1861.
XI. The works in the vicinity of Washington are named as follows: The work south of Hunting Creek, Fort Lyon That on Shooter's Hill, Fort Ellsworth That to the left of the Seminary, Fort Worth That in front of Blenker's brigade, Fort Blenker That in front of Lee's house, Fort Ward That near the mouth of Four Mile Creek, Fort Scott That on Richardson's Hill, Fort Richardson That now known as Fort Albany, Fort Albany That near the end of Long Bridge, Fort Runyon. The work next on the right of Fort Albany, Fort Craig The next on the right of Fort Craig, Fort Tillinghast The next on the right of Fort Tillinghast, Fort Ramsay The work next on the right of Fort Ramsay, Fort Woodbury That next on the right of Fort Woodbury, Fort De Kalb The work in rear of Fort Corcoran and near canal, Fort Haggerty That now known as Fort Corcoran, Fort Corcoran That to the north of Fort Corcoran, Fort Bennett That south of Chain Bridge, on height, Fort Ethan Allen That near the Chain Bridge, on Leesburg road, Fort Marcy That on the cliff north Of Chain Bridge, Battery Martin Scott That on height near reservoir, Battery Vermont That near Georgetown, Battery Cameron That on the left of Tennallytown, Fort Gaines That at Tennallytown, Fort Pennsylvania That at Emory's Chapel, Fort Massachusetts That near camp of Second Rhode Island Regiment, Fort Slocum That on Prospect Hill, near Bladensburg, Fort Lincoln That next on the left of Fort Lincoln, Fort Saratoga That next on the left of Fort Saratoga, Fort Bunker Hill That on the right of General Sickles' camp, Fort Stanton That on the right of Fort Stanton, Fort Carroll That on the left towards Bladensburg, Fort Greble
By command of Major-General McClellan
S. WILLIAMS, Assistant Adjutant-General.
ORA, I, 5 (Serial 5), 611. Civil War Defenses of Washington PageC-2 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix C
WASHINGTON, January 7, 1863.
Maj. Gen. S. P. HEINTZELMAN, Commanding Defenses of Washington:
GENERAL: I make the following recommendations as to the names of the fortifications around Washington: That the name of the enlarged work now known as Fort Massachusetts be changed to Fort Stevens.
J. G. BARNARD, Brig. Gen. and Chief Engineer Defenses of Washington.
ORA, I, 21 (serial 31), 954-55.
WASHINGTON, March 16, 1863. Brig. Gen. GEORGE W. CULLUM, Chief of Staff:
GENERAL: In compliance with your request, contained in note of 28th ultimo, I now forwar~ you the "name, rank, regiment, and battle where the officers ~ere killed, with date," after whom certain forts. in this vicinity were recommended to be named: Brig. Gen. I. I. Stevens, U.S. Volunteers, was killed at the battle of Chantilly, Va., September I, 1862. Maj. Gen. Jesse L. Reno, U.S. Volunteers, captain of ordnance, died of wounds received at the battle of South Mountain, Md., September 14,1862. Brig. Gen. Joseph K. F. Mansfield, U.S. Army, died of wounds received at the battle of Antietam, Md., September 18 [17], 1862.
Capt. John R. Smead, Fifth Artillery, killed at the battle of Bull Run, Va., August 30, 1862. First Lieut. Henry W. Kingsbury, Fifth Artillery (colonel of volunteers), died of wounds received at the battle of Antietam, Md., September 18, 1862. Lieut. Col. Julius P. Garesche, assistant adjutant-general, killed at the battle of Murfreesborough, Tenn., December 31, 1862. Capt. Guilford D. Bailey, commissary of subsistence (colonel of volunteers), killed at the battle of Fair Oaks, Va., May 31, 1862. Your obedient servant,
J. G. BARNARD, Brigadier-General.
P. S.-Brig. Gen. Charles D. Jameson, after whom it is proposed to name the battery near Fort Lincoln, served as colonel of the Second Regiment Maine Volunteers, at Bull Run. He was appointed brigadier-general September 3, 1861. His brigade formed part of the army corps under General Heintzelman, and- Distinguished himself individually at the battle of Williamsburg, being at the front rendering aid to General Kearny, though his brigade was not engaged, * * * and he particularly distinguished himself at the battle of Fair Oaks, where his horse was shot under him in battle, receiving three balls. He died [November 6, 1862] of typhoid fever (at Old Town, Me.), brought on, no doubt, by exposure and the excitement of the battles alluded to.-Extract from a letter from General Heintzelman.
[Inclosure.]
WASHINGTON, February IO, 1863.
Brigadier-General CULLUM, Chief of Staff:
SIR: I recommend that the battery which I proposed to be called Battery Maine be named Battery Jameson, after Brig. Gen. Charles D. Jameson, who died of disease contracted in the service on the Peninsula. He was a citizen of the State of Maine, was in the first battle of Bull Run, and in all the battles of the Peninsula. I am, your obedient servant,
J. G. BARNARD, Brigadier-General.
ORA, I, 25, Part 2 (serial 40), 140-41.
GENERAL ORDERS, No. 83. WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJT. GEN. 'S OFFICE, Washington, April 1, 1863.
The new or modified forts and batteries around Washington will hereafter be known by the following names: The name of the enlarged work now known as Fort Massachusetts to be changed to Fort Stevens, after Brig. Gen. I. I. Stevens, U.S. Volunteers, of Massachusetts, who was killed September 1, 1862, at the battle of Chantilly, Va. Civil War Defenses of Washington PageC-4 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix C
The name of the enlarged work now known as Fort Pennsylvania to be changed to Fort Reno, after Maj. Gen. Jesse L. Reno, U.S. Volunteers (captain of ordnance), of Pennsylvania, who was mortally wounded, September 14, 1862, at the battle of South Mountain, Md. · The fort next and east of Fort Ripley to be called Fort Mansfield, after Brig. Gen. Joseph K. F. Mansfield, U.S. Army, who was mortally wounded, September 17, 1862, at the battle of Antietam, Md. The new fort next and east of Fort Mansfield to be called Fort Simmons,
E. D. TOWNSEND, Assistant Adjutant-General.
ORA, I, 25, Part 2 (Serial 40), 186. Civil War Defenses of Washington PageC-5 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix C
WASHINGTON, May 30, 1863.
Maj. Gen. S. P. HEINTZELMAN, Commanding Department of Washington: GENERAL: I make the following recommendations as to names of fortifications around Washington: That the name of the enlarged work on the eastern bank of the Potomac, above the Chain Bridge, consisting of the three forts now known as Forts Alexander, Franklin, and Ripley, be called Fort Sumner, after the late Maj. Gen. E. V. Sumner, who died at Syracuse, N. Y., March 21, 1863. The three forts above named and incorporated into Fort Sumner to be hereafter styled Redoubt Alexander, Redoubt Franklin, Redoubt Ripley. That the new fort immediately north of Fort De Kalb, and near the Potomac, be called Fort C. F. Smith, after the late Maj. Gen. C. F. Smith, who died at Savannah, Tenn., of disease contracted in the service, and who greatly distinguished himself at the battle of Fort Donelson. That the new fort in progress behind Fort Cass be called Fort Whipple, after the late Major-General Whipple, who died at Washington, D.C., May 7, 1865, of wounds received at the battle of Chancellorsville, Va.
ORA, I, 25, Part 2 (serial 40), 568-569
HEADQUARTERS CHIEF ENGINEER OF DEFENSES, Washington, September 4, 1863.
Col. J. C. KELTON, Assistant Adjutant-General.'
SIR: I respectfully recommend that the following works and forts, forming part of the Defenses of Washington, may be called after the officers whose names are set opposite, and who have died or been killed in the service of the United States: Fort at Rozier's Bluff, on east side of the Potomac River, 2 miles below Alexandria, to be called Fort Foote, after Rear-Admiral A.H. Foote, U.S. Navy, who died of disease June 26, 1863, and whose distinguished services in command of the United States naval forces upon the Western rivers are well known. Water battery at Alexandria to be called Battery Rodgers, after Fleet Capt. G. W. Rodgers, U.S. Navy, killed August 1?, 1863, in a naval attack upon Fort Wagner, Charleston Harbor, S.C. Fort Blenker, south side of Potomac, to be called Fort Reynolds, after Maj. Gen. J. F. Reynolds, killed July 1, 1863, at Gettysburg, Pa. Civil War Defenses of Washington PageC-6 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix C
Redoubt A, near Fort Lyon, to be called Fort Weed, after Stephen H. Weed, captain Fifth Artillery, brigadier general of volunteers, killed July 2, 1863, at Gettysburg, Pa. Redoubt B, near Fort Lyon, to be called Fort Farnsworth, after Brig. Gen. Elon J. Farnsworth, killed July 3, 1863, at Gettysburg, Pa. Redoubt C, near Fort Lyon, to be called Fort O'Rorke, after Patrick H. O'Rorke, first lieutenant of Engineers, U.S. Army (colonel of volunteers), killed July 2, 1863, at Gettysburg, Pa. Redoubt D, near Fort Lyon, to be called Fort Willard, after George L. Willard, major Nineteenth Infantry (colonel of volunteers), killed July 2, 1863, at Gettysburg, Pa. I am, very respectfully, your most obedient,
J. G. BARNARD, Brig. Gen., Chief Engineer Defenses of Washington.
ORA, I, 29, Part 2 (serial 49), 154.
1862 COMMISSION TO STUDY THE DEFENSES REPORT
WASHINGTON, December 30, 1862. Hon. E. M. STANTON, Secretary of War:
SIR: I herewith present you the report of the Commission ordered by you to examine the Defenses of Washington, and report to you as to their efficiency, &c. It will be seen that the Commission approve generally of the lines established and of the works, and that they attach very great importance to them; that they recommend some additions to or modifications of the existing works; some new works (five or six) to strengthen certain parts of the line, and that they purpose to add a new feature to the defensive system by the construction of works to defend the river from maritime attack. Their reasons are given in full, and it is not necessary for me to dwell upon them in this place. The amount expended upon the system up to the time when I relinquished the charge last spring to take the field with the Army of the Potomac was about $550,000. This applied to the construction of upward of fifty forts and a number of batteries. Some of these works were of large dimensions, and many had, besides the usual magazine, extensive bomb-proofs, for the protection of the garrisons. Notwithstanding the number of works built, the defensive system was in some parts still very weak, and everywhere there was need (as I stated in a report to the Chief Engineer U.S. Army a year ago) of auxiliary works, more efficient armament, &c.; and I also stated that there were important gaps in the line which should be filled. When the Army of the Potomac retired from the James River, I was ordered to assume the command of the works and troops of Washington, and there was apprehension felt (as the result proved, rightly) for the safety of Washington. Of course, it was my duty, both as engineer and commanding officer, to use the time and means disposable to increase the strength of the defenses. The northern side of the city, between the Potomac and Eastern Branch, which had been little exposed to attack the summer before, was, in August and September of this year, the most likely to be assailed, and from the Potomac to the Seventh street road it was exceedingly weak.
On the south of the Potomac, rifle-pits were thrown up between the works, new gun-platforms laid, and the armament improved; obstructions made across the valleys of Four-Mile Run and Hunting Creek; Fort Lyon strengthened by advanced works, and batteries for field guns prepared. On the most prominent or commanding points 100-pounder rifled guns, on center-pivot carriages, were introduced, to bring under fire the whole external area an enemy must occupy in approaching our lines. These, and similar works, are fully described in the report of the Commission. With no other assistance from engineer officers than that of a single officer (valuable, indeed-that of Lieut. Col. B. S. Alexander), it has been necessary to employ a large number of civil assistants, superintendents, and overseers, to supervise the works and troops and laborers employed. This, together with the hire of laborers, the purchase of lumber and other materials, has required a large cash expenditure. You authorized (in August, I think) the application of $50,000 from the appropriation for the contingencies of fortifications, field works, &c.; to the Defenses of Washington, $50,000 more. This last sum will have been nearly exhausted at the end of this month. It is exceedingly difficult to estimate for this kind of expenditure, and as the exigencies of the service have, since my return here, made it impossible to furnish the number of troops required for the labor, I am obliged to suppose that much of the additional work proposed by the Commission will be done by hired labor, and, making reference to past results, to estimate that an additional sum of $200,000 will be needed; for which I ask that an appropriation of Congress be requested. I also request that, until such an appropriation be made, I may be authorized to apply an additional $50,000 from the existing appropriation for contingencies of fortifications. There has been but one other system of field works that I know of that is analogous to this in extent and character-the famous lines of Torres Vedras. These frustrated the design of Napoleon of driving the English from the Peninsula. They consisted of a greater number of works, but the works were smaller, and much less expensive in workmanship; yet on these lines, in a country where labor commanded but one tenth of what is paid in this country, $1,000,000 was expended from first to last. I am, very respectfully, your most obedient, J. G. BARNARD, Brig. Gen., and Chief Engineer Defenses of Washington.
[lnclosure.] WASHINGTON, December 24, 1862.
Hon. E. M. STANTON, Secretary of War: SIR: The Commission appointed by Special Orders of the War Department, No. 312, dated Washington, October 25, 1862, "to examine
In addition to these, is the small group consisting of Forts Ramsay and Buffalo and intrenchments on Munson's and Perkins' Hills, which do not properly belong to the fortificatioris of Washington. The total armament in the different works, at the date of this report, is six hundred and forty-three guns and seventy-five mortars. The total infantry garrisons required for their defense, computed at 2 men per yard of front perimeter, and 1 man per yard of rear perimeter of works, is about 25,000. The total number of artillerymen (to furnish three reliefs for each gun) required is about 9,000. Aggregate, 34,000. It is seldom necessary to keep these infantry supports attached to the works. The 25,000 infantry should be encamped in such positions as may be most convenient to enable them, in case of alarm, to garrison the several works, and a force of 3,000 cavalry should be available for outpost duty, to give notice of the approach of any enemy. The artillerymen, whose training requires much time, having learned the disposition of the armament and computed the distances of the ground over which attacks may be looked for, and the ranges and service of their guns, should not be changed. They should remain permanently in the forts. Whenever any enemy is within striking distance of the capital-able by a rapid march to attempt a coup de main, which might result in the temporary occupation of the city, the dispersion of the Government, and the destruction of the archives, all of which could be accomplished by a single day's possession-a covering army of not less than 25,000 men should be held in position to march to meet the attacking column. Against more serious attacks from the main body of the enemy, the capital must depend upon the concentration of its entire armies in Virginia or Maryland. They should precede or follow any movement of the enemy seriously threatening the capital. The Commission do not deem it necessary to enter into a history of the construction of these works, though, fully to appreciate their merits or demerits, that history should be known (as it is presumed to be by
Fort E;llsworth.-This work is well situated, covering immediately Alexandria and the railroad depot. Though a work in second line, it fulfills an important purpose in closing the gap between Forts Lyon and Worth, and sweeping by its fire of rifled guns the approaches to those works, and, uniting its fire with theirs, preventing the establishment of batteries on the heights south of Hunting Creek. The work is amply provided with bomb-proofs and magazines. The Commission recommend platforms and embrasures for field guns on the flanks. Traitors' Hill.-This is a very excellent position, forming a point d'ap-pui of the line of obstructions across the valley of Hunting Creek, and commanding the deep ravine which envelopes the rear of Fort Worth. It is important to hold it, and it is valuable as a position for artillery to fire upon the opposite heights; and the Commission recommend that a
Mile Run and its right on the Potomac. The works in question are, strictly speaking, for the defense of Alexandria and the railroad terminus. It is unnecessary to expatiate on the importance of holding these points; and these remarks are made to show that the hues of works necessarily embrace something more in their objects than the mere defense of Washington. Fort Scott forms the left interior line covering Washington. That is, in connection with Fort Richardson, it continues the line to the Potomac, thus forming a complete defensive system independent of the works previously mentioned, which cover Alexandria. Its position is important and commanding, and the work is well constructed and provided with ample bomb-proofs and magazines. Under existing circumstances, the Commission do not find cause to recommend any modifications. They would recommend, however, the eventual filling up of the gap between this work and Fort Richardson, by a small work on the elbow of the ridge, and such other additional arrangements as may be necessary to make this interior line complete. Fort Richardson occupies a very commanding position. It is small, but well built, well armed, and amply provided with bomb-proofs and magazines. The ravines in front will be seen by the rifle-pits in construction. A 100-pounder is being placed in this work, which will sweep a sector from Fort Ellsworth to Fort De Kalb. Considering its position (in a re-entrant) and difficulty of access, the Commission do not judge it necessary to recommend the construction of reversed flank defenses. Fort Albany is a work partly bastioned, well built, and in admirable condition, the parapets being turfed and scarps revered with boards. It is well defiladed, and in a very advantageous position to cover the Long Bridge, and look into the gorges of Forts Richardson and Craig. It sees the high ground in front of Fort Tillinghast, and commands the valley between Forts Richardson and Scott. It is well provided with magazines, embrasures, and bomb-proofs. Some heavy rifled pieces are wanted. Fort Runyon.-Though this work has not the importance it first had, it should not have been permitted to fall to decay, nor to be disarmed, as has very improperly been done. As a tete-de-pont, it should be re-armed, and kept in perfect condition in every respect. The five works, Forts Craig, Tillinghast, Cuss, Woodbury, and De Kalb, extend the line from Forts Richardson and Albany to the Potomac, opposite Georgetown, covering what are usually called the Heights of Arlington, heights from which the enemy would have within long range of rifled guns the most important public buildings of the city. The line would have been better had it been thrown half a mile farther forward; but its location where it is, on ground by no means unfavorable, was not an error of judgment, but a necessity of the circumstances under which it was built. In reference to this part of the line, the following general remarks are made: The line south of Fort Richardson,
works in its front fall, and thus will enable us to maintain a tete-de-pont at the aqueduct, which cannot be held after Fort Corcoran falls. 3d. The construction of batteries for field guns along the intervals of the works, or in the lines of rifle-pits, wherever favorable locations offer themselves. 4th. The construction of sufficient bomb-proofs, to shelter the garrisons of the works named, Fort Corcoran included. 5th. The strengthening of the tete-de-pont at the aqueduct. The Commission also recommend the construction of two works in advance of the line, at points which have been examined and indicated-one opposite the interval between Forts Craig and Tillinghast, the other opposite the interval between Forts Woodbury and Cass, and 700 or 800 yards in front, these works to have stockaded gorges. Fort Ethan Allen.-This is a large work, bastioned on its exposed fronts, and pretty well adapted to its important position. The Commission recommend that a retrenchment be made to cross the gorge of the west bastion; that the fire on this capital be increased by placing 20-pounder rifled guns in the adjacent flanks, and two of the same class of guns on the pan-coupe of the salient; that additional bomb-proofs be built, so as to furnish sleeping accommodations for one-half the garrison; that the parapets of the northwest front be thickened to 14 feet; that additional platforms be provided for field guns, and that traverses be constructed on the northwest and south fronts. Fort Marey.-Bomb-proofs are in course of construction, as well as additional platforms for guns. The Commission make no further recommendations. The two works just named form no part of the Defenses of Washing ton, strictly speaking, but are of the utmost importance as a tete-de-pont
recommended are in course of execution.) Between these works just named and Fort Mansfield are two well constructed and well-located batteries for field guns, for sweeping the ravine in front of Fort Mansfield. Fort Mansfield.-The name is applied to two considerable redoubts and an exterior battery, connected by a substantial rifle-pit. The works are well located, as connecting links between Forts Ripley and Pennsylvania; are well built, and deemed adequate for their purpose. Still another redoubt (not named) is in construction on this line, near the Great Falls turnpike. Fort Pennsylvania.--This .work occupies a commanding position, at a point where the dividing ridge between · the Potomac and Rock Creek
Battery Vermont was constructed before the other shor!! of the Potomac was occupied. It has a good view of the Leesburg turnpike, and the Commission recommend the substitution of rifled guns for the 32-pounders, to bear on that approach. Battery Martin Scott sweeps the Chain Bridge. It now contains field 6-pounders. Two 8-inch siege howitzers are recommended. Returning now to the principal line, and proceeding from Fort De Russy eastward, near Rock Creek, on the heights, on the east side, is a battery for field guns, on the line of rifle-pits, intended to command the broad ravine which crosses the interval between Rock Creek and Fort Massachusetts. Fort Massachusetts, in conjunction with Fort Slocum, commands one of the principal avenues of approach to Washington. The original work was entirely inadequate to its important purpose. It has recently been judiciously enlarged, and, with the addition, is a powerful and satisfactory work. The Commission recommend that merlons be raised on the exposed front of the old work, which will, at the same time, defilade the rear and lateral faces; that the parapet of the exposed front be thickened; that bomb-proofs for garrison and casemates for reverse fire at the southeast angle of the old work and at the north angle of new work be constructed. Fort Slocum.-From two-thirds of a mile to 1 mile in advance of Forts Massachusetts and Slocum the country rises to heights say 20 to 30 feet higher than the crests to those works, furnishing to an enemy most advantageous emplacements for artillery. Along the dividing ridge of this high ground, between Rock Creek and the Eastern Branch, leads the Seventh street turnpike road. These two works are, therefore, exposed to the most powerful efforts of the enemy. Fort Slocum, though originally of more respectable dimensions than Fort Massachusetts, was, nevertheless, a small work, and quite inadequate in strength, armament, and bomb-proof. The work is undergoing a considerable and judicious enlargement. The Commission recommend merlons and traverses on the exposed fronts of the old work, by which the work will be defiladed and the guns better protected. The high ground spoken of in advance of these works will be under the fire of the 100-pounders and other rifled guns of Forts De Russy and Totten, besides that of the powerful batteries of the works themselves. Fort Totten occupies a most commanding and strong position, and exercises a powerful influence upon the approaches from the northward and those through the valley between it and Fort Lincoln. It is well adapted to its position, well built and well armed, and amply provided with magazines and bomb-proofs. The 100-pounder here placed will sweep the sector froin Fort De Russy to Fort Lincoln. Merlons and traverses are not called for in this work. The position is so strong that reverse fires are not considered necessary for the ditches. No recommendations made. Fort Slemmer.-A well-placed battery for three 32-pounder guns. No recommendations made. Fort Bunker Hill occupies a very commanding position, but it is deficient in interior space. It should contain at least two rifled guns, and needs additional fire upon its capital. An advanced battery for field
Fort Lincoln is situated on an eminence, overlooking the extensive valley formed by the Eastern Branch and its tributaries, and commanding the Baltimore turnpike, the railroad, and several minor roads, which, passing through or near Bladensburg, lead into Washington. At the foot of this eminence was fought the battle of Bladensburg. The narrowness of the summit, on which it is situated, is unfavorable to a good trace. The exterior batteries and rifle-pits, however, thoroughly see the ground over which assaulting columns must pass, and the bomb-proofs and magazines, arranged as traverses, protect the long and narrow interior from enfilading fires. A 100-pounder is being mounted in the northeast angle, which will sweep the sector from Fort Slocum around to Fort Mahan. The Commission recommend reversed casemates in the northeast angle of counterscarp and a few additional platforms for guns on the western long face. An additional magazine is in construction. From the fort the ridge runs easterly to the Eastern Branch, about three-fourths of a mile distant. About midway is a half-sunk battery for field guns, connected with the work by a double caponiere. At this point the ridge falls abruptly 40 or 50 feet, and the line is continued by rifle-pits to the extremity, where a powerful battery has just been built, terminating this part of our line. A deep, and for three fourths its length impenetrable, ravine takes its origin near the fort, and runs behind and parallel to this ridge. On the spurs immediately south are two half-sunk batteries for field guns, bearing upon the margins of the Eastern Branch. Fort Mahan may be considered an advanced tete-de-pont to Benning's Bridge, and commands the valley of the• Eastern Branch as far as Bladensburg, as well as the immediate approaches to the bridge. It is situated upon an isolated hill, the steep slopes of which are unseen from the fort, and are necessarily defended by external rifle-pits. As long as this work is held, an enemy cannot bring artillery to bear upon the bridge, nor move in force along the road which leads from Baldness-burg to the Navy-Yard Bridge. Between this road and that leading
these guns will be useful for their distant fire, the light guns of surrounding works being depended on for flanking purposes, it may be well to let them remain as they are. -Fort Du Pont, after what has been said, requires no especial remark. A deep ravine to the westward may, perhaps, be best defended by a block-house, which can be pretty well screened from an enemy's artillery. The system we have just spoken of may require two or three of these structures. Fort Davis requires no especial remark. It may be regarded as an «58 RR-VOL XXI»
Wells.-Generally the works are (in some cases at great expense of labor) provided with copious wells. There are yet some, however, where they are wanted, and where they should be provided. Roads.-On the south side of the Potomac there are roads enough, or nearly so; but they require much work, such as widening, raising, constructing of culverts, &c., to make them practicable for winter. A new military road has been constructed from Fort Alexander to Fort Massachusetts, having branches connecting with the different works. The roads along the line thence to Fort Lincoln (partly made by the engineers) make the chain complete. Much work, however, is required on the main stems leading from the city, to make them practicable in the winter. A military road has been made to Fort Stanton; another is in construction behind the ridge from Fort Baker to Fort Meigs, to enable succor to be given promptly to the works. The communications with Forts Carroll and Greble are probably sufficient. It has been estimated that the work on roads about Washington requires ten regiments for twenty days, and efforts have been made to obtain this or an equivalent of labor in some other shape. The Commission further state their opinion that the Defenses of Washington cannot be considered complete without the defense of the river against an enemy's armed vessels. Foreign intervention would bring against us maritime forces, and we could not depend upon being always in superior naval force on the Potomac, and we are, even now, threatened with Confederate iron-clads fitted out in English ports. Fort Washington is too distant for defense of the river under existing circumstances, for the superiority of the enemy in the field, which would drive us behind the Washington lines, would prevent our supporting that work if attacked by land. The Commission believe that a satisfactory defense may be afforded by placing on Jones' Point, near Alexandria, a battery of six guns of the heaviest caliber, say, four 200-pounders and two 15.inch guns in caserriates, and by constructing a battery of ten guns and a covering work on the opposite shore of the Potomac, at or near Rozier's Bluff. An examination has been made, revealing a most favorable and strong position on that side, easily communicated with by water. Surveys are in progress. The occupation of a point on the other shore in this vicinity will likewise protect Alexandria from cannonade, to which it would be exposed if left open to the enemy. The Commission recommend, as an additional security to Washington, the establishment of two heavy guns on Giesborough Point. The Commission conclude their report by expressing their convictions of the great importance of this system of defenses to Washington, and by urging upon the War Department and Congress to take steps and provide means for a full and early completion of the work.
JOS. G. TOTTEN, Brevet Brigadier-General and Colonel of Engineers. M. C. MEIGS, Quartermaster- General. WILLIAM F. BARRY, Brigadier-General of Volunteers. J. G. BARNARD, Brig. Gen. and Chief of Engineers, Defenses of Washington. . G.W.ClJLLUM, · Brigadier-General and Chief of Staff of the General-in-Chief
ORA, I, 21 (serial. 31), 902-16. AppendixD Correspondence Concerning Appropriations for the Defense of Washington Civil War Defenses of Washington PageD-1 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix D
Appendix D: Correspondence Concerning Appropriations for the Defenses of Washington
WASHINGTON, December 6, 1861.
Maj. Gen. GEORGE B. MCCLELLAN, Commanding Army of the Potomac, &c.:
GENERAL: It appears probable that our available appropriations will not suffice to complete entirely the defensive works about Washington. Forty-eight different works, some of which, like Forts Ethan Allen, Runyon, and Lyon, are of very large size, extensive abatis, &c., have been constructed, and many of them, besides the usual magazines, are provided with extensive bomb-proofs for quarters. For these constructions the sum of $344,053.46 has been available. It is probable that this sum will not entirely suffice, and that it will be more than exhausted by the close of the present month. I therefore request that an application be made to Congress for the immediate appropriation of the sum of $150,000 for completing the defenses of Washington. You are aware that while hired labor has been extensively employed south of the Potomac, the works north of the river have been almost exclusively constructed by it. I am, very. respectfully, your obedient servant,
J. G. BARNARD, Brigadier-General and Chief Engineer, Army of Potomac.
ORA, I, 5 (serial 5), 676.
WAR DEPARTMENT, December 11, 1861.
Hon. SPEAKER, OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of a letter of Brig. Gen. J. G. Barnard, chief engineer of the Army of the Potomac, setting forth the necessity for an early appropriation of $150,000 for completing the defenses of Washington. In view of the urgency of the case, as expressed by the commanding general of the Army in his indorsement submitting the letter to this Department, I commend it to the early and favorable action of Congress. Very respectfully, SIMON CAMERON, Secretary of War. [lnclosure.] Maj. Gen. GEORGE. B. McCLELLAN, Commander-in Chief Commanding Army of the Potomac: GENERAL: By letter of the 6th I requested that an immediate appropriation of $150,000 be asked for "completing the defenses of Washington." I mentioned in that letter that our defensive system thus far consisted of about forty eight works, mounting over 300 guns, some of which are of very large size; and I may add that the actual defensive Civil War Defenses of Washington PageD-2 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix D
perimeter occupied is about thirty-five miles, exceeding the length of the famous (and hitherto the most extensive fortified by extemporized field-works) lines of Torres Vedras by several miles. The amount which has been expended will not, therefore, considering the pressure under which the works have been built, appear extravagantly large. I now remark that in asking for the sum of $150,000 for "completing the defenses of Washington" I have in my mind the fact that many of the works have been thrown up in the very face of the enemy, and are
J. G. BARNARD, Brigadier-General, Chief Engineer Army of the Potomac.
[Indorsement.]
Respectfully referred to the Hon. Simon Cameron, Secretary of War, with the urgent request that the necessary steps may be taken to secure this appropriation.
GEO. B. McCLELLAN, Major-General, Commanding.
ORA, I, 51, Part 1 (serial 107), 510-11.
GENERAL ORDERS No.15. HEADQUARTERSOFTHEARMY, ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE, Washington, February 15, 1862. * * * * * * * * * * III. The following acts of Congress are published for the information of all concerned: * * * * * * * * * * 2. AN ACT making an appropriation for completing the defenses of Washington, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for completing the defenses of Washington: Provided, That all arrearages of debts already incurred for the objects of this act shall be first paid out of this sum: And provided further, That no part of the sum hereby appropriated shall be expended in any work hereafter to be commenced. Approved February 13, 1862. By command of Major-General McClellan: L.THOMAS, Adjutant-General. ORA, 111, 1 (serial 122), 888-89. Civil War Defenses of Washington PageD-3 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix D
WASHINGTON, October21, 1862.
Hon. E. M. STANTON, Secretary of War: SIR: In applying for authority (as I did about the 1st of September) to expend $50,000 upon the fortifications around Washington, I had not had time to make a thorough study of the matter, and asked this suin to meet the most obvious demand for additional works. An attentive examination of the whole line shows me that much modification and much auxiliary work is necessary in all the works heretofore built. The inclosed extract(*) from a letter from Colonel Kelton, assistant adju-tant-general, will explain this. No work is so indefinite as an extensive system of field defenses like this. There is scarcely a·ny limit to the amount of work which may be bestowed
J. G. BARNARD, Brig. Gen. and Chief Engineer, Defenses of Washington.
[lndorsement. ]
OCTOBER 22, 1862.
The Adjutant-General will prepare an order for a commission, as suggested within.
EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War.
ORA, I, 19, Part2 (serial 28), 461-62. Civil War Defenses of Washington PageD-4 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix D
WASHlNGTON,December30, 1862.
Hon. E. M. STANTON, Secretary of War:
SIR: I herewith present you the report of the Commission ordered by you to examine the Defenses of Washington, and report to you as to their efficiency, &c. It will be seen that the Commission approve generally of the lines established and of the works, and that they attach very great importance to them; that they recommend some additions to or modifications of the existing works; some new works (five or six) to strengthen certain parts of the line, and that they purpose to add a new feature to the defensive system by the construction of works to defend the river from maritime attack. Their reasons are given in full, and it is not necessary for me to dwell upon them in this place. The amount expended upon the system up to the time when I relinquished the charge last spring to take the field with the Army of the Potomac was about $550,000. This applied to the construction of upward of fifty forts and a number of batteries. Some of these works were of large dimensions, and many had, besides the usual magazine, extensive bomb-proofs, for the protection of the garrisons. Notwithstanding the number of works built, the defensive system was in some parts still very weak, and everywhere there was need (as I stated in a report to the Chief Engineer U.S. Army a year ago) of auxiliary works, more efficient armament, &c.; and I also stated that there were important gaps in the line which should be filled. When the Army of the Potomac retired from the James River, I was ordered to assume the command of the works and troops of Washington, and there was apprehension felt (as the result proved, rightly) for the safety of Washington. Of course, it was my duty, both as engineer and commanding officer, to use the time and means disposable to increase the strength of the defenses. The northern side of the city, between the Potomac and Eastern Branch, which had been little exposed to attack the summer before, was, in August and September of this year, the most likely to be assailed, and from the Potomac to the Seventh street road it was exceedingly weak.
There has been but one other system of field works that I know of that is analogous to this in extent and character-the famous lines of Torres Vedras. These frustrated the design of Napoleon of driving the English from the Peninsula. They consisted of a greater number of works, but the works were smaller, and much less expensive in workmanship; yet on these lines, in a country where labor commanded but one tenth of.what is paid in this country, $1,000,000 was expended from first to last. I am, very respectfully, your most obedient,
J. G. BARNARD, Brig. Gen., and Chief Engineer Defenses of Washington.
ORA, I, 21 (serial 31), 902-03.
WASHINGTON, February 2, 1863.
Hon. E. M. STANTON, Secretary of War; SIR: On the 30th of December, 1862, I addressed you a letter(*) to accompany the report of the commission ordered by yourself "to examine and report upon the plan of the present forts, and sufficiency of the present system of defenses for the city." * * * * * * * * * * I would add that in asking for all appropriation of $200,000, far the largest part of this sum is required to carry out the recommendations of the Commission, to connect with the system of defenses already established forts and batteries for the defenses of the Potomac. Such works, though of earth and timber, must necessarily be expensive; and, indeed, they should be so carefully planned that hereafter they may be converted into permanent works, if desirable. I am, very respectfully, your most obedient,
J. G. BARNARD, Brig. Gen., Chief Engineer Defenses of Washington.
ORA, I, 25, Part 2 (serial 40), 41-42.
HEADQUARTERS CHIEF ENGINEER OF DEFENSES, Washington, May 22, 1863.
Maj. Gen. S. P. HEINTZELMAN, Commanding, &c. : GENERAL: In informing you that on being deprived entirely, as I have been, of the assistance of troops on the south side of the Potomac, I should be obliged to suspend much important unfinished work, I only conformed to a necessity I cannot control. My pay-rolls for hired labor were, for the month· of April, over $30,000, and at the end of that month only $14,000 of the $200,000 appropriated by Congress remained. At the end of the current month, probably not much over$ 10,000 will remain, and I have yet the important works recommended by the Commission appointed by the Secretary of War for the defense of the river to commence, besides the several new works commenced in progress. But it is out of the question to complete all that should be done with hired labor alone. At the Chain Bridge there remains much to be done, and I will continue a force of mechanics, with some laborers, provided I can have the assistance of the troops. Fort McDowell (or fort at the red house) is defensible, and can receive its armament. I shall be obliged probably to defer the construction of bomb-proofs. So at De Kalb, Woodberry, Cass, Tillinghast, a)ld Craig, the thing to be done is the bomb-proofs, and I can do little on these except through the aid of the garrisons. Civil War Defenses of Washington PageD-6 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix D
The fort behind Cass requires the labor of 500 men. All I can do is to keep a small force of laborers at work on it. The lines of rifle-pits and batteries are essentially complete. There is some interior work on the different forts from Craig to Mott, but I can do no better than to furnish instructions, supervision, and some assistance to the garrisons. The new works on the river, and those recommended on Traitor's Hill and at Corbett's house. I had expected to do with hired labor, and it is that I may be able to do them that I am forced to withdraw hired labor in great degree from finished works. No one is more tired of this work than I am. The probable allegation that it is endless may be frankly admitted. The works, in the hasty construction and imperfect development given them two summers ago, were certainly a vast addition to the defensibility of Washington, but to make this line, 35 miles Jong, really a strong line, such as we need about Washington, the works of 1861 were but the beginning. The artillery (the best we could get) was improper and not adapted to the purpose or the age. The garrisons need (if a protracted resistance is expected) to be sheltered by a certain amount of bomb-proof; and that these works should be, as intended, the points d'appui for movable troops, it was important that these last should have the protection of rifle-pits and properly located batteries for field guns. Your own observation must have shown you that in the last eight months vast amount of important work has been done, and that there is no comparison between the defensibility of Washington as it was eight months ago and as it is now. It is extremely difficult to keep up a large force of hired laborers, and as to contrabands, of which there are multitudes somewhere, cultivating Arlington or employed by the quartermaster, I have never been able to get any number. I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
J. G. BARNARD, Brigadier-General.
ORA, I, 25, Part 2 (serial 40), 513-514.
HEADQUA.ITTERS CHIEF ENGINEER OF DEFENSES, Washington, July 7, 1863.
Col. J. C. KELTON, Assistant Adjutant-General: COLONEL: In November and December last, a commission of officers, appointed by the War Department, investigated and reported upon the Defenses of Washington, recommending additional works at certain points they deemed weak; the perfection and improvement of other works; and the building of two· water batteries for the protection of the city against naval attack. To carry out these suggestions (approved by the War Department), I asked for and obtained an appropriation of $200,000. The work has been prosecuted with all the vigor the means at my disposal would admit. Although the winter season was most unfavorable for such work, and with the limited amount of money available, as well as with regard to economy, it was not deemed advisable to employ very large gangs of hired laborers, yet, by aid of the troops, working whenever the weather and state of the ground would permit, the most essential works recommended by the commission, such as the advanced works around Fort Lyon; Fort Williams, on Traitor's Hill; Forts Whipple and C. F. Smith, on the Arlington lines; the additional works at the Chain Bridge; the union of Forts Alexander, Franklin, and Ripley into one (Fort Sumner); the completion and construction of Forts Mansfield, Simmons, and Bayard; the · modifications of Forts Reno, De Russy, and Stevens; the extension of Fort Slocum, &c., and the connecting system of rifle-pits and batteries for field guns, were all pressed forward, so as to be in a condition, if not complete, at least of efficiency, for their uses, with the return of the season, when active field operations might throw Washington upon its defenses. Civil War Defenses of Washington PageD-7 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix D
The two water batteries were commenced in May, one of them, being out of the line, requiring a very expensive work to render it self-sustaining. My estimates, however (so far as I could estimate at all), were founded upon my previous experience, in which I had been aided freely by troops, and I counted on their aid in doing most of the earthwork and rifle-pits. Instead of this, however, as soon as the season favorable for work actually set in, almost every detail of troops was withdrawn. The extensive system of rifle-pits, incomplete and demanding thousands of men, was left for me to complete unaided.
J. G. BARNARD, Brigadier-General.
ORA, I, 27, Part 3 (serial 45), 596-97.
GENERAL ORDERS No. 231. WARDEPT.,ADJT. GENERAL'S OFFICE, Washington, July 18, 1864.
The following acts and resolutions of Congress are published for' the information of all concerned: I.PUBLIC-No.180. AN ACT making appropriations for the construction, preservation, and repairs of certain fortifications and other works of defense, for the year ending the thirtieth of June, eighteen hundred and sixty-five. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United states of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums be, and they are hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for ttie construction, preservation, and repairs of certain fortifications, and other works of defense, for the year ending the thirtieth of June, eighteen hundred and sixty-five: * * * * * * * * * * For providing obstructions to be moored in the Potomac River, to render the shore batteries more efficient for the protection of Washington against maritime attack, three hundred thousand dollars. For completing and rendering more permanent the defenses of Washington, three hundred thousand dollars. * * * * * * * * * * Approved July 2, 1864.
ORA, ill, 4 (serial 125), 504-505 AppendixE General Reports About the Defenses Civil War Defenses of Washington PageE-1 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix E
Appendix E: General Reports about the Defenses
OFFICE CHIEF ENGINEER ARMY OF POTOMAC, Washington, D.C., December.IO, 1861.
General J. G. TOTTEN, Chief of Engineers, &c.:
SIR: The resolution of the House of Representatives of July 8, of which the following is the tenor Resolved, That the Secretary of War be requested to furnish this House, as soon as practicable, plans and estimates, to be prepared by the Engineer Department, for completing the defensive works on the south side of the Potomac, near this city; and also to report upon the expediency of constructing similar Works of defense on the northern _side of this city, with estimates for the same, so as to reduce to a minimum the number of troops required for the protection and defense of the- capital- having been submitted to me in July last, I now make the following statement: At the time when the resolution was referred to me I was attached to the headquarters of Brigadier-General McDowell as chief engineer, and a few days thereafter I was in the field engaged in the campaign of Bull Run. Previous to this movement the army of Washington, yet weak in numbers and imperfectly organized. under General Mansfield, had crossed the Potomac and occupied the south bank from opposite Georgetown to Alexandria. The first operations of field engineering were, necessarily, the securing of our debouches to the other shore and establishing of a strong point to strengthen our hold of Alexandria. The works required for these limited objects (though being really little towards constructing
was felled through the forest in front of Arlington and half. sunk batteries prepared along the ridge in front of Fort Corcoran and at suitable points near Fort Albany, and a battery of two rifled 42-pounders (Battery Cameron)was established on the heights near the distributing reservoir above Georgetown to sweep the approaches to Fort Corcoran. Simultaneously a chain of Iunettes (Forts De Kalb, Woodbury, Cass, Tillinghast, and Craig) was commenced, connecting Fort Corcoran and the Potomac on the right with Fort Albany on the left, and forming a continuous defensive line in ·advance of the heights of Arlington. The wooded ridge, which lies north of and parallel to the lower course of Four Mile Run offered a position from which the city, the Long Bridge, and the plateau in advance of it could be overlooked and cannonaded. While our external line was so incomplete, it was important to exclude the enemy from its possession. Access to it was made difficult by felling the forest, which covered it (about 200 acres), and the large Junette (Fort Scott) was commenced as soon as the site could be fixed (about the middle of August). The subsequent establishment of our defensive line in advance throws this work into the same category with Forts Corcoran, Albany, Runyon, &c., as an interior work, or second line, but it
early in August.. The.others were taken up as speedily as the clearing of the woods and the means at our disposal would admit, and the gaps in the line afterwards partially filled up by construction of Fort Gaines, Forts De Russy, Slemmer, and Thayer. The works mentioned are at this date essentially completed and armed, though there is still considerable to do in auxiliary arra~gements. Our first ideas as to defensive works beyond the Anacostia contemplated only the fortification of the debouches from the bridges (Navy-Yard Bridge and Benning's Bridge), and the occupation of the heights overlooking the Navy-Yard Bridge. With that object Fort Stanton was commenced early in September. A further examination of the remarkable ridge between the Anacostia and Oxen Run showed clearly that, to protect the navy-yard and arsenal from bombardment, it was necessary to occupy an extent of 6 miles from Berry's place (Fort Greble) to the intersection of the road from Benning's Bridge (Fort Meigs). Forts Greble and Carroll were commenced in the latter part of September, and Fort Mahan, near Benning 's Bridge, about the same time. Forts Greble and Stanton are completed and armed; Forts Mahan and Carroll very nearly so. To fill up intervals or to sweep ravines not seen by the principal works, Forts Meigs, Dupont, Davis, Baker, Good Hope, Battery Ricketts, and Fort Snyder have been commenced, and it is hoped may be so far advanced before the winter sets in as to get them into a defensible condition. The occupation of the Virginia shore at the Chain Bridge was essential to the operations of our army in Virginia. It was only delayed until our force was sufficient to authorize it. General Smith's division crossed the bridge September-, and Forts Ethan Alien and Marcy were immediately commenced and speedily finished. A few weeks later (September 28) the positions of Upton's and Mun-son's Hills and Taylor's Tavern were occupied and Fort Ramsay commenced on Upton's Hill. The enemy's works on Munson's and the adjacent hill were strengthened and a Junette built near Taylor's Tavern. Comprised in the foregoing categories there are twenty-three field forts south of the Potomac, fourteen field forts and three batteries between the Potomac and Anacostia, and eleven field forts beyond the Anacostia, making forty-eight field forts in all. These vary in size from Forts Runyon, Lyon, and Marcy, of which the perimeters are 1,500,937, and 736 yards, down to Forts Bennett, Haggerty, and Saratoga, &c., with perimeters of 146, 128, and 154 yards. The greater portion of them are inclosed works of earth, though many-as Forts Craig, Tillinghast, Scott, &c., south of the Potomac, and Forts Saratoga, Gaines, &c., on the north-are lunettes with stockaded gorges. The armament is mainly made up of 24 and 32 pounders on sea-coast carriages, with a limited proportion of 24-pounder siege guns, rifled Par-rott guns, and guns on field carriages of lighter caliber. The larger of the works are flanked; but the greater number are not, the sites and dimensions not permitting. Magazines are provided for one hundred rounds of ammunition, and many of the works have a considerable extent of bomb proof shelter, as Forts Lyon, Worth, and Ward, in the bomb-proofs of which probably one-third of the garrison might comfortably sleep and nearly all take temporary shelter. In nearly all the works there are either bomb proofs like the above, or log barracks, or blockhouses of some kind. It would be impossible to go into any details about these constructions. I am in hopes ultimately to be able to deposit in the Engineer Office drawings of each work with sufficient detail for most purposes.
The only case in which forts are connected by earthworks is that of Forts Woodbury and De Kalb, between which an infantry parapet is .thrown up, with emplacements for field guns. The construction here was suggested by the fact that this was on one of the most practicable and probable routes of approach for tlie enemy. Infantry trenches have, however, been-constructed around or in advance of other works, either to cover the construction (as at Fort Lyon), or to see ground not seen by the work (as at Forts Totten, Lincoln, Mahan, &c.). The works I have now described do not constitute a complete defensive system. We have been obliged to neglect much and even to throw out of consideration important matters. We have been too much hurried to devise a perfect system, and even now are unable to say precisely what and how rriany · additional points should be occupied and what auxiliary arrangements should be made. It is safe to say that at least two additional works are required to connect Fort Ethan Allen with Fort De Kalb. . The necessity of protecting the Chain Bridge ·compelled us to throw the left of our northern line several miles in advance of its natural position, as indicated by the topography to the sites of Forts Ripley, Alexander, and Franklin. Between these and Forts Gaines or Pennsylvania one or two intervening works are necessary. Between Forts Pennsylvania and De Russy at least one additional work i.s necessary. Fort Massachusetts is entirely too small for its important position. Auxiliary works are necessary in connection with it. Small tetes-de-pont are required around the heads of Benning's and the Navy-Yard Bridges. Between Forts Mahan and Meigs one or more intervening works and between Forts Du Pont and Davis another work of some magnitude are required, the ground along this line not being yet sufficiently known. A
works than the total amount expended thus far. The work has been done partly by troops and partly by hired laborers, the works north of the Potomac being· mostly done by the latter. The large amount of carpentry in magazine frames and doors and blindages, barrier gates, stockades, block-houses, defensive barracks, &c., has kept a large gang of carpenters all the time at work, and caused a iarge expenditure for lumber. The entire amount made available by the Department for these works has been $344,053.46, and this will all have been expended (or more) by the end of the present month. This would give an average of a little over $7,000 for each of the. forty-eight works; but of course the real cost of them has been very unequal. · The importance of perfect security to the capital of the United States in the present state of affairs can scarcely be overestimated, and these
should have mentioned, in connection with my statement of the amount actually expended, that the Treasury Department has advanced over $20,000 on account of the defenses of Washington, which should be refunded. I feel it my duty in this place to urge that Congress should take immediate measures to assess the land and other damages arising from these works and from the occupation of troops. In most cases the owners are ill able to bear temporarily the losses to which they have been subjected. In conclusion, I would add that to the great importance attached io these works by the commanding general (now Commander-in-Chief), to his valuable suggestions and prompt and cordial co-operation, the present state of efficiency of the defenses of Washington is in no small degree due. I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
J. G. BARNARD, Maj. of Eng., Brig. Gen., and Chief Eng. Army of Potomac.
ORA, I, 5 (serial 5), 678-85.
ALEXANDRIA, VA., March 29, 1862.
Col. D. B. SACKET, Inspector-General, U. S. Army :
COLONEL: Agreeably to orders, with Colonel Tyler, Fourth Connecticut Volunteers, I proceeded to inspect the following forts on the south side of the Potomac: I. Bamard.-Armed with eight guns, as follows: Three 32-pounders; one 24-pounder barbette; one 24- pounder siege; one 30-pounder Parrott, and two 8-inch sea-coast howitzers. The armament, ammunition, parapets, slopes, and abatis in good order. 2. Fort Richardson.-Nine guns, as follows: Two 24-pounder barbette; three 24-pounder siege guns; two 30- pounder Parrotts, and two IO-inch siege mortars. One of the mortars is unserviceable from its trunnions being too large for the bed. One magazine leaks slightly. In other respects fort in good condition as to guns, ammunition, parapets, and abatis. 3. Fort Albany.-Twelve guns, as follows: Eight 24-pounder barette; two 6pounder field, and two 24- pouilder howitzers. The guns and ammunition and abatis in good condition. The sides of the ditches
7. Fort Woodbury.-Five guns: Two 24-pounder barbette; two 24-pounder siege, and one 24-pounder field. howitzer. This fort is not garrisoned, having an ordnance sergeant and two sentinels. The slopes are caving in. One of the magazines is flooded with water, the ammunition all being stored in the other one. The guns, ammunition, and abatis in good order. 8. Fort De Kalb.-Nine guns: One 24-pounder barbette; four 24-pounder siege; two 24-pounder field howitzer, and two 24-pounder flanking howitzers. No garrison; an ordnance sergeant and two sentinels. Slopes washing; guns, ammunition, and abatis in good order. All of the above-named forts being now newly occupied, or the garrisons soon to take possession, will require definite instructions, which will be required in writing, as verbal instructions, If not repeated periodically, are of little weight. An artillery officer should have a general supervision of these forts, who should see that the instructions are obeyed, and he should make written reports that stated inspections are made, noting the condition of material and works and efficiency of garrison. These works are in general good condition for field works, considering the season of the year; well armed and supplied with ammunition. The proper manning of these works and their efficiency in case of attack will depend on the officers having the future charge of the troops occupying them. The works are good and well armed. I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
N. B. SWEITZER, Lieutenant-Colonel and Aide-de-Camp.
ORA, I, 12, Part 3 (serial 18), 29-30.
Abstract from returns of the District and Military Defenses of Washington, for August 31, 1862. 0 Officers. A Aggregate present M Men. B Aggregate present and absent P Presentfor duty
p Command. 0 M A B
District of Washington (Wadsworth): Headquarters 15 29 44 44 Infantry 39 825 973 1,114 Cavalry 20 316 422 818 Provost guards 46 1,453 1,638 1,912 Total 120 2,623 3,077 3,888
Defenses of Washington (Barnard): Headquarters 4 4 4 South of the Potomac (Whipple) 610 15,360 16,677 17,288 North of the Potomac (Haskin) 303 7,586 8,242 8,479 Total 917 22,946 24,923 25,771
Provisional Brigades (Casey) 47 1,052 1,179 1,187 Grand total 1,084 26,621 29,179 30,846
Troops in the Defenses of Washington, August 31, 1862. Civil War Defenses of Washington. PageE-8 / Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix E
MJLITARYDEFENSESOFWASIIlNGTON. Brig. Gen. JOHN G. BARNARD. SOUTH OF THE POTOMAC. Brig. Gen. A. W. WHIPPLE. 14th Connecticut, Col. Dwight Morris. 16th Maine, Col. Asa W. Wildes. I st Massachusetts .Heavy Artillery, Col. William B. Greene. 35th Massachusetts, Col. Edward A.Wild. 9th New Hampshire, Col. E. Q. Fellows. 11th New Jersey, Col. Robert McAllister. 3d New York Artillery Battalion, Lieut. Col. Adam Senges. 4th New York Heavy Artillery (eight companies), Col. T. D. Doubleday. 10th New York Cavalry (eight companies), Col. J.C. Letomen. 12th New York Battery, Capt. W. H. Ellis. 107th New York, Col. R. B. Van Valkenburgh. 108th New York, Col. Oliver H. Palmer. 120th New York, Col. George H. Sharpe. 124th Pennsylvania, Col. J. W. Hawley. 125th Pennsyivania, Col. Jacob Higgins. 127th Pennsylvania (nine companies),Col. W.W. Jennings. 128th Pennsylvania, Col. Samuel Croasdale. 130th Pennsylvania, Col. H. I. Zinn. 132d Pennsylvania, Col. Richard A. Oakford. Pennsylvania Engineers (one company), Capt. Henry E. Wrigley. Wisconsin Heavy Artillery (one coinpany), Capt. A. J. Langworthy. NORTH OF THE POTOMAC. (*)
Lieut. Col. J. A. HASKIN.
17th Maine, Col. Thomas A. Roberts. 18th Maine, Col. Daniel Chaplin. 19th Maine, Col. Frederick D. Sewall. 17th Michigan, Col. W. H. Withington. 113th New York, Col. Lewis 0. Morris. 117th New York, Col. William R. Pease. 112th Pennsylvania, Col. A. A. Gibson. 136th Pennsylvania, Col. T. M. Bayne. 137th Pennsylvania, Col. H. M. Bossert. DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON.(+)
Brig. Gen. J. S. WADSWORTH.
2d District of Columbia, Col. C. M. Alexander. 10th New Jersey, Col. William R. Murphy. 11th New York Cavalry, Col. James B. Swain. 26th Pennsylvania, Company B, Lieut. James McElwee. 27th Pennsylvania, Company F, Capt. Chauncey Spering. .Civil War Defenses of Washington PageE-9 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix E
135th Pennsylvania, Lieut. Col. David L. McCulloch. PROVISIONAL BRIGADES.
Brig. Gen. SILAS CASEY.
15th Connecticut, Col. Dexter R. Wright. Keystone (Pennsylvania) Battery, Capt. Matthew Hastings.
ORA, I, 12, Part 3 (serial 18), 781-82.
WASHINGTON, October 6, 1862.
Col. J. C KELTON, Assistant Adjutant-General:
COLONEL: I am informed, by Captain Sawtelle, that probably about 500 contrabands can be obtained from Fort Monroe. I desire them very much for work on the fortifications of Washington, and request that, if consistent with other requirements of the service, they may be ordered here at once. There are steamers at Fort Monroe, by which they can be brought up immediately. As everything connected with this subject of the fortifications of Washington is left to my individual will, I take this occasion to state what I am doing, and what, I think, is required. Before the battle of Bull Run, the idea of the fortifications of Washington was not broached, the works previous to that (Forts Ellsworth, Runyon, Albany, and Corcoran) being for special purposes. Imperfect, as a system of defense, as those works were, they doubtless exercised an important influence in deterring the enemy from following up his success by an assault upon Arlington or Alexandria, and the necessity of completing the fortification of .Washington became evident. · It was an immense undertaking, for the line to be held was 35 miles long, through a country extensively wooded and of intricate topography. The work was not fully inaugurated until the latter part of August, and its extension around the northern sides of the city, and over the Eastern Branch, was of later date. During, therefore, the five months of August, September, October, November, and December, the entire defensive line, 35 miles in length, consisting of about fifty different works, and mounting four hundred and forty-three guns, was, though not completed, essentially brought to the condition in which it was left when the Army of the Potomac commenced its campaign in Virginia. It is no matter of surprise that a work which, to be thoroughly well done, required so much preliminary study and reconnaissance and which was execuied under the pressure of an enemy in our front, allowing no time for such thorough study, should be found in many respects imperfect; besides, it was necessary to commence works in many cases before the woods could be cleared away enough to give that perfect knowledge of the ground essential to their best location. As the season of construction drew to a close, the sense of danger to the capital in great measure passed away, and,in making an appropriation to meet liabilities actually incurred, Congress prohibited the application of that appropriation to the . commencement of any new works, although there were several gaps to be filled, and much work necessary on some parts of the line to give them any real defensive strength. On resuming charge of these works, in August last, the condition may be briefly stated as follows: On the south side of the Potomac there were probably works enough, and the woods had been pretty well cleared from the front. A few auxiliary batteries have been judged necessary, as well as the connection of the works by rifle-pits ·or infantry parapets. A remark should be made about Fort Lyon. It is a very large work, and a very important
many conditions to be fulfilled, more than were reconcilable. There is now a most serious defect, which is, that over the readiest approach of an enemy the ground is not seen beyond 200 or 300 yards. I consider it absolutely necessary to remedy this defect, and it can only be done by building lunettes in advance, which I am now doing, or, rather, about doing. At the Chain Bridge extensive clearing of woods, rifle pits, auxiliary batteries, &c., have been found necessary. The most defective part of the line, and it was one the most liable to attack during the recent demonstrations of the ~nemy-was from the Potomac to Fort Massachusetts. The left was occupied by a cluster of three small works, Alex-under, Franklin, and Ripley. The turnpikes from Great Falls, Rockville, and Brookville, uniting at Tennallytown, were commanded by Fort. Pennsylvania, and an intermediate point and road was held by Fort De Russy. The country is very broken, and was thickly wooded, the woods having been cleared only in the immediate vicinity of the works. At present the woods have been cleared. Two additional forts, se~eral batteries, have been built and are in progress, and a road of communication is likewise in progress. From Fort Massachusetts to the Eastern Branch the line of forts might be considered complete, though it may be determined to enlarge Fort Slocum. Fort Massachusetts itself, the earliest work of this line, was entirely inadequate to its most important position. It has been extensively enlarged. The country in from of this position was more open than usual, but it has been found necessary to fell large quantities of timber. Rifle-pits and some additional batteries have been constructed. The portion of the Jines over the Eastern Branch is the least satisfactory of the whole, particularly that portion from Fort Meigs to Fort Stanton. The topography was very hard to deal with, and, unfortunately, the works were located before the woods were cut. The works, serving very imperfectly the approaches, and surrounded by woods, were nearly indefensible. One of the first measures I took was to order a regiment there for clearing. This was to a considerable extent, done, but while my attention has been directed elsewhere, the work of clearing has been suspended. As the enemy cannot enter the city from this direction, the object of the works is to prevent him seizing these heights, and occupying them long enough ·to shell the navy-yard and arsenal. For this, the works must be made secure against assault, and auxiliary to this object is the construction of roads by which succor can be readily thrown to any point menaced. Some general remarks will apply to the whole line. When these works were commenced, neither field nor siege guns could be obtained in any adequate numbers; hence the only resource was to arm them with sea-coast 24's and 32's from the arsenal. It always appeared to me objectionable, and I regret that, even in the absence of other guns, I permitted so many guns of this character to be mounted. These guns can only be used upon the enemy's batteries or troops at a distance. At close quarters not only are they too unmanageable, but, with all expedients used for protection, they are too exposed to permit the men to stand by the guns. In many of the works, such as Forts Pennsylvania, Totten, Lincoln, &c., the objection is not so strong, as the artillery is mainly intended for distant action. But in others, such as Forts Ripley, Franklin, Meigs, &c., it is a most serious evil. I have not investigated the subject thoroughly, but it is probable that, many of these guns should be dismantled and it is certain that a great many emplacements should be prepared for field and siege guns.
ORA, I, 19, Part 2 (serial 28), 391-93.
WASHINGTON, March 31, 1863. Maj. Gen. S. P. HEINTZELMAN; · Commanding Department of Washington: GENERAL: I herewith send a tabular statement(*) of armament, garrisons, &c., of the forts constituting the Defenses of Washington. Also a statement of the length of lines of rifle-pits.(*) Also a statement giving a list of batteries for field guns, indicating their location and the number of guns they will receive.(*) Drawings will be made and sent to you, which will indicate the position of these rifle-pits and batteries, as also of all the forts. It will be seen that the total of full garrisons for all the forts is 26,725 men, of which 10,305 consists of artillerymen and 16,420 of infantry. These garrisons are apportioned as follows: Location. Artillery. Infantry. Total. Fort Lyon position 890 · 1,260 2150 From Fort Ellsworth to f:ort Corcoran 3,315 4,730 . 8,045 Chain Bridge position 600 1,000 1,600 Potomac to Eastern Branch 3,500 5,700 9,200 Over Eastern Branch 2,000 3,730 5,730 Total 10,305 16,420 26,725 It is a matter of some difficulty to say with any precision what additional troops are necessary to hold Washington, as it would depend much upon the circumstances and force of the attack, and also upon the condition of the Potomac. It may be stated, in the first place, that besides the full garrisons at the Chain Bridge, there should be, when the enemy is, or can be, near enough and strong enough to attack in any force, an additional infantry force there (with some cavalry) of about 2,000 men, making, say, 3,600 in all. With this force, the rifle-pits can be sufficiently manned to resist a strong attack. Should an attack be protracted, or should an enemy appear before the position in force, about 4,000 more men, and at least three field batteries, would be required for a protracted resistance. The rifle-pits of the position are 3,500 yards (say 2 miles) long, but here, as elsewhere, it will be never necessary to man the whole length. A considerable portion of those between Fort Ethan Allen and the Potomac, for example (behind the ravine), would be sufficiently guarded by two companies, as it is almost unassailable, and needs only to be carefully watched. At Fort Lyon and outworks there should be permanently, I think, a force equal to the full garrisons (2,150 men), and, if the enemy's movements or positions are such that he can throw himself in force upon this «12 R R-VOLXXV, PT II»
The total infantry garrison required for their defense, computed at 2 men per yard of front perimeter, and 1 man pei- yard of rear perimeter of works, is about 25,000. The total number of artillerymen (to furnish three reliefs for each gun) required is about 9,000. It is seldom necessary to keep these infantry supports attached to the works. The artillerymen, whose training requires much time, having learned the disposition of the armament, and computed the distances of the ground over which attacks may be looked for, and the ranges and service of their guns, should not be changed; they should remain permanently in the forts. The 25,000 infantry should be encamped in such positions as may be most convenient to enable them, in case of alarm, to garrison the several works, and a force of 3,000 cavalry should be available for outpost duty, to give notice of the approach of any enemy. . Whenever an enemy is within striking distance of the capital, able by rapid march to attempt a coup de main, which might result in the temporary occupation of the city, the dispersion of the Government, and the destruction of the archives, all of which could be accomplished by a single day's possession, a covering army of not less than 25,000 men should be held in position, ready to march to meet the attacking column. Against more serious attacks from the main body of the enemy, the capital must depend on the concentration of its entire armies in Virginia or Maryland. They should precede or follow any movement of the enemy seriously threatening the ·capital. You will observe that from Hunting Creek north to the Potomac there are about 11,000 yards of rifle-pits. As observed elsewhere, it will never be necessary to man the whg)e at once. Take that part between Hunting Creek and Four-Mile Run, for example. There are 5,100 yards of rifle-pits connecting the works, but the actual front before which the enemy could arrange his line of battle will not be more than 2, JOO yards. He will not mass his men in the valleys, or on the slopes of the valleys of these streams,. where they would be seen and cut up by plunging and cross fires of our forts. He may try their flanks with small columns, favored by darkness, &c., and they would be resisted by the fire of the forts, and by a few men holding the pits until reserves could be brought up.
works in advance of the Arlington lines, none of which are included in the statement. They would probably require in all 2,000 more men. The figures representing actual garrisons at this date are the numbers of "enlisted men" present at the work. While in some few cases (as at Fort Corcoran) there are more than required as artillery garrisons, in others there is a deficiency. The rifle.pits south of the.Potomac require but a very short period of good working days to be completed, with the force now detailed for that purpose. At the Chain Bridge they are completed; at Fort Lyon, nearly so. From the Potomac to Eastern Branch the line has been run through, but it is proposed ultimately to enlarge the part from Rock Creek to the Eastern Branch. This, with good weather, would require a regiment a couple of weeks to do. I understand from General Barry that there are on hand in the
ORA, I, 25, Part 2 (serial 40), 177-80.
Abstract from return of the Department of Washington, Maj. Gen,. S. P. Heintzelman commanding, for the month of March, 1863; headquarters, Washington, D.C. 0 Officers. B Aggregate present and absent M Men. C Heavy p Present for duty D Field A Aggregate present E Pieces of artillery
P--- E- Command. 0 M A B C D
General headquarters 16 47 63 64 District of Alexandria 102 1,965 2,450. 2,942 Camp Convalescent 13 2,537 2,537 Camp Distribution 6 987 1,080 1,080 Artillery defenses of Alexandria 122 2,353 .2,929 3,447 162 28 Heavy Artillery Brigade 71 1,687 2,074 2,824 89 17 Abercrombie's division 239 5,389 6,406 8,736 36 25 Casey's division 351 6,914 8,472 9,538 24 Pennsylvania Reserve Corps 208 4,352 5,278 7,387 Cavalry Division 299 4,944 6,748 7,912 District of Washington 194 4,127 5,173 6,143 149 117 Artillery camp of instruction 34 814 948 1,130 42 Defenses north of the Potomac 253 5,908 7,400 8,357 ..-.. Corps of observation 131 3,026 3,644 4,112 6 Railway Brigade 30 722 875 907 Fort Washington 5 110 144 151 70 3 Total 2,074 43,345 56,22i 67,267 506 262
Troops in the Department of.Washington, Maj. Gen. Samuel P. Heintzelman commanding, March 31, 1863. Civil War Defenses of Washington Page E-14 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix E
GENERALHEADQUARTERS. 5th New York Cavalry, Company I, Capt George C. Morton.
DISTRICT OF ALEXANDRIA. Brig. Gen. JOHN P. SLOUGH. 1st District of Columbia, Lieut. Col. Lemuel Towers. 26th Michigan, Col. J. S. Farrar. 153d New York, Maj. E. P. Davis. 11th Rhode Island, Col. George E. Church.
ARTILLERY DEFENSES OF ALEXANDRIA(*) Brig. Gen. ROBERT 0. TYLER. 1st Connecticut Heavy Artillery, Col. H. L. Abbot. 19th Connecticut, Col. L. W. Wessells. 1st Massachusetts Heavy Artillery,(+) Col. Thomas R: Tannatt. 34th Massachusetts, Col. George D. Wells. 2d New York Heavy Artillery, ( +) Lieut. Col. Jeremiah Palmer. 3d New York Artillery Battalion, Lieut. Col. A. Senges. Wisconsin Heavy Artillery (one company), Capt. C. C. Meservey.
ABERCROMBIE'S DIVISION.(++) Brig. Gen. J. J. ABERCROMBIE.
Second Brigade. Col. BURR PORTER. 22d Connecticut, Col. George S. Burnham. 40th Massachusetts, Lieut. Col. Jos. A. Dalton. 141st New York, Maj. J. W. Dininny. 16th Virginia, Col. J. T. Close. Third Brigade. CoL WILLIAM GURNEY. 127th New York, Lieut. CoL S. L. Woodford. 142d New York, Col. N.M. Curtis. 143d New York, Col. D. P. De Witt. 144th New York, Col. R. S. Hughston. Unassigned. 9th Massachusetts Battery, Capt. J. Bigelow. 4th New York Heavy Artillery, Lieut. Col. H. H. Hall. 17th New York Battery, Capt. G. T. Anthony.
CASEY'S DMSION.(*) Maj. Gen. SILAS CASEY.
First Brigade. Col.FRANK FESSENDEN. 25th Maine, Lieut. Col. C. E. Shaw. 27th Maine, Col. Mark F. Wentworth, Civil War Defenses of Washington PageE-15 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix E
Second Brigade. Col.ASAP. BLUNT. 12th Vennont, Lieut. Col. Roswell Farnham. 13th Vennont, Col. F. V. Randall. 14th Vennont, Col. W. T. Nichols. 15th Vennont, Col. Redfield Proctor. 16th Vennont, Col. W. G. Veazey. Third Brigade. Brig. Gen. ALEXANDER SAYS. 39th New York, Lieut. Col. Charles Schwarz. 111 th New York, Col. Clinton D. MacDougall. I 25th New York, Col. George L. Willard. 126th New York, Col. Eliakim Sherrill. Artillery.(+) 2d Connecticut Battery, Capt. J. W. Sterling. 11th Massachusetts Battery, Capt. E. J. Jones. Keystone (Pennsylvania) Battery, Capt. M. Hastings. 1st Rhode Island Artillery, Battery H, Capt. Jeffrey Hazard.
PENNSYLVANIA RESERVES.(++) Col. HORATIO G. SICKEL.
First Brigade. Col. WILLIAM SINCLAIR. 1st Rifles, Col. C. F. Taylor. 1st Infantry, Capt. William C. Talley. 2d Infantry, Capt. Richard Ellis. 6th Infantry, Capt. James Carle. · Second Brigade. CoL HENRY C.BOLINGER. 3d Infantry, Maj. William Briner. 4th Infantry, Col. R. H. Woolworth. 7th. Infantry, Capt. L. B. Speece. 8th Infantry, Maj. S. M. Baily. Third Brigade. Col. J. W FISHER. 5th Infantry, Lieut. Col. George Dare. 9th Infantry, Lieut. Col. James McK. Snodgrass. 10th Infantry, Maj. J.B. Knox. 11th Infantry, Lieut. Col. Samuel M. Jackson. 12th Infantry, Col. Martin D. Hardin.
CAVALRY DIVISION.(*) Maj. Gen.JULIUS STAHEL.
First Brigade . .Brig. Gen. Jos. T. COPELAND. 5th Michigan, Lieut. Col. Ebenezer Gould. 6th Michigan, Col. George Gray. . 7th Michigan, Col. W. D. Mann. Civil War Defenses of Washington PageE-16 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix E
Second Brigade. Col. R BUTLER PRICE.· 1st Michigan, Col. Charles H. Town. 1st Ohio (two companies), Capt. N. Jones. 2d Pennsylvania, Lt. Col. J. P.Brinton. 1st Vermont, Col. Edward B. Sawyer. Third Brigade. Lieut. Col. ROBERT JOHNSTONE. 5th New York. 18th Pennsylvania. 1st West Virginia. Artillery. 9th Michigan Battery, Capt. J. J. Daniels.
DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. Brig. Gen. J. H. MARTINDALE. 2d District of Columbia, Col. C. M. Alexander. 10th New Jersey, Col. W. R. Murphy. 118th New York, Lieut. Col. 0. Keese, jr. 152d New York, Lieut. Col. Alonzo Ferguson. 169th New York, Col, Clarence Buell. 27th Pennsylvania, Company F, Capt. Chauncey Spering. 150th Pennsylvania, Company K, Capt. David V. Derickson. 157th Pennsylvania (four companies), Maj. Thomas H. Addicks. - Pennsylvania Infantry (six companies.)(+) 11th New York Cavalry (six companies), Col. J. B. Swain. U.S. Ordnance Detachment, Lieut. Col. George D. Ramsay. 1st U.S. Cavalry, Company L, Capt. C.R. Fisher. 2d U.S. ·cavalry, Company M, Capt. C. W. Ca!}field. 5th U.S. Cavalry, Company M, Capt. William McLean.
ARTILLERYCAMPOFINSTRUCI1ON. Brig. Gen. WILLIAM r. BARRY.· 1st Delaware Battery, Capt. B. Nields. 10th Michigan Battery, Capt. J.C. Shuetz. 1st New York Artillery (Battery A), Capt. Thomas H. Bates. · 12 New York Battery, Capt. George F. McKnight. 16th New York Battery, Capt. F.L. Hiller. 19th New York Battery, Capt. William H. Stahl. 27th New York Battery, Capt. J.B. Eaton. Independent Pennsylvania Battery, Lieut. E. H. Nevin,jr. 1st West Virginia Artillery (Battery A), Lieut. Max. Sivers.
DEFENSESNORTHOFTHEPOTOMAC.(++) Lieut. Col. JOSEPH A. HASKIN.
First Brigade. Col.AUGUSTUS A.GIBSON. 3d Maine Battery, Capt. James G. Swett. 2d Pennsylvania Heavy Artillery, Col. A. A. Gibson. 1st Vermont Heavy Artillel)'., Col. J.M. Warner. Civil War Defenses of Washington . Page E-17 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix E
Second Brigade. Col. LEWIS 0. MORRIS. 1st Maine Heavy Artillery, Col. D. Chaplin. 7th New York Heavy Artillery, Col. Lewis 0. Morris. 9th New York Heavy Artillery, Col. J. Welling. · 9th New York Battery, Capt. Emil Schubert. · 117th New York (Battalion), Lieut. Col. A. White. Third Brigade. Col. WJLLIAM R. PEASE. 5th New York Heavy Artillery (Battalion), Maj. G. F. Merriam. 10th N~w York Heavy Artillery, Col. Alex. Piper. 117th New York (Battalion), Col. William R. Pease.
CORPS OF OBSERVATION; (*) Col. A. B. JEWETT. 23d Maine, Col. William Wirt Virgin. 39th Massachusetts, Col. P.S. Davis. 14th New Hampshire, Col. Robert Wilson. 10th Vermont, Lieut. Col. William W. Henry. 6th Michigan Cavalry, Companies I and M, Capt. Charles W. Deane. 11th New York Cavalry, Companies E, F, and I, Lieut. Col. S. H. Wilkeson. 10th Massachusetts Battery, Capt. J. Henry Sleeper.
RAILWAY BRIGADE.(+) 109th New York, Col. B. F. Tracy.
FORT WASHINGTON. Col. CHARLES S. MERCHANT. 16th Indiana Battery, Lieut. Charles R. Deming. 4th U.S. Artillery (headquarters).
ORA, I, 25, Part 2 (serial 40), 177-83.
HEADQUARTERS OF ARTILLERY, U.S. ARMY, Washington, May 18, 1.864. Maj. Gen. H. W. HALLECK, Chief of Sia.ff:
GENERAL: I have the honor to transmit herewith a· report of the inspection of the defenses of Washington, made by order of the Secretary of War. I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
A.P.HOWE, Brigadier-General, Inspector of Artillery.
HEADQUARJ'ERS INSPECTOR OF AITTILLERY, Washington, May 17, 1864. Major-General HALLECK, Chief of Staff: Civil War Defenses of Washington PageE-18 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix E
SIR: In compliance with the directions of the Secretary of War, received on the 29th ultimo, I have made an inspection of the works in the defenses of this city, and beg leave to submit the following report of the inspection: My time being broken by court duties, I was unable to make but little progress in the inspection until the 10th instant, and since that time the movement of troops within the line of defenses has somewhat embarrassed the completion ·of the inspection. The character and strength of the troops garrisoning the different forts, their discipline, drill, and efficiency, the kind and extent of the armament, the condition and supply of the magazines, ammunition, and implements are found in this report under the names of the respective forts. After a careful examination of the line of works I am of the opinion that they are ample in their engineering and artillery strength for the purpose for which they were intended-the defense of Washington. The works on the south side of the Potomac may be divided into three classes: First, those which immediately cover approaches to the city, and are within artillery command of the city; second, those which cover approaches, and are beyond the range of artillery command; third, those which do not cover approaches to the city, and are beyond the range of artillery from the city. Of the first class, which I regard as the most important, are the works extending from Fort C. F. Smith on the right to Forts Richardson and Scott on the left, inclusive. The consecutive works in this line are within close artillery support of each other and with good field of fire. Forts Corcoran, Whipple, and Albany, Bennett, Haggerty, and Runyon are interior works of this class, Forts Whipple and Corcoran being of the first importance, having a strong command over five of the works in the front line. Fort Runyon is out of repair, and is at present unoccupied. It holds, however, an important position, being at the head of Long Bridge, and if occupied would hold the bridge and guard it from a surprise. I recommend that it be put in order and occupied. The exterior works of this class are connected with a strong earthen epaulement, and extending along the line of works to the Potomac on the left, with embrasures for light artillery at favorable points. If this class of works is held, it is not; in my judgment, in the power of an enemy seriously to annoy Washington with a fire from the south side of the river. With an artillery strength of men sufficient to develop the fire of the forts, and a proper support of infantry, I am of opinion that the works cannot be carried by an assault.
Martin Scott I do not consider sufficient. I found .but I non-commissioned officer and 3 men in charge of four guns. I recommend that I officer, 4 noncommissioned officers, and 24 men be allowed this battery. The works of the third class, extending to the left from Fort Berry to the Potomac, do not immediately command approaches to the city, and are beyond artillery range from it. They, however, command important ground, and cover the depot at Alexandria, and are in good supporting distance; and they are sufficiently strong, if properly manned, to resist an assault. The possession of them would offer no objective point to an enemy that would render them liable to a siege. Battery Rodgers, below Alexandria, and Fort Foote, on the left bank of the river, are important works for river defense. Battery Rodgers received ammunition for its two guns on the 9th instant, and Fort Foote ammunition for its 15-inch guns on the 13th instant. From the length of time that is necessarily occupied in serving guns of the c·aliber in these two works, and the unfavorable heighth of
without the Jim.its of the city, but within the line of defense, leaving in the city only guards for hospitals, public property, and provost duty. I recommend that they De encamped at the following.points: One camp near Fort Gaines, one camp between Batteries Cameron and Vermont, one camp between Fort Scott and Fort Craig, one camp near Alexandria Seminary. These points are favorable for reserves and are accessible from all points of the line, and would afford advantages to the troops for improvement that they cannot have within the limits of the . city. I observed in the inspection, too, generally, a want of observance of the regulations of the service which requires the marking of clothing, knapsacks, canteens, and haversacks. This omission was very marked in the Second and Seventh New York Regiments. The Ninth New York Heavy Artillery was changed during the insp~tion from the north to the south side of the river, and I inspected it in the works previously occupied by the First Connecticut. I regret to state that I found this regiment, in point of discipline and drill (both in artillery and infantry), much less efficient than any regiment in the line of defenses. The men of this regiment are generally young, ac.tive, and intelligent men, and the fault lies mainly with the commanding officer of the regiment, Colonel Welling. The condition of the regiment bears unmistakable evidence that the colonel of the regiment is not fit for the command. Fort C. F. Smith, Maj. W A. McKay commanding.-Garrison, four companies Second New York Heavy Artillery-I major, 15 commissioned officers, l ordnance-sergeant, 548 men. Armament, three 12-pounder field howitzers, two 6-pounder field guns-four 24-pounder siege guns, one 8-inch sea-coast howitzer, six 4_ inch ordnance, and four 8-inch siege mortars. Magazines, two; dry and in serviceable condition. Ammunition, full supply and well packed. Implements, complete and serviceable. Drill in artillery, very ordinary; wants improving much. Drill in infantry, insufficient; wants more energy and attention given to it. Discipline, great want of improvement. Garrison is sufficient. Fort Strong, Major Maguire commanding.-Garrison, three companies Second New York Heavy Artillery ! major, 10 commissioned officers, l ordnance-sergeant, 410 men. Armament, one 24-pounder field howitzer, five.24-pounder siege guns, one 6-pounder field gun, two 24-pounder howitzers, four 30-pounder Parrotts, and two 10-inch siege mortars. Magazines, two; not entirely dry, one recently repaired. Ammunition, full supply; serviceable condition. Implements, full sets; serviceable. Drill in artillery, indifferent; requires improving. Drill in infantry, very deficient; much labor is required to bring it to an efficient condition. Discipline, deficient; fault of the officer in command; he needs more energy and efficiency. Garrison is of sufficient strength. Fort Bennett, Major Maguire commanding.-Garrison, one company Second New York Heavy Artillery-2 commissioned officers, l ordnance-sergeant, 117 men. Armament, three 24-pounder siege guns and two 8-inch sea-coast howitzers. Magazine., one; leaks in places. Ammunition, full supply and serviceable. Implements,
supply and well packed and in good condition. Implements, complete and in good order. Drill in artillery, fair; approaching good. Drill in infantry, commendable degree of efficiency. Discipline, fair. Garrison sufficient. Fort Cass, Maj. N. Shatswell commanding.-Garrison, two companies First Massachusetts Heavy Artillery -8 commissioned officers, I ordnance-sergeant, 220 men. Armament, three 6-pounder field guns (smooth), five 20-pounder Parrotts (rifled), three 24-pounder siege guns (smooth). one 24-pounder F. D. howitzer (smooth), one 24-pounder Coehom mortar. Magazines, two; dry and in good condition. Ammunition, full supply, well packed and in serviceable condition. Implements, complete and serviceable. Drill in artillery, fair. Drill in infantry, fair. Discipline, fair. Garrison sufficient for the work. Fort Whipple, Major Rotfe commanding.-Garrison, three companies First Massachusetts Heavy Artillery I major, 13 commissioned officers, I ordnance-sergeant, 414 men. Armament, six 12-pounder field guns (smooth), four 12-pounder field howitzers (smooth), eight 12-pounder James guns (rifled), eleven 4.5-inch ordnance. Magazines, four; two not in a serviceable condition. Ammunition, full supply; good condition. Implements, complete and serviceable. Drill in artillery, fair. Drill in infantry, fair. Discipline, fair. Garrison sufficient; interior work. · Fort Tillinghast, Major Rolfe commanding.-Garrison, two companies First Massachusetts Heavy Artillery- 7 commissioned officers, I ordnance-serge;mt, 220 men. Armament, one 24-pounder field howitzer (smooth), two 20-pounder Parrotts (rifled), three 24-pounder siege guns (smooth), one 24-pounder F. D. howitzer, four
full supply and serviceable. Implements, complete and serviceable. Drill in artillery, ordinary; needs improving. Drill in infantry, very indifferent;
being built. Ammunition, full supply and serviceable. Implements, complete and serviceable (but seven guns of this work were mounted and ready for action; work not completed). Drill in artillery, fair. Drill in infantry, ordinary. Discipline, fair. Garrison is sufficient for the work. Fort Garesche, Lieutenant Logan commanding.--Garrison, one company First Connecticut Heavy Artillery- 4 commissioned officers, I ordnance-sergeant, 144 men. Armament, two 32-pounder field howitzers (smooth), five 24-pounder Parrotts, two 8-inch seacoast howitzers, two 24-pounder Coehom mortars. Magazines, one; dry and in good order. Ammunition, full supply and serviceable. Implements, complete artd serviceable. Drill in artillery, fair. Drill in infantry, ordinary; Discipline, fair. Garrison of sufficient strength. Fort Reynolds, Major Hemingway commanding.--Garrison, one company First Connecticut Heavy Artillery- 3 commissioned officers, I ordnance-sergeant, 147 men. Armament, four 12-pounder field howitzers, four 32- pounder sea-coast guns, three 30-pounder Parrotts, two 24-pounder Coehom mortars. Magazines, two; dry and in good order. Ammunition, full supply and serviceable. Implements, complete and serviceable.• Drill in artillery, fair. Drill in infantry, ordinary. Discipline, fair. Garrison weak for this armament. Fort Barnard, Major Cook commatJding.-Garrison, two companies First Connecticut Heavy Artillery-I major, l ordnance-sergeant, -- men. Armament, three 24-pounder field howitzers, six 32-pounder sea coast guns, three 24-pounder siege guns, two 8-inch seacoast howitzers, three 30-pounder Parrotts, one 24- pounder Coehom mortar, and one 10-inch siege mortar. Magazines, two; dry and in good order. Ammunition, full supply and in good condition. Implements, complete and serviceable. Drill in artillery, fair. Drill in infantry, fair. Discipline, fair. Garrison is sufficient. Fort Berry, Major Cook commanding.-Garrison, one company First Connecticut Heavy Artillery-I ordnance-sergeant [sic]. Armament, four 24-pounder field howitzers, two 4_-inch ordnance, two
Fort Mansfield, Lieut. Col. Thomas H. Talbot commanding.-Garrison, two companies(Third Battalion) First Maine Heavy Artillery-9 commissioned officers, I ordnance-sergeant, 281 men. Armament, two 12-pounder howitzers, four 6-pounder James (rifled), one 8-inch siege howitzer, four 4_-inch (rifled). Magazines, one; dry and in good order. Ammunition, full supply and serviceable. Implements, full sets and serviceable. Drill in artillery, fair. Drill in infantry, fair. Discipline, fair. Garrison is of sufficient strength. Fort Simmons, Lieut. Col. Thomas H. Talbot commanding.-Garrison, two companies (Third Batta)ion) First Maine Heavy Artillery-I lieutenant-colonel, 9 commissioned officers, 1 ordnance-sergeant,
serviceable. Drill in artillery, ordinary; needs improving. Drill in infantry, indifferent; needs improving much. Discipline, too loose for efficiency. Garrison is of sufficient strength. Fort Reno, Col. Lewis 0. Morris commanding.-Garrison, four companies Seventh New York Heavy Artillery-21 commissioned officers, 1 ordnance-sergeant, 602 men. Armament, nine 24-pounder barbette, one 24-pounder F. D. howitzer, two 8-inch siege howitzers, two Coehorn mortars, two IO-inch mortars, four 30-pounder Parrotts, one IOO-pounder Parrott. Magazines, two; dry and serviceable. Ammunition, full supply · and serviceable. Implements, complete and serviceable. Drill in artillery, indifferent; wants improving much. Drill in infantry, very indifferent; wants more energy and attention in the commanding officers. Discipline, too loose for efficiency. Garrison is ample strength. Fort Reno, Capt. S. E. Jones commanding.-Garrison, one company Seventh New York Heavy Artillery- 5 commissioned officers, 1 ordnance-sergeant, 149 men. Armament, seven 20-pounder Parrotts. Magazines, one; dry and in good order. Ammunition, full supply and serviceable. Implements, complete and serv.iceable. Drill in artillery, indifferent; wants improving. Drill in infantry, very indifferent; but little attention seems to have been given to it. Discipline, deficient. Garrison is of sufficient strength. Fort Carroll, Capt. Loring S. Richardson commanding.-Garrison, one company Eighth Unattached Heavy Artillery, Massachusetts Volunteers-4 commissioned officers, 1 ordnance sergeant, 124 men. Armament, six 12-pounder field guns, four 32-pounder barbette, two 8-inch siege howitzers, one Coehorn mortar, one 30- pounder Parrott. Magazines, two; dry and in good order. Ammunition, not a full supply, but serviceable: requisition made for full supply. Implements, complete and serviceable. Garrison drilled only as infantry. Fort Slemmer, Maj. Charles Hunsdon commanding.-Garrison, one company First Vermont Artillery-3 commissioned officers, I ordnance sergeant, 73 men. Armament, three 32-pounder barbette, one 8-inch siege howitzer. Magazines, one; dry and in good order. Ammunition, full supply and serviceable. Implements, full sets and serviceable. Drill in artillery, ordinary. Drill in infantry, ordinary. Discipline, ordinary. Garrison of sufficient strength. Fort Totten, Maj. Charles Hunsdon commanding.--Garrison, two companies First Vermont Artillery-I major, 7 commissioned officers, I" ordnance-sergeant, 206 men. Armament-four 6-pounder field guns, eight 32-pounder Parrotts, two 8-inch siege howitzers, one Coehorn mortar, one I 0-inch mortar, three 30-pounder Parrotts, one 100- pounder Parrott. Magazines, two; one in serviceable condition and one being repaired. Ammunition full supply and serviceable.
Fort Saratoga, Capt. Andrew Fagan commanding.-Garrison, withdrawn; works guarded by Battery H, First Pennsylvania Artillery, from Camp Barry-I ordnance-sergeant. Armament, six 32-pounder barbette, one 8-inch siege howitzer, one Coehorn mortar. Magazines, one; dry and in good condition. Ammunition, full supply and serviceable. Implements, complete and serviceable. Fort Du Pont, Lieut. Marcus Conant commanding.-Garrison, one-half company Ninth Unattached Company Massachusetts Ar-tillery-1 commissioned officer, 1 ordnance-sergeant, and 29 men. Armament, two 6-pounder field guns, three 24-pounder barbette, three 8-inch siege howitzers, one Coehorn mortar. Magazines, one; dry and in good order. Ammunition, full supply and serviceable. Implements, complete and serviceable. Fort Mahan.-Garrison, one company Unattached Heavy Massachusetts Artillery-I ordnance-sergeant. Armament, three 12-pounder field guns, four 15-inch Rodman, four 24-pounder F. D. howitzers, two 8-inch siege howitzers, one Coehorn mortar, one IO-inch siege mortar, three 30-pounder Parrotts. Magazines, two; dry and in good order. Ammunition, full supply and serviceable. Implements, complete and serviceable.
Fort Ricketts, Lieut. Joseph M. Parsons commanding.-Garrison, one company Twelfth Unattached Heavy Artillery, Massachusetts Volunteers-I officer, I ordnance-sergeant, and 32 men. Armament, three 12-pounder field guns, one 8-inch siege howitzer. Magazines, dry and in serviceable condition. Ammunition, full supply and serviceable. Implements, complete and serviceable. Drilled but little at artillery and infantry; not efficient. Fort Wagner, Lieut. Lewis R. Whittaker commanding.-Garrison, one company Twelfth Unattached Heavy Artillery, Massachusetts Volunteers-I commissioned officer, I ordnance-sergeant, 32 men. Armament, three 12-pounder field guns, one 8-inch siege howitzer, one Coehorn mortar. Magazines, one; dry and serviceable. Ammunition, full supply and serviceable. Implements, complete and serviceable. Drilled but little at artillery and infantry; not much efficiency. Fort Greble, Capt. George S. Worcester commanding.--Garrison, one company Seventh Unattached Heavy Artillery, Massachusetts Volunteers-4 commissioned officers, I ordnance-sergeant, 120 men. Armament, six 12-pciunder field howitzers, six 32-pounder barbette, one 8-inch siege howitzer, one Coehorn mortar, one IO-inch mortar, one 30-pounder Parrott. Magazines, one; dry and in good condition. Ammunition, full supply and serviceable. Implements, complete and serviceable. Garrison drilled some at artillery and infantry. Fort Foote, Capt. L. B. Whiton commanding.-Garrison, one company Unattached Heavy Artillery, Massachusetts Volunteers-5 commissioned officers, I ordnance-sergeant, 110 men. Armament, one 15-inch Rodman gun and two 200-pounder Parrotts. Magazines, three, only one of which is completed; completed one 'in good condition. Ammunition, not a full supply and not in a state of readiness for service. Implements, complete and serviceable. Company drilled at artillery and infantry, but is not efficient with the guns. Battery Martin Scott, Colonel Gibson commanding.-Garrison, 4 enlisted men. Armament, two 12-pounder mountain howitzers, two 6-pounder James (rifled). Magazines, one; serviceable. Ammunition, supply sufficient; serviceable. Garrison is insufficient. The garrisons of the works throughm1t the line have been exercised at artillery practice, and the results of the firing show a commendable degree of skill and proficiency. The magazines are furnished with the necessary materials for replenishing the ammunition, except that which is more readily obtained from the arsenal. The facilities for supplying the magazines from the arsenal are all that is necessary. I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant, A.P.HOWE, . Brigadier-General, Inspector of Artillery. [First indorsement.J HEADQUARTERSOFTHEARMY, May20, 1864. Respectfully referred to General_ Barnard for remarks. By order of Major-General Halleck: J.C. KELTON, Assistant Adjutant-General.
[Second indorsement.] HEADQUAITTERSCHIEFENGINEEROFDEFENSES, Washington, May 21, 1864.
Respectfully returned. General Howe's suggestions and remarks are excellent and should be carried out both as regards the disposition of troops and outposts and the maintenance of the works. The liability to surprise has long been appreciated by the engineers, who have, as far as possible, been engaged in providing flanking arrangements to such as were most important and exposed. It has long been the intention to repair Fort Runyon, but pressure of work elsewhere has prevented. I do not concur in the importance of Fort Greble at present. It is particularly liable to surprise, can with difficulty be flanked, and while Fort Carroll is held its site cannot be occupied by the enemy. Fort Carroll is being strengthened and flanked, as also Forts Stanton and Meigs. It was to concentrate the garrisons and Civil War Defenses of Washington PageE-28 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix E
diminish the danger of surprises that I recommended the suppression of Forts Davis, Du Pont, Wagner, Ricketts, and Greble. The Ordnance Department will furnish the complete armament of Fort Foote and Battery Rodgers as soon as it is able. I do not concur in the opinion that these batteries are too high; indeed, I consider that the latter is too low. J. G. BARNARD, Brigadier-General, &c.
[Third indorsement.] HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY, May 21, 1864.
Respectfully referred to Major-General Augur, commanding department, for his consideration. By order of Major-General Halleck: J. C. KELTON, . Assistant Adjutant-General.
[Fourth indorsement.] HDQRS. DEPT. OF WASHINGTON, 22D ARMY CORPS, . May31, 1864.
Respectfully returned to Major-General Halleck, chief of staff. Most of General Howe s suggestions are theoretically correct, but with the present force at comm1md here are impracticable. It is believed that everything is being done that can be to insure an efficient state of this command.
C.C.AUGUR, Major-General, Commanding.
ORA, I, 26, Part 2 (Serial 68), 883-97.
HDQRS. DEPT. OF WASHINGTON, 22D ARMY CORPS, Washington, D. C., July 29, 1864.
Maj. Gen. H. W. HALLECK, Chief of Staff, &c.:
SIR: In compliance with your instructions of the 27th instant, I called together yesterday General De Russy, General Hardin, Lieutenant-Colonel Haskin, and Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander, for the purpose of consultation as to what additional armament of field pieces it may be desirable to place in the forts defending the city. We find that the armament of these works was settled by a board of officers convened for that purpose by orders from the Secretary of War, dated November 9, 1863.(*) The works have been arranged in accordance with the report of this board, and to make any
that all, or nearly all, the additional guns that may be required in case of an investment, or even an assault, are to be placed in the batteries to the right and left of the forts, all the principal forts being supported and generally flanked on both sides by batteries placed in commanding positions. It has been supposed that these field guns would be brought into the defenses by an army retreating before superior numbers, but from our recent experience we have seen that the enemy may succeed in appearing before our works before this additional artillery, or even the troops, can get here. Such being the case, it may be well to inquire whether some of the more important batteries on the line of defense ought not to be armed at once, or. field pieces, with ammunition, placed in the forts ready to arm them, and hold the enemy in check, for some days, at least; in order to give time to re-enforce the garrison of the city. Having the officers whom I have mentioned to advise me, I thought it well to look into the whole subject in order that we might have an understanding, :and put on record what additional field guns it will be well to have on hand, and where they should be placed on the approach of the enemy at any future time. The following is the result of the consultation on this subject: LINENORTII OFTHECTIY. .Fort Sumner.-To have additional field pieces; two to be placed on the line of the conduit to hold the bank between Fort Sumner and the river; two in Battery Benson, on Powder Mill Branch, and two in Fort Sumner, or Battery Alexander, as may. be required. Fort Simmons.-Six field pieces to be added; two to be placed in Battery Bailey, on Powder Mill Branch; two in Battery Mansfield, and two held in reserve, or placed in the batteries between Fort Simmons and Fort Bayard. Fort Reno.-Should have four additional field pieces to complete the armament. In case of attack two or three light batteries should at once be sent to this important post, taking position at first on the ridge between Tennallytown and Fort Gaines. Battery Rossell.-Being an inclosed work with a magazine, and occupying an important position on the right of Fort Reno, should be armed with two field howitzers, 24 or 32 pounders, and four 12-pounder field guns. Fort Keamy.-There should be four light field guns added to this fort to arm Battery Terrill.
Fort Stanton requires one 32-pounder howitzer, two 4 1/2-inch rifled guns, four 12-pounder howitzers, two 12- pounder Napoleons. Fort Carroll requires one 32-pounder howitzer, two 30-pounder Parrotts, six 12-pounder howitzers, making for the line over the Eastern Branch twenty-five additional pieces. SOUTH OF THE POTOMAC,
Forts Marcy and Ethan Allen.-There ought to be six field pieces added to the armament of each of these works, to be used in the adjacent batteries in case of threatened attack. ·Two additional (mounted) batteries should be sent to this ·position in case the enemy appears in force. · Fort C. F. Smith is sufficiently armed, but in case of a threatened attack the batteries on the north side of the river, flanking this work, should be armed, the north battery with two IQ-pounder Parrotts, and the south battery with two Napoleon guns.
[C.C.AUGUR, Major-General, U.S. Volunteers, Commanding.]
ORA, I, 37, Part2 (serial 71), 492-95. AppendixF Supplement to. Commission Report Civil War Defenses of Washington Page F-1 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix F
Appendix F: Supplement to Commission Report
HEADQUARTERS CHIEF ENGINEER OF DEFENSES, Washington, October 14, 1863. Hon. E. M. STANTON, Secretary of War: • SIR: A Commission having been ordered by you a year ago, to examine into the system of the defenses of Washington, and that report having received your approval, I feel it proper to make a brief statement of the operations on the works and their condition. Previous to my resumption of charge of these works in August, 1862, the system was but a skeleton, so to speak, of a fortified line. In many important parts, indeed, though the works would be valuable as points-d'appui to a line of battle, they would be almost useless unless in connection with an army strong enough to be capable of giving battle. Washington required something more than this. Washington required to have all the strength that could be attained from a line of field-works; a strength which would enable it to be defended with a moderate force against very superior numbers, at the same time furnishing to an inferior or defeated army, forced to take refuge within its lines, an impregnable barrier. In accordance with this idea, I immediately commenced operations, which were approved and confirmed by the commission. I give a brief sketch. Fort Lyon.-Four out-works, Forts Willard, O'Rorke, Farnsworth, and Weed, have been completed and armed, and auxiliary batteries and rifle-pits connect them. The position now is a very strong one. Fort Williams.-On Traitor's (Cooper's) Hill, has been built, also rifle-pits and batteries between it and Ellsworth. With a few pieces of field artillery in these batteries and the opposite one near Fort Lyon, and some watchfulness, a cavalry raid into Alexandria would be difficult, while they complete the system of defense against regular attacks. Battery Garesche, a small fort, has been built near Fort Blenker. It is armed and efficient. Fort Berry, occupying an important point between Forts Barnard and Richardson, has been built and armed. Fort Whipple.-This powerful work, one of the finest field-works in the world, was commenced in the spring, and had its batteries ready early in June. It is now essentially complete. Fort C. F. Smith, commenced last winter, was in readiness early this spring. It is a powerful work, and is essentially complete. The various works on the line south of the Potomac, from Fort Lyon to Fort C. F. Smith have, with few exceptions, undergone important modifications and improvements. In Forts De Kalb, Craig, and Tillinghast, large bomb-proofs have been made (all the new works, except Berry, have extensive bomb-proofs), and in all, new embrasures and platforms have been made, magazines strengthened, &c. The works have been connected by rifle-pits (more properly covered ways for infantry), and at all points where artillery could be advantageously used, batteries for field guns have been constructed. Forts Ethan Allen and Marcy (at Chain Bridge).-These works have been extensively repaired and improved, and large additional bomb-proofs built. They are connected and supported by covered way rifle-pits, and batteries for field guns arranged where necessary.
Fort De Russy.-Modified and improved. Between it and Fort Stevens, the Batteries Kingsbury and Sill and lines of rifle-pits have been constructed. Fort Stevens (formerly Massachusetts) has been extensively enlarged and improved. Between it and Fort Slocum three new batteries and lines of rifle-pits have been constructed. Fort Slocum, originally one of the weakest, has become one of the largest and most powerful works on the line. Between Forts Bunker Hill and Saratoga, Saratoga and Thayer, Thayer and Lincoln, numerous batteries for field· guns have been built and constructed and supported by lines of rifle-pits. Fort Lincoln has had additional bomb-proofs built. The spur or ridge between it and the Eastern Branch has been occupied by the powerful Battery Jameson, and by rifle-pits arranged as covered ways. Fort Mahan has been strengthened by the construction of bastionets, for flanking. Fort Meigs has been extensively enlarged. All other works not mentioned have, with scarce all exception, received considerable improvement and modification. On nine different points having the most extensive command, 100-pounder Parrott guns have been mounted so as to bring every part of the ground in front of our line under their fire. Two new batteries, Parrott and Kemble, were built expressly for such guns, and their special function is, with Battery Cameron, to sweep the heights across the Potomac between the Chain Bridge and Fort C. F. Smith. For the defense of the Potomac, the two water batteries (Battery Rodgers and Fort Foote) have been constructed. They are essentially finished, and are receiving their armament. The latter is a powerful inclosed work, and the most elaborate in its internal arrangements of all the defenses of Washington. The work described is either finished or brought to a state of efficiency; still a system of works of this character demands constant watchfulness and expenditure to keep it up, and there are yet some works that require overhauling, and all of them ought to have their scarps either revetted or sloped and sodded. Fort Ward, in particular, a very important work, was built in great haste, and demands almost complete rebuilding. It is a maxim among railroad men that "when the cars can go over the road it is half done." Tum-outs have to be made, depots, store-houses, offices, &c., have to be built. The track must be ballasted, tunnels, cuts, and embankments enlarged, and, finally, a second track must be laid. It is quite likely that this maxim will apply
ORA, I, 29, Part 2 (serial 49), 315-17. Civil War Defenses of Washington Page F-3 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix F
WASHINGTON,D.C., October4, 1864.
Brig. Gen. R. DELAFIELD, Chief Engineer. Washington:
SIR: I have the honor to submit the following report of operations on the defenses of Washington during the year ending September 30, 1864: These defenses, as now constructed, consist, in the aggregate, of 60 inclosed forts, having an aggregate crest of 25,799 yards, with emplace.
two magazines rebuilt, abatis renewed, flankers torn down, and two redans for flanking stockade gorge put up, and interior of fort sodded. Fort Craig: Parapets re.enforced, new interior revetment put up, abatis renewed; bomb-proof commenced at date of last report has been completed, two new traverses built, interior of fort sodded, two flankers torn down, and two redans for flanking put up in stockade gorge. Fort Richardson: The scarp of this work has been revetted with plank, and sodding repaired. Fort Berry: A new bomb-proof guard-house has been built and fort sodded. Fort Barnard: Scarp has been revetted with plank, new magazines built, embrasures newly revetted with gabions, and sodding repaired. Fort Reynolds: Interior revetment has been repaired, and embrasures newly revetted with gabions. Battery Garesche: A new traverse has been built. Fort Ward: This fort has been torn down and newly constructed and enlarged to nearly twice its original size; three new magazines and two new filling or implement rooms have been built, all serving as traverses; one bomb proof 208 feet long has been built, and another of same length is in course of construction. The new fort is now nearly completed, and is one of the strongest works on the defenses. Fort Ellsworth: The old bomb-proofs and traverses have been torn down, two new magazines have been built, and a new bomb-proof 160 feet long is in course of construction and nearly completed. Forts Lyon, Weed, Farnsworth, O'Rorke, and Willard: Interior revetments have been repaired, crests sodded, embrasures revetted. Portions of the exterior slopes of the four latter works have been sodded. Battery Rodgers, nearly completed at date of last report, has been finished, inclosed, and sodded. · INTERIOR LINE. Fort Bennett: Magazine has been re-enforced. Fort Corcoran·: One magazine has been rebuilt and the other two re-enforced; a new bomb-proof 158 feet long has been built; interior revetment repaired; embrasures new]y revetted, and seven new platforms and embrasures made. Fort Whipple: At date of last report this work was nearly completed; since that date two filling-rooms (traverses) and one bomb-proof guard-house have been built, the terre-pleins graded, and the interior of the work completely added. Fort Albany: Scarp revetment has been repaired, and some alterations in platforms and embrasures made.
Auxiliary to Fort Whipple four batteries-mounting respectively seven, four, ten, and four; aggregate, twenty five guns-have been built, and 800 yards of rifle-pit or infantry covered way has been thrown up. Across the valley of Four Mile Run, about 550 yards of heavy covered way has been thrown up, with wet ditch in front. Around and auxiliary to Fort Williams, 1,200 yards of rifle-pit or infantry covered way have been thrown up, and two batteries, mounting five guns each, have been built. Between Forts Williams and Ellsworth, two batteries, mounting respectively seven and eight guns, have been built, and JOO yards of infantry parapet thrown up. A battery mounting five guns has been built to right of Fort Lyon, together with fifty yards of rifle-pit. NEW FORTS. A new fort between Forts Strong and Woodbury, having 322 yards of crest line and mounting fifteen guns, has been nearly completed and is now nearly ready for its armament. It has one magazine, three traverses, and a bomb-proof, just commenced, 150 feet long. . A new fort between Forts Whipple and Albany, on interior line, having 539 yards of crest line and a proposed armament of thirty-three guns, has been commenced. The parapets are about half thrown up and some 100 yards of pole revetment completed. Civil War Defenses of Washington Page F-5 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix F
A stockade, with gateway, has been built across the Leesburg turnpike to right of Fort Marcy, and some 150 yards of abatis laid in front of rifle-pit to the Potomac River. A stockade, with gates, has also been built across approach to Aqueduct Bridge, and some seventy-five yards of rifle-pit thrown up in connection therewith. MILITARY ROADS.
The following military roads have been built during the year: Aqueduct Bridge to Fort C. F. Smith, one mile and a third; Fort C. F. Smith to Fort Strong, including branch, two-thirds of a mile; Aqueduct Bridge to Fort Whipple, one mile and a half; Camp Barnard to Fort Whipple, one mile and a quarter; Four-Mile Run to Fort Ward, two miles and a half; total, seven miles and a quarter. Two large block-houses have been commenced and nearly completed in valley of Hunting ·Creek These have been built by the quartermaster department, under the direction of the chief engineer of the defenses. CONDITION OF THE WORKS.
With a few exceptions, the forts south of the Potomac are now very complete as to their interior arrangements. Most of them are provided with good bomb-proofs, magazines, implement and filling rooms, and traverses where required. In nearly all of them the platforms and embrasures have been repaired during the past season and are now in good order. The exterior slopes on the line from Fort Smith to Fort Berry (nine forts), inclusive, have been built up on 45-degree slopes
First. Work now in progress and which it is expected to complete this season: Fort Strong: Two new magazines to be built. Fort Ethan Allen: Bomb.proof covering to be completed, trimmed, and sodded. Fort Morton: Bomb-proof to be built and fort to be trimmed and sodded. Fort Woodbury: Bomb-proof to be completed and fort to be sodded. Fort Cass: Two new magazines to be built and fort to be sodded. Fort Craig: Two new magazines to be built. Fort Ward: Bomb-proofs to be completed, terre-plein graded, and the work to be sodded. Fort Ellsworth: Bomb-proof to be completed, terre-plein graded, and work to be sodded. Completion of two block-houses and battery in valley of Hunting Creek. Second. New works contemplated for the next" year: The new fort between Forts Whipple and Albany; this is an extensive work and will require many months to complete it. A battery for field guns to left of Chain Bridge to command Leesburg mad and valley of Pimmit Run. A battery to left of Fort Corcoran. A fort at Columbia turnpike in front of Fort Richardson. A block-house between Fort Ward and Battery Garesche, on Leesburg pike. The commission appointed by the Secretary of War also recommended two large forts to be built in front of that portion of the line from Fort Smith to Fort Craig. Third. Repairs necessary to be made: The abatis requires to be renewed along the whole line from Fort Albany to Fort Lyon, inclusive, with the exception of Forts Berry, Garesche, Ward, and Williams. New magazines will be required next season at the following forts: Albany, two; Corcoran, two; Scott, one; Richardson, one; Reynolds, one; Worth, two; Lyon, one; total, ten. New bomb-proofs will be required at Forts Albany and Worth, and probably at Forts Barnard and Reynolds. New interior revetments will be required at most of the old works not already revetted, probably at Forts Reynolds, Scott, Worth, Ellsworth, and Lyon. Civil War Defenses of Washington Page F-6 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix F
Re-enforcement of parapets will be required at several of the old works, viz, Ethan Allen, Marcy, Corcoran, Scott, Reynolds Worth, Ellsworth, and Lyon, and in its dependent redoubts. Revetment of scarps will be required either by sodding the whole exterior slopes at all the forts on the line not already revetted on an angle of 45 degrees by a scarp wall of brick or stone, or by a scarp revetment of plank.
These consist of 29 forts, having a total length of 13,295 yards of crest of parapet, with emplacements for 416 guns, 55 batteries, having 3,516 yards of crest of parapet, with emplacements for 262 guns, and 14,842 yards of infantry parapet or covered way. The armament of these works at present is 385 guns and 38 mortars. During the past year the force employed has been engaged as follows: Fort Foote: Completing the fort, with its counterscarp galleries. Fort Greble: Constructing two new magazines, bomb-proofs, traverses, and repairing parapet. Fort Carroll: Constructing four bastions, new magazine implement room (house), traverses, platforms, embrasures, repairing old revetments, grading glacis, and renewing abatis. Fort Snyder: Repairing parapet and constructing new platforms. Fort Stanton: Constructing three bastions, two new magazines, bomb-proofs, traverses, platforms, embrasures, grading glacis, and renewing abatis. Forts Ricketts, Wagner, Davis, and Du Pont: Repairing parapets and revetments, and constructing new platforms and embrasures. Fort on hill south of Fort Mahan, proposed to be called Fort Chaplin: Constructing the fort, which is a new one and nearly finished. Fort Mahan: Repairing and enlarging the rifle-pits and constructing a new battery. Battery Jameson: Repairing and improving parapet, rebuilding bomb-proofs and platforms. Forts Lincoln, Thayer, Saratoga, Bunker Hill, and Slemmer: Repairing old revetment, parapets, and sodding; completing several batteries between these works. Fort Totten: Repairing magazine, revetment, and parapet; sodding; building a part of the scarp wall with stone, and renewing abatis. Forts Slocum and Stevens: Repairing parapets, grading glacis, and renewing abatis; clearing trees and completing batteries between the forts; constructing a battery and infantry parapet to left of Rock Creek bridge, back of military road. Forts De Russy and Kearny: Repairing parapets and sodding. Forts Reno, Bayard, Simmons, and Mansfield: Repairing and sodding parapets; completing batteries and forts, and laying abatis. Fort Sumner: Repairing the parapets and magazines; constructing two traverses in Redoubt Davis.
These works are, generally speaking, in good condition, so far as their interior arrangements are concerned, the principal defect being the want of good strong abatis around some of the forts: They have all been provided with abatis, but some of it is over three years old, and so rotten and broken as to be almost useless as a means of defense, and so dry as to be easily set on fire. The parapets of some of the forts have been sloped and sodded, but in many others this has not been done, and the slopes are more or less washed out of shape in consequence. Each fort is provided with at least one good dry magazine, and nearly all have bomb-proofs. In some of the forts, however, bomb-proofs have never been built, but it is proposed to construct them as soon as the completion of more important works on the line will permit. The present length of the military road, with its branches, is about eighteen miles. It is in a passable condition, but needs repairs in some places. The work remaining to be done is as follows: Fort Foote: A battery on the bank of the river in rear of Fort Foote, to flank the water approach to that work, should be constructed, and a redoubt should be built on Rosier's Hill, which is the key of the position. Fort Carroll requires a new magazine and bomb-proof. Fort Stanton requires a battery and some rifle-pits to sweep the ravine in front. Anacostia Bridge requires a block-house or other protection to the head of the bridge. Fort Baker needs an additional bomb-proof; also a battery and covered way to sweep the ravine in front. Fort Baker to Fort Mahan: This line requires additional defenses not yet determined. Fort Mahan requires a bomb-proof and two new magazines. Eastern Branch: Some defenses on the west bank are required to prevent the crossing of the stream and to flank the approach to Fort Mahan. · Fort Lincoln requires a new magazine; also counterscarp galleries to flank the ditches. Forts Thayer, Saratoga, Bunker Hill, and Totten require new magazines. Fort Slocum requires a new magazine and bomb-proof in the old fort. Fort Stevens: Part of the abatis of this fort wants renewing, and a flanking battery or infantry parapet on the right of the fort would add greatly to its strength. Forts De Russy, Kearny, Reno, Bayard, Simmons, and Mansfield are all in good condition. Fort Sumner requires a new magazine in each redoubt; also a bomb-proof. Battery Martin Scott and Chain-Bridge Battery require repairs. Aqueduct Bridge: A small battery should be built to sweep this bridge.
No proper military road has yet been constructed to connect the works over the Eastern Branch. Such a road is a very useful and essential part of the system of the defenses. Again, that portion of the military road between Fort Stevens and Fort Lincoln was made more with a view of taking advantage of the existing roads of the country, for giving facilities in constructing the different works, than with a view of getting a military road under cover from an enemy, over which troops and artillery could move unseen and in security during an attack, and, as a consequence, the location of this road could be much improved. RECAPITULATION. Civil War Defenses of Washington Page F-8 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix F
The defenses of Washington consist of 60 forts, 93 batteries, and 35,711 yards of infantry covered way. There are emplacements provided for 1,447 guns. The present armament is 762 guns and 74 mortars. Notwithstanding the great number of works, and their numerous artillery, we should be careful not to allow ourselves to assume either of these as a standard by which to estimate the security they give to the city. The works are passive, and of themselves have no strength, unless they are properly manned. The line of defense is some thirty seven miles long, and to man such a line properly against the attack or investment of a powerful army will require a large force. In such case, the works stand for so many men, enabling a smaller force to resist a larger one. Up to this time, these defenses have done all that they have been called upon to do; have fulfilled the object for which they were built. It is our duty to see that they shall be enabled to withstand any possible attacks in the future.No one would have believed twelve months ago that within a year a large force of the enemy would encamp within sight of the Capitol, and that one of our forts would be seriously threatened. Yet it has been even so, and if that fort had not been built, or had been improperly constructed, there can be but little doubt but that the enemy would have taken possession of the seat of government. Improbable as it may appear at the present time, it is the part of prudence to remember that history repeats itself, and that we should guard against such a contingency in the future. To do this effectually, we must keep the defenses in order. These being built of perishable materials, like a railroad, require constant repairs; old magazines require to be repaired or rebuilt; new bomb-proofs are required in many of the works; decayed revetments must be renewed; worn-out
HEADQUARTERS CHIEF ENGINEER OF DEFENSES, Washington, May I, 1865.
Brig. Gen. R. DELAFIELD, Chief of Engineers:
SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the circular of the Department of the 29th ultimo, in reference to suspending operations on field fortifications and to collecting and preserving engineer
In order to a proper understanding of the subject, I will state that before the receipt of the circular of the Department, I had anticipated, to some extent at least, the orders of the Secretary of War and the instructions of the Department by suspending operations on all new works, and as far as practicable on all the old works of secondary importance, and since that time have confined operations to the more important forts standing on prominent points and commanding the approaches to the city. To be specific, so that there may be no misunderstanding, I will add that my instructions contemplated the keeping up of twenty forts, ten on each side of the river, viz: North of the Potomac, Fort Carroll, Fort Stanton, Fort Baker, Fort Mahan, Fort Lincoln, Fort Totten, Fort Slocum, Fort Stevens, Fort Reno, and Fort Sumner. South of the Potomac, Fort Lyon, Fort Ellsworth, Fort Worth, Fort Ward, Fort Richardson, Fort McPherson, Fort Whipple, Fort Morton, Fort C. F. Smith, and Fort Ethan Allen. This list, as will be seen, does not include either Fort Foote or Battery Rodgers, the two water batteries for the defense of the river approach to the city, which I took for granted would be maintained. Such was my idea of what ought to be done before I received the circular of the Department, and such is still my opinion. Congress having made '.'specific appropriations for completing and rendering more permanent the defenses of Washington," it appears to me that, as it is not desirable to keep up all the works, we will be carrying out the intention of Congress in the best possible manner by "completing and rendering more permanent" the works which I have named. In issuing the orders to which I have alluded I supposed that I had reduced the number of works to a minimum. Though there are twenty forts it may be said that there are only thirteen positions to be held by them, two of which, embracing Forts Lyon and Ellsworth, Worth, and Ward, cover Alexandria, and one, embracing Fort Ethan Allen, covers the Chain Bridge. The question presented for consideration is one of policy. Does the Government wish any of the works now constituting the defenses of Washington to be maintained? If so, is it desirable that the number of these works should be reduced to a minimum? If these questions are answered in the affirmative then all necessary orders have already
B.S. ALEXANDER, Lieut. Col., Aide-de-Camp, and Chief Engineer of Defenses.
ORA, I, 46, Part 3 (serial 97), 1063-65.
ENGINEER DEPARTMENT, Washington, D.C., May 6, 1865.
Hon. E. M. STANTON, Secretary of War, Washington, D. C.:
SIR: The defenses of Washington at this time consist of seventy-four inclosed forts and armed batteries, each having a guard or garrison, and armed with 905 guns of various calibers, with magazine stores with powder and fixed ammunition amounting to about 200 rounds per gun, or 181,000 rounds. This system of defensive works envelopes the city, navy-yard, Alexandria, and Georgetown, and was constructed against rebel enemies who could approach by land from north, south, east, and west, and is about thirty-two miles in extent. The necessity for this extensive system of temporary works no longer exists, and I recommend that fifty-one of these forts and inclosed batteries be at once dismantled, the artillery and stores of all kinds withdrawn, and deposited either in the remaining twenty-three forts or at the arsenals, stores, and depots under charge of the different military departments of the army. After disarming, dismantling, and withdrawing the stores, a guard should remain to protect the property Civil War Defenses of Washington Page f:-10 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix F
from fire and injury, and measures taken to restore the grounds to the rightful owners. To this end it is advisable, as - far as practicable, to liquidate claims on the Government for the uses and changes made to the property by conveying to the owners the right and title to the buildings and fixtures, of timber on the bomb-proofs, magazines, and stockades of the several works; which if unacceptable to the claimants in full satisfaction for the use of the ground, changes,, alterations, and removal of fences, woods, trees, and all others made by the authorities of the United States, the same shall be removed and materials in part sold in such manner as shall be found most advantageous to the public interest, and the residue stored as may be useful for the military service elsewhere. The works to be retained for the present will be: On the north of the Potomac: Fort Carroll, Fort Stanton, Fort Baker, Fort Mahan, Fort Lincoln, Fort Totten, Fort Slocum, Fort Stevens, Fort Reno, and Fort Sumner; and on the south of the Potomac: Fort Lyon and three redoubts, Fort Ellsworth, Fort Worth, Fort Ward, Fort Richardson, Fort McPherson, Fort Whipple, Fort Morton, Fort C. F. Smith, and Fort Ethan Allen. The two river forts, to wit, Fort Foote and Battery Rodgers, will also be retained for the present. These twenty-three retained forts and redoubts occupy and command thirteen positions or lines of approach by roads or cover the cities of Alexandria, Georgetown, and Washington; its navy-yard and arsenal,
RICH'DDELAFIELD, Brigadier-General and Chief of Engineers.
[ First indorsemerit.] MAYS, 1865.
Referred to Lieutenant-General Grant for examination and report.
EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War.
[Second indorsement.]
HEADQUARTERS ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES, May 10, 1865.
Respectfully returned to the Secretary of War. The recommendations of the chief engineer as to works in the defensive line around Washington and Alexandria to be dismantled and the manner of doing it are approved. It is not practicable as yet to fix definitely the permanent garrisons for cities referred to in the rebellious States. U.S. GRANT, Lieutenant-General.
ORA, I, 46, Part 3 (serial 97), 1099-1101. AppendixG Mostly Orders Pertaining to the Defense of Washington Civil War Defenses of Washington Page G-1 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix G
Appendix G: Mostly Orders Pertaining to the Defenses of Washington
GENERAL ORDERS, No. 26
WAR DEP'T, ADJT. GEN. 'S OFFICE, Washington, May 27, 1861. All _that part of Virginia east of the Allegheny Mountains and north of James River, except Fort Monroe and sixty miles around the same, will for the present constitute a new military geographical department, under the command of Brig. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U.S.A., whose headquarters will be movable according to circumstances. By order:· L.THOMAS, Adjutant-General.
ORA, I, 2 (serial 2), 653-54.
HDQRS. DEPARTMENT NORTHEASTERN VIRGINIA, \ Arlington, May 29, 1861. Lieut. Col. E. D. TOWNSEND, Asst. Adjt. Gen., Hdqrs. of the Army, Washington, D. C.:
COLONEL: I arrived here too late in the afternoon of the 27th to assume on that day formally, in orders, the command of the department, but I reported to Major-General Sandford at this place and received from him such information as to the state of affairs as he was able then to give me. I encamped the night of the 27th with the New Jersey brigade, and early on the morning of the 28th went to Alexandria and was occupied from 5 a.m. till 9 o'clock at night in examining the position occupied by the troops and looking into the condition of the men. Defensive works under construction.-The works at Alexandria had not been commenced nor even laid out as late as 10 o'clock a.m. yesterday, nor had the plans been definitely determined upon. A want of tools in the fi_rst place, and in the second place of means of transportation for the men-from the wharf in Alexandria to the hill to be fortified, and changes made necessary by a better knowledge of the ground, were the principal causes given for the delay. Both the Michigan regiment and the New York Zouaves were bivouacked and encamped on the site, leaving but a few men in town. I trust, therefore, that the Navy Department may be requested to {retain] the Pawnee at her present station. The works at the bridge-head of the Long Bridge were progressing finely, and the report to me was that the men were working diligently. The main work covering the Aqueduct and ferry opposite Georgetown was in a fair state. The Sixty-ninth New York is the only regiment at work on it, and they seemed to me to be working admirably. Subsistence and means of transportation.-Subsistence is furnished to the troops away from the vicinity of Alexandria by returns on the main depot in Washington. This, and the utter absence of any wagons on
If a portion of the allowance of wagons for the regimental baggage were sent on and placed under the control of the brigade commanders, I think a better state of affairs will be gained at the least cost. With a view to movements in that , direction, I have directed Colonel Stone to ascertain and report the amount of rolling stock on the Alexandria and Manassas Gap Railroad, and the amount of material required to place the road in working order. I beg to request that some of the recent graduates heretofore assigned to the duty of instructing the volunteer regiments may be sent here for the same purpose and other duty. The only assistant quartermaster in the department is at Alexandria, to be in charge of the Quartermaster's and Commissary Departments. I have"to request that another officer of that department, furnished with funds, be sent for duty at headquarters. The troops are occupying houses in some cases, and fields, and cutting wood for fuel. Shall not rent and compensation be paid? If so, funds are needed for that purpose, as well as the hiring of means of transportation where the same has not been furnished. I have the honor to be, colonel, very respectfully, your most obedient servant,
IRVIN McDOWELL, Brigadier-General, Commanding.
ORA, I, 2 (serial 2), 653.
General Orders No.4
HDQRS.DEPOTOFN.E. VIRGINIA,
Arlington, June 27, 1861.
Statements of the amount, kind, and value of all private property taken and used for Government purposes, and of the damage done in any way to private property by reason of the occupation of this section of the country by the U.S. troops, will, as soon as practicable, be made out and transmitted to department headquarters by the commanders of brigades and officers in charge of the several •fortifications.
These statements will exhibit-
I st. The quantity of land taken possession of for the several field-works, and the kind and value of the crop growing thereon, if any. 2d. The quantity of land used for the several encampments and the kind and value of the growing crop thereon, if any. 3d. The number, size and_character of the buildings appropriated to public purposes. 4th. The quantity and value of trees cut down. 5th. The kind and extent of fencing, &c., destroyed.
These statements will, as far as possible, give the value of the property taken or of the damage sustained, and the name or names of the owners thereof. Citizens who have sustained any lessor damage as above will make their claims Civil War Defenses of Washington . Page G-3 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix G
upon the commanding officers of the troops by whom it was done, or in cases where these troops have moved away, upon the commander nearest them. These claims will accompany the statements above called for.
The commanders of brigades will ·require the assistance of the commanders of regiments or detached companies, and will make this order known to the inhabitants in their vicinity, to the end that all loss or damage may, as nearly as possible, be ascertained, whilst the troops are now here, and by whom or on whose account it has been occasioned, that justice may be done alike to the citizen and the Government.
The name of the officer or officers (in case the brigade commanders shall institute a board) who fix the amount of loss or damage shall be given in each case.
By order of Brigadier-General McDowell:
JAMES B. FRY, ·
A. A.G.
ORA, I, 2 (serial 2), 659.
GENERAL ORDERS, No. 18
HDQRS. DEP'T NORTHEASTERN VIRGINIA,
Fairfax Court-House, July 18, 1861.
It is with the deepest mortification the general commanding finds it necessary to reiterate his orders for the preservation of the property of the inhabitants of the district occupied by the troops under his command. Hardly had we arrived at this place when, to the horror of every right-minded person, several houses were broken open and others were in flames by the act of some of those who, it has been the boast of the loyal, came here to protect the oppressed and free the country from the domination of a hated party. The property of this people is at the mercy of troops who we rightfully say are the most intelligent, best-educated, and most law-abiding of any that were ever under arms. But do not, therefore, the acts of yesterday cast the deeper stain upon them? It has been claimed by some that their particular corps were not
The troops must behave themselves with as much forbearance and propriety as if they were at their own homes. They are here to fight the enemies ·or the country, not to judge and punish the unarmed and helpless, however guilty they may be. When necessary, that will be done by the proper persons.
By command of Brigadier-General McDowell:
JAMES B. FRY,
Assistant Adjutant General
ORA, I, 2 (serial 2), 743-44.
GENERAL ORDERS, No. 15
HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,
Washington, August 17 ._ 186 I.
The Departments of Washington and Northeastern Virginia will be united into one, to which will be annexed the Valley of the Shenandoah, the whole offylaryland and of Delaware, to be denominated the Department of the Potomac, under Major-General McClellan-head-quarters Washington-who will proceed to organize the troops under him into divisions and independent brigades.
By command of Lieutenant-General Scott:
E.D. TOWNSEND,
· Assistant Adjutant-General.
ORA, I, 5 (serial 5), 567.
GENERALORDERS,No.1
HDQRS. ARMY OF THE POTOMAC,
Washington, August 20, 1861.
In accordance with General Orders, No. 15, of August 17, 1861,-from the headquarters of the Anny, I hereby assume command of the Army of the Potomac, comprising the troops serving in the former Departments of Washington and Northeastern Virginia, in the valley of the Shenandoah, and in the States of Maryland and Delaware. The organization of the command into divisions and brigades will be announced hereafter. Civil War Defenses of Washington Page G-5 Historic Resources Study Part I0 Appendix G
The following-named officers are attached to the staff of the Army of the Potomac:
Maj. S. Williams, assistant adjutant-general.
Capt. A. V. Colburn, assistant adjutant-general.
Col. R. B. Marcy, inspector-general.
Col. T. M. Key, aide-de-camp.
Capt: N. B. Sweitzer, First Cavalry, aide-de-camp.
Capt. Edward McK. Hudson, Fourteenth Infantry, aide-de-camp.
Capt. Lawrence A. Williams, Tenth Infantry, aide-de-camp.
Maj. A. J. Myer, signal officer.
Maj. Stewart Van Vliet, chief quartermaster.
Maj. H.F. Clarke, chief commissary.
Surg. C. S. Tripler, medical director.
Maj. J. G. Barnard; chief engineer.
Maj. J. N. Macomb, chief topographical engineer.
Capt. C, P. Kingsbury, chief of ordnance .
. Brig. Gen. George Stoneman, volunteer service, chief of cavalry.
Brig. Gen. W. F. Barry, volunteer service, chief of artillery.
GEO.B. McCLELLAN,
Major-General, U.S. Army.
ORA, I, 5 (serial 5), 575. Civil War Defenses of Washington Page G-6 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix G
SPECIAL ORDERS No. 83.
HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE POTOMAC,
Near Alexandria Seminary, Va., March 17, 1862.
SUPPLEMENTARY. Brig. Gen. James S. Wadsworth, having been assigned to duty by the direction of the President as military governor of the • District of Columbia, will, besides the military command of the city of Washington, assume the charge of the defenses north and south of the .Potomac in the vicinity of Washington. The limits of his command will embrace the District of Columbia, the city of Alexandria, the ground in front of and in the vicinity of the defensive works south oft_he Potomac from the Occoquan to Difficult Creek, and the post of Fort Washington. He will have charge of the provisional brigades, composed of new troops arriving in Washington, and will exercise supervision over troops in the city. By command of Major-General McClellan:
RICH'D B. IRWIN,
Assistant Adjutant-General
ORA, I, 12, Part 3 (serial 18), 6.
SPECIAL ORDERS, No.190.
WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJT. GEN. 'S OFFICE,
Washington, August 14, 1862.
* * * * * * * * * * II. Brig. Gen. J. G. Barnard, U.S. Volunteers, is relieved from duty
By order of the Secretary of War: E. D. TOWNSEND, Assistant Adjutant-General. ORA, I, 12, Part 3 (serial 18), 572. Civil War Defenses of Washington Page G-7 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix G
SPECIAL ORDERS, No.196. ARMY, ADJT. GEN. 'S OFFICE, HDQRS. OF THE Washington, August 19, 1862. I. Brig. Gen. J. G. Barnard, U.S. Volunteers, is hereby placed in command of the fortifications around Washington and of the troops which are assigned for their defense. * * * * * * *. * * * By command of Major-General Halleck:
E. D. TOWNSEND,
Assistant Adjutant-General.
ORA, I, 12, Part 3 (serial 18), 602.
GENERAL ORDERS No. I. HDQRS. DEFENSES OF WASHINGTON, Washington, August 20, 1862. I. In virtue of Special Orders, No. 196, from the Headquarters of the Army, dated at Washington, August 19, 1862, Brig. Gen. J. G. Barnard assumes the command of the fortifications of Washington and troops assigned to the defenses.
II. The fortifications and troops on the south side of the Potomac will remain under the immediate command of Brig. Gen. A. W. Whipple; those on the north side urider charge of Lieutenant-Colonel Haskin, aide de-camp, through whom all orders will be transmitted and to whom commanding officers will make their usual reports.
* * * * * * * * * *
J. G. BARNARD,
Brigadier-General, Commanding Defenses of Washington.
ORA, I, 51, Part 1 (serial 107), 751.
SPECIAL ORDERS No.198. HEADQUARTERSOFTHEARMY, .ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE, Washington, August 20, 1862. Civil War Defenses of Washington Page G-8 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix G
* * * * * * * * * * 2. Brig. Gen. A. W. Whipple will remain on duty in connection with the defenses of Washington. * * * * * * * * * * By command of Major-General Halleck: E. D. TOWNSEND, Assistant Adjutant-General.
ORA, I, 51, Part 1 {serial 107), 748.
WASHINGTON,September2, 1862. General R. B. MARCY, Chief of Staff:
GENERAL: I inclose you a copy of the order I have just issued, relinquishing command, &c. A detailed statement will be sent of troops and positions, but for your present convenience I would state that at the present moment the state of things is this: General D. P. Woodbury is in command of forts and troops from Fort Blenker to Fort Lyon. In Fort Lyon is the Third Battalion New York Artillery and th~ Twenty-fourth Michigan (raw). In Forts Ellsworth, Ward, and Blenker is part of Colonel Tyler's regiment. The other troops assigned to Woodbury are: Engineer Brigade, Colonel Allabach's four regiments, General E. B. Tyler's brigade, Sixteenth Connecticut Regiment (in or near Fort Worth). Brig. Gen. A. W. Whipple commands forts and troops from Four Mile Run northward, including the Chain Bridge. A statement already in the hands of General McClellan gives a list of garrisons and troops. The Fifteenth Connecticut is to be added (by your orders), and is now over there. Colonel Doubleday has immediate command at the Chain Bridge, under General Whipple. The forts and troops north of the Potomac are in charge of Colonel Haskin, aide-de-camp. A list of the garrisons and troops is in the hands of the major-general commanding. I am, very respectfully, your most obedient,
J. G. BARNARD, Brigadier-General.
ORA, I, 12, Part 3 (serial 18), 83.
SPECIAL ORDERS No. 4. HEADQUARfERS, Washington, September 7, ·1862. I. Brig. Gen. D. P. Woodbury is assigned to the command of all the forts beyond the Eastern Branch, north of the Potomac.
During the absence of the major-general commanding from Washington, the immediate command of the defenses of the capital is assigned to Major-General Banks, who, while exercising said command, will be relieved temporarily from the command of his corps. Civil War Defenses of Washington Page G-9 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix G
II. Brig. Gen. S. D .. Sturgis is temporarily relieved from duty with Porter's corps, and ordered to report to General Burnside.
* * * * * * * * * * By command of Major-General McClellan: [S. WILLIAMS,] Assistant Adjutant-General.
ORA, I, 19, Part 2, p 202.
GENERAL ORDERS No, 1. HDQRS. DEFENSES OF WASHINGTON, September 8, 1862.
I. In compliance with Paragraph VII of Special Orders, No. 4, of the 7th instant, from the headquarters of Major-General McClellan, the undersigned hereby assumes the immediate command of the defenses of the capital during the absence of the general commanding from Washington. · * * * * * * * * * * III. With the permission ofMaJor-General McClellan, Capt. Richard B. Irwin, aide-de-camp to the general commanding, will act as assistant adjutant-general of this command.
N.P.BANKS, Major-general.
ORA, 1, 19, Part 2 (serial 28), 214.
HEADQUARTERS DEFENSES OF WASHINGTON, September9, 1862. Maj. Gen. S. P. HEINTZELMAN, Fort Lyon: By direction of the President, you will at once assume command of all the troops for the defense of Washington south of the Potomac, under the general order of the major-general commanding the Defenses of Washington. The General-in Chief desires that you will establish your lines of battle in addition to the defenses of the works, and will see that lines of communication-are kept open in their rear, so that any point of attack may be readily re-enforced. Great care should be taken to establish the outposts, and to have the picket service efficiently performed. Please acknowledge. By comma_nd of Major-General Banks: RICH'D B. ffiWIN, Captain, Aide-de-Camp, and Actg. Asst. Adjt. Gen.
ORA, 1,19,Part 2 (serial 28), 228. Civil War Defenses of Washington Page G-10 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix G
SPECIAL ORDERS No. 3. HDQRS. DEFENSES OF WASHINGTON, September 12, 1862. * * * * * * * * * * 3. Brig. Gen. J. G. Barnard is assigned to the command of the troops for the immediate defense of Washington north of the Potomac. Brig. Gen. D. P. Woodbury, commanding defenses east of the Eastern Branch, and Lieut. Col. J. A. Haskin, commanding defenses west of the Eastern Branch, will at once report to General Barnard for orders. * * * *· * * * * * * By command of Major-General Banks: RICHD. B. IRWIN, Captain, Aide-de-Camp, and Acting Assistant Adjutant-General.
ORA, 51, Part 1 (serial 107), 825.
HEADQUARTERS DEFENSES OF WASHINGTON, Washington, September 13, 1862. Brig. Gen. S. WILLIAMS, Asst. Adjt. Gen., Headquarters Army of the Potomac:
Upon further consultation with the General-in-Chief, he has authorized me to assign General Barnard to duty as chief engineer of all the defenses from the 3d instant, leaving the question of command on the north side as it was previously under Woodbury and Haskin. I have to-day issued orders to that effect. In regard to General Barnard, the arrangement now conforms to the wishes of the commanding.general. I hear from Baltimore that the rebels left Westminster about noon yesterday, going toward Uniontown and Smithsburg. They were, it is· said, 400 strong and two pieces of cannon, and said they would be back in stronger force in a few days. This I think has been already communicated. What news have you?
N.P.BANKS, Major-general
ORA, I, 19, Part 2 (serial 28), 283.
SPECIAL ORDERS No. 242. HDQRS. OF THE ARMY, ADJT. GEN. 'S OFFICE, Washington, September 15, 1862. * * * * * * * ·* * * III. Brig. Gen. W. F. Barry, U.S. Volunteers, inspector of artillery,
E. D. TOWNSEND, Assistant Adjutant-General.
ORA, I, 19, Part 2 (Serial 28), 301-02. Civil War Defenses of Washington Page G-11 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix G
GENERAL ORDERSNo.3. HDQRS. DEFENSES OF WASHINGTON, September 15, 1862. I. The military governor of Alexandria will immediately organize a camp of convalescents, stragglers, and recruits, under the following regulations: · II. All officers absent from their regiments without a proper pass, approved by their division commander, will, if their regiments are stationed in or near Washington, be ordered to join them, in arrest, and the fact will be duly reported to division commanders by the provost-marshal. (See Paragraph III, of General Orders, No. 2, from these headquarters.) III. Every officer absent from his regiment without a proper pass, and whose regiment is not near Washington, will be ordered by the officers of the provost guard to report in person to the provost-marshal, who will direct him, in writing, either to proceed to join his regiment within twenty-four hours, or within the same period to proceed to Alexandria, and report to the military governor of that place for duty at the convalescent camp. Such an order is sufficient authority to pass the_guards at the bridge or ferry to Alexandria. IV. All enlisted men arrested for being absent without a proper pass will, if their regiments are near Washington, be proceeded with as directed by General Orders, No. 2, from these headquarters. If their regiments are not near Washington, they will be sent, in squads, once each day, under guard, to the-military governor of Alexandria, who will place them in the convalescent camp. V. The military governor of Alexandria will enforce the same regulations so far as regards that city. VI. The military governor of the District of Columbia will cause daily lists of the officers so ordered to report to be furnished to the military governor of Alexandria. The military governor of Alexandria will cause a complete register to be kept of all officers ordered to report at, and a separate register of all enlisted men sent to, the convalescent camp·, and will communicate daily to the military governor of the District of Columbia the names of all officers who should have reported to him within the past twenty-four hours but who have failed so to report, and he will transmit weekly to each division commander a transcript of the register for the past week, so far as relates to his division. VII. All recruits arriving for regiments which are not near Washington will be sent to the convalescent camp. VIII. As far as practicable, the convalescents, stragglers, and recruits will be organized in squads, according to divisions or corps, each sq~ad in charge of an officer from the division or corps. A competent officer should be assigned_ to the command of the camp. IX. Shelter will be provided for the officers and men, and rations for the men. X. All enlisted men received at the convalescent camp who are without haversacks, canteens, and blankets will be supplied with them, and
ORA, I, 19, Part 2 (Serial 28), 302-03.
WASHINGTON, October 13, 1862. Capt. J. D. KURTZ, · In Charge of Engineer Bureau:
CAPTAIN: By order, already known to the Engineer Department, I was relieved from duty with the Army of the Potomac, and placed in command of fortifications of Washington and troops assigned to their defense. When the different armies fell back upon Washington, and general command of troops and defenses was given to General Civil War Defenses of Washington Page G-12 His.toric Res·ources Study Part I-Appendix G
McClellan, I relinquished all command (September 3), and by Special Orciers, No. 4, Headquarters Defenses of Washington, September 13, 1862, I was assigned to duty as chief engineer. As suc.h! I have been engaged in completing the system of defensive works around Washington. The inclosed extract of a letter to Col. J.C. Kelton, assistant adjutant-general, will inform the department as to the condition of the works.(*) Capt. B. S. Alexander (lieutenant-colonel and aide-de-camp) has been, and is, assisting me~the only officer of the corps on duty with me. Capt. H. L. Abbot, Topographical Engineers, returned from sick leave and reported for duty to me on the 25th of September, and remains on duty with me, superintending the erection of exterior works about Fort Lyon. I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
J.G. BARNARD, Brigadier-General, Chief Engineer Defenses of Washington.
ORA, I, 19, Part 2 (serial 28), 420.
GENERALORDERS,No.11. HDQRS. DEFENSES OFWASIIlNGlON, December 6, 1862. I. Pursuant to instruction from the commanding general, the District of the Defenses of Washington south of the Potomac will be discontinued. All the reports and returns now required will be forwarded to these headquarters. II. The following-named officers will be transferred to these headquarters for duty, in addition to the present staff, and will be obeyed and respected accordingly: Lieut. Col. Solon H. Lathrop, assistant inspector-general; Lieut. Col. Elias M. Greene, chief quartermaster; Capt. Joshua Norton, assistant quartermaster; Lieut. Col. Samuel McKelvy, commissary of subsistence; Maj. Leavitt Hunt, aide-de-camp; Capt. Granville E. Johnson, aide-de-camp; Capt. Henry Norton, aide-de-camp; Capt. E. C. Sturges, commander of ambulance corps, and Lieut. E. P. Deacon, volunteer aide. III. Brig. Gen. J. J. Abercrombie may transfer his headquarters to the Arlington house. By command of Major-General Heintzelman: C.H. POTIER, Assistant Adjutant-General.
ORA, I, 21 (serial 31), 836.
GENERALORDERS,No.1. HDQRS. DEPT. OFWASHING10N, 22DA. C., February 1, 1863.
I. The Defenses ofWashington, having, by General Orders, No. 26, War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, Washington, February 2, 1863, been changed to the Department of Washington and the Twenty-second Army Corps, will hereafter be known as such. II. The staff of the department will be as announced for the Defenses of Washington. All reports and returns will be made, as heretofore, to these headquarters. By command of Major-General Heintzelman:
C. H. POTTER, Assistant Adjutant General.
ORA, I, 25, Part 2 (serial 40), 60. Civil War Defenses of Washington Page G-13 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix G
GENERALORDERS,No.1.
HEADQUARTERS ABERCROMBIE'S DIVISION, April 17, 1863.
In obedience to Special Orders, No. 58, headquarters Department of Washington, the undersigned hereby assumes command of the division heretofore commanded by Major-General Casey.(*)
J. J. ABERCROMBIE, Brigadier-General.
ORA, I, 25, Part 2 (serial 40), 224.
GENERALORDERSNo.29.
HDQRS. ART. DEFENSES OF ALEXANDRIA, Near Fort Ward, Va., April 17, 1863.
I. The Second New York Heavy Artillery, Fourth New York Heavy Artillery, and Sixteenth Virginia Volunteers, are hereby temporarily attached to the command of Colonel Tannatt. II. This command will hereafter be designated as the "Defenses of Washington South of the Potomac." By order of Brig. Gen. Robert 0. Tyler:
E. L. KINNEY, Second Lieutenant and Acting Assistant Adjutant-General. ORA, I, 25, Part 2 (serial 40), 224.
GENERALORDERS,No.1. HDQRS. DEFENSES SOUTH OF POTOMAC, Arlington, May 25, 1863. In compliance with orders received from headquarters Department of Washington, the undersigned hereby assumes command of the Defenses of Washington South of the Potomac.
G. A. DE RUSSY, Brigadier-General.
ORA, I, 25, Part 2 (serial 40), 525 ..
SPECIAL ORDERS No. 91. HDQRS. DEPARTMENT OF WASHINGTON, May 23, 1863. * * * * * * * * * * 4. Brig. Gen. G. A. De Russy, U.S. Volunteers, is hereby assigned to the command of the Defenses south of the Potomac, headquarters· Arlington house. Col. T. R. Tannatt, on being relieved, will assume command of his regiment. By command of Major-General Heintzelman:
CARROLL H. POTTER, Civil War Defenses of Washington Page G-14 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix G
Assistant Adjutant-General.
ORA, I, 51, Part 1 (serial 107), 1042 ..
GENERALORDERS,No.1. HDQRS. DEFENSES SOUTH OF POTOMAC, Arlington, May 25, 1863.
In compliance with orders received from headquarters Department of Washington, the undersigned hereby assumes command of the Defenses of Washington South of the Potomac.
G. A. DE RUSSY, Brigadier-General.
ORA, I, 25, Part 2 (serial 40), 525.
SPECIAL ORDERS, No. 388. WAR DEPT., ADJT. GENERAL'S OFFICE, Washington, August 29, 1863. * * * * * * * * * 13. Brig. Gen. J. G. Barnard, U.S. Volunteers; Brig. Gen. G. W. Cullum, U.S. Volunteers, and Col. B. S. Alexander, additional aide-de-camp (major of Engineers), will constitute a Board of Engineers to examine and report upon the proper means of defending the works of the Potomac Aqueduct, as connected with the defense of Washington. * * * * * * * * * * ·By order of the Secretary of War:
E. D. TOWNSEND, Assistant Adjutant-General.
ORA, 1, 29, Part 2 (serial 49), 111.
SPECIAL ORDERS, No. 497.
WAR DEPT., ADJT. GENERAL'S OFFICE, Washington, November 9, 1863. * * * * * * * * * * III. A Board of Officers, to consist of Brig. Gen. W. F. Barry, U.S. Volunteers, lieutenant-colonel First U. S. Artillery; Brig. Gen. J. G. Barnard, U.S. Volunteers, lieutenant-colonel U.S. Engineers; Brig. Gen. G. W. Cullum, U.S. Volunteers, lieutenant-colonel U. S. Engineers; Brig. Gen. G. A. De Russy, U.S. Volunteers, captain Fourth U.S. Artillery; and Lieut. Col. B. S. Alexander, additional aide-de-camp, major U.S. Engineers, will meet in this city on the l 0th day of November, 1863, or as soon thereafter as practicable, to examine and report upon the armaments of the works constituting the defenses of Washington. The Board will report upon the points to be presented to them in a letter of instructions, and will make any other recommendations which in their judgment inay seem proper. The Chiefs of Engineers and of Artillery will furnish all information required by the Board, and the report of the Board ·will be submitted to them for comment or approval. The junior member will record the proceedings. Civil War Defenses of Washington Page G-15 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix G
* * * * * * * * * * By order of the Secretary of War: E. D. TOWNSEND, Assistant Adjutant-General.
ORA, I, 29, Part 2 (serial 49), 443.
GENERAL ORDERS No.42. WAR DEPT.,ADJT. GENERAL'S OFFICE, Washington, February 2, 1864. The following regulations for the care of field-works and the government of their garrisons, prepared by Brigadier General Barry, ins·pector of.artillery, U.S. Army, are published for the government of all concerned: 1. It is the duty of the commanding officer of each work' to provide for the care of the armament and the safety and serviceable condition of the magazines, ammunition, implements, and equipments; and by frequent personal inspections to secure the observance of the rules prescribed for this purpose. 2. The fixed armament, consisting of the heavy guns and thos·e the positions of which are prescribed, will be numbered in a regular series, commencing with the first gun on the right of the entrance of the main gate. Where there are platforms temporarily unoccupied by guns they will be numbered in the regular series. The ammunition will be kept in the magazines, with the exception of a few stand of grape, canister, and solid shot, which will be piled near the guns. 3. The gun carriages will be kept clean and all axles and journals well lubricated. They will be traversed daily, and never be allowed to rest for two successive days on the same part of the traverse circle. If the gun carriage does not move easily on the chassis the tongue will be occasionally greased. The upper carriage should not rest habitually on the same part of the chassis. 4. The elevating screw and its box will be kept clean and well greased. When the guns are not in use the screw will be run down as far as it will go, the breech of the piece being first raised until the muzzle is sufficiently depressed to prevent water running into it, and kept in that position by a wooden quoin or block. The tompion should be kept in the muzzle and the apron over the vent. 5. The piece is not to be kept habitually loaded. It will be time to load when the enemy appears, or when special orders to that effect are given. · _6. The commanding officer will see that a shed is constructed for the implements and equipments. For each drill these will be issued to the gunners by the ordnance sergeant, or other non-commissioned officer acting_ as such, who will receive and put them away after the drill is over, and be at all times responsible to the commanding officer for their safety and serviceable condition, and that the supply is adequate. When sheds cannot be provided, the implements will be kept near the pieces or in the bombproofs. The equipments (haversacks,
weather of long continuance. The supply of friction-primers for each gun must be 50 per cent. greater than the number of rounds of ammunition provided for it. A dozen primers will always ·be kept in the tube pouches in use at each gun. Three lanyards will be provided for each gun, one of which will be kept in store, the other two in the tube pouches. As soon as received the hooks will be tested to see if they are sufficiently small to enter the eye of the primer, and yet strong enough for use. · 9. In order that practice may be had in the use of friction-primers, authority is given to expend on drill five per gun each month. These primers will always be taken from those longest at the post. 10. There should be one lantern for every three or four guns, and two good globe lanterns for each magazine. 11. No person will be allowed to enter the magazine except on duty, and then every precaution against accidents will be taken. Lights must always be in glass lanterns, and carried only by the person in charge of the magazine. Swords, pistols, canes, spurs, &c., will not be admitted, no matter what may be the rank of the person carrying them. Socks or moccasins will be worn, if they can be procured; if they cannot, then all persons must enter with stocking-feet. No fire or smoking will be allowed in the vicinity when the doors or ventilators are open. Too many precautions cannot possibly be taken to avoid the chances of an explosion. A copy of this paragraph, legibly written, will be conspicuously posted near or on the door of every magazine. 12. Companies will be assigned to guns in such proportions as will furnish at least two, preferably three, reliefs in working them, and sufficient men in addition for supplying ammunition from the magazines. From fifteen to twenty men should therefore be assigned to each gun and instructed in its use. Companies should habitually serve the same guns, each man being assigned a special number at the gun, andthoroughly instructed in all its duties. As occasion
greater accuracy and penetrating power. If the column consists of cavalry, some shells or case-shot will be useful, from the disorder their bursting produces among the horses; but shells and case-shot should not be used against any troops when moving rapidly.
attention should be given to the insertion of the fuses, and the threads of the fuse-hole should be carefully cleaned before screwing in the fuse. In all Parrott projectiles it should be carefully observed that the brass ring or cup is properly wedged, and that, in the case of the ring, the cavities between it and the projectile are not clogged with dirt or sand. In leading shells care will be taken to fill them entirely with powder, leaving no vacant space after the fuse is screwed in. For the I 0, 20, and 30 pounder Parrott guns powder of too large a grain should not be used. The best powder for the projecting charge of these guns is what is called ''.mortar powder." 26. Pole-straps and pole-pads of field limbers, not belonging to horse batteries, are to be kept in the implement room or in the trays of the limber chest. They should be occasionally washed and oiled, as prescribed for the care of harness in Field Artillery Tactics. 27. The forts will be inspected daily by their commanding officers; and by the brigade, division, district, or department commanders, and by the chief of artillery, as frequently as possible. Particular attention will be paid at all inspections to the drill and discipline of the garrison and police of the work; to the condition of the armament, ammunition, and magazines, and as to whether the proper supply of ammunition, implements, &c., is on hand at the post. INSfRUCTIONSFORFIRING. I. The firing in action should be deliberate-never more than will admit of accurate pointing. A few shots effectively thrown is better than a large number badly directed. The object in killing is to inspire terror so as to deter or drive off the enemy, and precision of fire and consequent certainty of execution is infinitely more important in effecting this than a great noise, rapid firing, and less proportional execution. 2. To secure accuracy of fire the ground in the neighborhood must be well examined, and the distance to the different prominent points within the fields covered. by each gun measured and noted. The gunners and cannoneers should be informed of these distances, and in the drills the guns should be accurately pointed at the objects noted in succession, the gunner designatirig it, calling the distance in yards, and the corresponding elevation in minutes and degrees, until all the distances and corresponding elevation are familiar to the men. «5 RR SERIES ID, VOLIV»
(a) NOTE.-(The last table on page 240 should read 8-inch sea-coast howitzer on barbette carriage, instead of 8-inch sea- coast mortar.) . For example: The cartridges for the 24-pounder guns all weigh six pounds, as issued in the Defenses of Washington. The · table (p. 236) therefore applies as follows: Twenty-four-pounder gun·on siege or barbette carriage.
Cartridge. Ball. Elevation. Range. lhs. Yards. 6 Shot 0 0 412 That is, the bore (not line of sight) being level, a range of 400 yards. 6 do I 0 842 1 degree elevation, range about 850 yards. 6 do 1 30 953 I _ degrees elevation, range about 950 yards. 6 do 2 0 1,147 2 degrees elevation, range about 1,150 yards. 6 do 3 0 1,417 3 degrees elevation, range about 1,400 yards. 6 do 4 0 1,666 4 degrees elevation, range about 1,660 yards. 6 do 5 0 1,901 5 degrees elevation, range about 1,900 yards. The extreme range of 24-pounder round shot.
Thus, supposing the enemy at a point I ;000 yards distant, by looking at the table it will be observed that 950 yards require I O 30' elevation; 1,150 yards-require 2°; therefore, elevate a very little-5' to 1O' over I O 30', or simply give 1° 30' full.
By command of Major-General Halleck:
E. D. TOWNSEND, Assistant Adjutant-General.
ORA, 3, 4 (seriai 125), 61-67.
GENERAL ORDERS No. 19. HEADQUARTERS HASKIN'S DIVISION, May 18, 1864.
1. Until further orders the forces in the defenses north of the Potomac will be constituted as follows: The troops now occupying the line formerly held by the First Brigade, from Fort Lincoln to Fort Stevens, inclusive, will be designated as the First Brigade, under the command of Colonel Hayward, One hundred and fiftieth Ohio National Guard, to whom reports on that line will be made
SPECIAL ORDERS No. 28. HDQRS. ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES, Cold Harbor; Va., June 5, 1864. 1. Brig. Gen. J. G. Barnard, U.S. Volunteers, having reported for duty to the lieutenant-general commanding, is hereby announced as chief engineer of the armies in the field, and will be respected and obeyed accordingly. * * * * * * * * * * By command of Lieutenant-General Grant:
E. S. PARKER, Assistant Adjutant-General.
ORA, I, 36, Part 3 (serial 69), 600.
SPECIAL ORDERS No.168. HDQRS. DEPT. OF WASlllNGTON, 22D A. C., July9, 1864. * * * * * * * * * * 2. Brig. Gen. M.D. Hardin, U.S. Volunteers, having reported, in accordance with instructions from the War Department, for duty with the Twenty-second Army Corps, is hereby assigned to the command of Haskin'.s division, headquarters in Washington City. 3. Col. J. M. Warner, First Vermont Heavy Artillery, is assigned to the command of the First Brigade, Haskin's division, headquarters at or in the vicinity of Tennallytown. 4. Lieut. Col. J. A. Haskin, aide-de-camp, is assigned to the command of the Second Brigade, Hardin's division, headquarters at Fort Stevens or Slocum, as he may select. * * * * * * * * * * By command of Major-General Augur:
C.H. RAYMOND, Assistant Adjutant-General.
ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71 ), 141.
SPECIAL ORDERS No. 175. HDQRS. DEPT. OF WASHINGTON, TWENTY-SECOND ARMY CORPS, July 16, 1864. * * * * * * * * * * 4. In accordance with instructions from the headquarters of the Army, Maj. Gen. A. McD. McCook, U.S. Volunteers, is relieved from _duty in this department, and will report in person to the Adjutant-General of the Army. 5. Maj. Gen. A. Doubleday and Brig. Gen. H. E. Paine, U.S. Volunteers, are relieved from duty in the. defenses of Washington, and will reassume their duties on the military courts of which they are members. * * * * * * * * * * By command of Major-General Augur: C.H.RAYMOND, Assistant Adjutant-General
ORA, I, 37, Part 2 ( serial 71), 352. Civil War Defenses of Washington Page G-21 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix G
Lieutenant-General GRANT, City Point, Va.:
General Barnard is ordered to report to you. Engineer officers have been sent several times to Baltimore to lay out the works. Some are there now. I think, from personal examination, that they are better located than the defenses of Washington. It appears that Early sent a small force south with his plunder, and massed the rest near Winchester. General Averell had a skirmish there yesterday, and reports having killed and wounded over 300 rebels, taking 200 prisoners and 4 pieces of artillery. Nothing heard from Wright for three days. When he received your orders he replied that he would return as soon as assured of rebel retreat. Your telegram about merging departments is in the hands of the Secretary of War. I have no good reason for removing or superseding General Augur. He is capable and efficient. General Franklin would not give satisfaction. The President ordered him to be tried for negligence and disobedience of orders when here before, but General McClellan assumed the responsibility of his repeated delays in obeying orders. H. W.HALLECK, Major:General and Chief of Staff.
ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71), 408.
Memorandum for the Adjutant-General.
WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington City, October 24, 1864. Ordered, That during the absence of Major-General Augur in the field, Brevet Major-General Meigs be, and he is hereby, assigned to the command of the defenses of Washington, of the troops of the Veteran Reserve Corps, and all other forces within the city and fortifications; and that he be specially charged with the proper protection of the military stores, depots, arsenals, and other public property within the defenses. He is specially enjoined to see that due measures of vigilance and precaution are used against surprise and attack at all bridges, roads, avenues, and approaches to the city; will make proper inspections of all guards and sentinels and defensive arrangements, and, in general, will take such measures as may be necessary for the efficient protection of the national capital and of the public and private property therein. He will report from time to time to the Chief of Staff, or Secretary of War, for instructions when needed. By order of the Secretary of War:
JAS. A. HARDIE, Colonel and Inspector-General.
ORA, I, 43, Part 2 (Serial 91 ), 458. AppendixH Sampling of Correspondence, Etc. Relating to·the Battle of Fort Stevens Civil War Defenses of Washington Historic Resources Study Part !~Appendix H
Appendix H: A Sampling of Correspondence, Reports, Orders, Etc., Relating to the Battle of Fort Stevens
HEADQUARTERS CHIEF ENGINEER OF DEFENSES, Washington, July 6, 1864. Maj. Gen. H. W. HALLECK, Chief of Staff:
SIR: In compliance with your instructions of yesterday I proceeded last evening to make an examination of Chain Bridge and Aqueduct Bridge, and this morning I sent Mr. Childs, our civil assistant in charge of the works south of the Potomac, to make an examination of the Long Bridge, and I now have the honor to submit the following report on the defenses and guards of the three bridges across the Potomac, viz: Chain Bridge.-The defense of this bridge on the Virginia side consists, as you are aware, of a large tete-de-pont, comprising Forts Marcy and Ethan Allen, with a connecting line of intrenchments which extend also from the right of Fort Marcy and left of Fort Ethan Allen to the bank of the river above and below the bridge. Across the Leesburg pike, immediately on the right of Fort Marcy, there is a strong stockade with gates. This is a partial security against a sudden dash of cavalry in force, but is not a complete one, as there are paths, and, in fact, another road, passing to the left of Fort Ethan Alien leading to the bridge. The immediate defense of the bridge consists in a loop-holed gate which stands on the last pier next the Virginia shore, the whole river, except during floods, flowing between this pier and the adjacent abutment, the planks over a portion of tills span being laid down loosely so that they can be taken up at night. At this end of the bridge there is a battery armed with two mountain howitzers, intended to enfilade it, and on the hill immediately above and in rear is Battery Martin Scott, armed with two rifled 6-pounder guns. I found Lieutenant Grunwell, of the Twenty-second Regiment Veteran Reserves, with sixty-three men, in charge of the bridge. He has no command of the batteries at the east end of the bridge. These are in charge of Private Spink, One hundred and forty-seventh Ohio National Guard, acting ordnance sergeant. He knows nothing about ordnance or artillery. In fact, no one at the bridge knows how to load the guns. The business of Sergeant Spink is to clean the guns, air the ammunition, and sweep the platforms. In these duties he is assisted by a detail of six men from the One hundred and forty-seventh Ohio National Guard, changed daily. Lieutenant Grunwell closes the gates at the west end of the bridge and takes up eight or ten flooring planks in front of the gates every night at 9 o'clock. If the enemy were to attack him suddenly he "would take up the planks and make a parapet or barricade of them, and close the gates" He understands that there is a magazine in one of the western piers, arranged for blowing up the bridge, and a small lead pipe reading to the magazint::, and steps from the floor of the bridge leading down to where the pipe projects Civil War Defenses of Washington page H-2 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix H
from the pier. In all of which he must be mistaken as I have never heard that the piers of the bridge are mined. I remark: First. That the defenses of this bridge are sufficient, but the guard is not. The charge of the bridge with the two batteries at this end should be under one head. One man should be responsible for everything. He ought to have an ordnance sergeant and sufficient artillerists to man the four guns.
Fourth. The three block-houses at the south end could be better disposed by removing them nearer to the end of the bridge. They would then afford the necessary quarters for the guard, and the guard be in the right place at the end of the bridge, whereas now it is on the bridge. Long Bridge.-Mr. Childs reports as follows: Captain Sims, of the Veteran Reserves, commands the guard at the north end of this bridge. He has sixty-four men. To guard against fire, barrels of water and buckets are placed on the bridge at intervals of thirty or forty yards. There is also a water-tank at the Washington end of the bridge, but
ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71), 83..:85.
WASHINGTON, July 9, 1864. Maj. Gen. H. W. HALLECK:
GENERAL: In view of any conceivable probability of an attack on Washington, I feel it my duty to say th;it the most important re-enforcement we could have, and one to be obtained at least expense in proportion to its importance to the Army of the Potomac, would be the heavy artillery regiments formerly serving here. The First and Second Connecticut Regiments are serving as artillery regiments with that army and should not be disturbed, but the others, or most of them, are very much reduced in numbers, and through loss of field officers and numerical weakness very much injured in efficiency as infantry regiments. They are at best worth only so much infantry to General Grant. To the defenses of Washington they would be of value not to be estimated. The militia regiments now garrisoning the forts scarcely know Civil War Defenses of Washington page H-4 Historic Resources Study Part I~Appendix H
how to load or fire the guns. These artillery regiments are experienced and skillful gunners; know the guns and know the localities. The remnant of these regiments would furnish a full · · complement of experienced gunnei:s to all the forts, and impart confidence to the militia troops now in the forts, and give to the defen,se a reliability which it cannot have, do what we may without them. J. G. BARNARD, Bvt. Maj. Gen., Chief Engineer; Defenses of Washington. P. S.-I am aware that one regiment, the New York Ninth, has been ordered back, but would wish that the other and far better regiments should likewise come so as to have in each fort gunners and officers familiar with the localities.
ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71), 140.
HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY, July 9, 1864. Colonel TOWNSEND:
All officers and men of the Signal Corps in the Department of Washington will report to General Augur for such temporary duty as he may assign them to.
H. W. HALLECK, Major-General and Chief of Staff.
ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71), 140.
SPECIAL ORDERS No. 80.
HDQRS. HARDIN'S DIV., 22DA. C., DEPARTMENT OF WASHINGTON, Washington, July 9, 1864.
In compliance with orders from department headquarters, the brigade heretofore designated as the First Brigade of this division will hereafter be designated as the Second Brigade, and the Second Brigade of the division will be designated a~ the First Brigade. By command of Brigadier-General Hardin:• R. CHANDLER, Assistant Adjutant-General.
ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71), 141. Civil War Defenses of Washington pageH-5 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix H
SPECIAL ORDERS No. 168. HDQRS. DEPT. OF WASHINGTON, 22D A. C., July 9, 1864. * * * * * * * * * * 2. Brig. Gen·. M.D. Hardin, U.S. Volunteers, having reported, in accordance with instructions from the War Department, for duty with the Twenty-second Army Corps, is hereby assigned to the command of Haskin's division, headquarters in Washington City. 3. Col. J.M. Warner, First Vermont Heavy Artillery, is assigned to the command of the First Brigade, Haskin 's division, headquarters at or in the vicinity of Tennallytown. 4. Lieut. Col. J. A. Haskin, aide-de-camp, is assigned to the command of the Second Brigade, Hardin's division, headquarters at Fort Stevens or Slocum, as he may select. * * * * * * * * * *
By command of Major-General Augur:
C.H. RAYMOND, Assistant Adjutant-General.
· ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71 ), 141.
FORT STEVENS, July 12, 1864. (Received 1.30 p.m.) Major-General AUGUR:
I think as a precaution the garrisons of Forts Foote and Washington should be increased to guard against any raids in that direction. J. G. BARNARD, Brevet Major-General, Chief Engineer.
ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71 ), 226.
MRS. McDANIEL'S, July 12, 1864-4.05 p.m. Major-General AUGUR:
The enemy are just beyond Bladensburg. Fugitive citizens are coming in. I have carefully examined the line of works from Fort Bunker Hill to Fort Lincoln. More troops should be on this part of the line. I saw eight brass field pieces in Fort Lincoln not in use. They ought to be put in position, I think, with men to man them. I am· not in command of the line in my front by any orders from you or any one else. Civil War Defenses of Washington pageH-6 Historic Resources Study Part i-Appendix H
Respectfully, Q. A. GILLMORE, Major-General.
ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71 ), 233.
HDQRS. DEPT. OF WASHINGTON, 22D ARMY CORPS, July 12, 1864. General BARNARD, Chief Engineer, &c., near Fort Stevens:
Rifle-pits should be prepared between the forts south of the Eastern Branch. Please have it attended to. Designate some one here to supply requisitions for implements, shovels, &c. C.C.AUGUR, Major-General, U. S. Volunteers. If General B. is not at Fort Stevens, please send it to Fort Reno.
ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71), 227.
WAR DEPARTMENT, July 12, 1864. General C. C. AUGUR, Commanding Department:
Operator at Tennallytown says General Barnard is on his way to Washington. D.H.BATES, Chief Operator.
ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71), 227.
WASHINGTON, July 13, 1864, (Received 10.25 a.m.) Major-General GILLMORE, Fort Lincoln, D.C.:
If there be no large force in your front get your troops ready to join General Wright, by the military road, toward Tennallytown, with eight days' small rations in wagons and four days' on the men. Beef will be driven on foot. H. W. HALLECK, Ci vii War Defenses of Washington pageH-7 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix H
Major-General and Chief of Staff.
ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71 ), 270.
[ORDERS.] HEADQUARTERS SIXTH CORPS,
July 13, 1864-1 p.m. The corps will move at once along the Military road to Tennally-town, and thence by the River road, via Offutt's Cross-Roads, in the following order: First, First Division, with two batteries; second, ~ar71_287> Second Division, with one battery; third, Artillery Brigade; fourth, trains. General Getty will detail one brigade as rear guard and flankers for the artillery and trains. The cavalry force now here under Major Thompson will immediately move out upon this road, keeping well in advance of the infantry and covering the front. The cavalry force now on the Rockville road will move on that road, covering the right flank. The cavalry force now near Bladensburg will move at once along the road taken by the troops, and Colonel Lowell, commanding, will report at these headquarters at Tennallytown, as directed by Major-General Augur. The portion of the Nineteenth Corps now here will follow up the movement without delay. Its commanding officer will report at these headquarters on the road for further instructions. The troops will, as far as practicable, keep to the right, giving the road to the artillery and trains. By command of Major-General Wright:
C. H. WHITTELSEY, Assistant Adjutant-General. ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71 ), 286-87.
GENERAL ORDERS No. 2. HEADQUARTERS MEIGS' DIVISION, Defenses of Washington, July 14, 1864. By direction of Major-General McCook; General Rucker's brigade is relieved from duty in the trenches and will return to Washington, where its members-who are civilians in the service of the Quartermaster's Department-will resume their usual duties. The brigade will march this evening as soon as Brigadier-General Rucker, commanding, can make the necessary dispositions. The, position will be occupied by the Reserve Brigade. Brevet Major- General Meigs, Quartermaster General, commanding the division, takes this opportunity to thank the soldiers and the civilians of · the Quartermaster's Department for the alacrity and zeal with which they organized and moved to defend the capital, insulted by traitors. The rebel anny, under tried and skillful leaders, has looked at and has felt of the northern defenses of Washington. These looked ugly and felt hard. They left Civil War Defenses of Washington pageH-8 Historic Resources Study Part !~Appendix H
their dead unburied, and many of their wounded on the way by which they retired. They will not soon again insult the majesty of a free people in their nation's capital. Under instructions of Major General Augur, commanding the Department of Washington, the command of the remainder of the division is relinquished to Brigadier-General Paine, U.S. Volunteers, senior officer remaining,
M.C.MEIGS, Quartermaster- General, Brevet Major-General. ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71 ), 308.
HEADQUARTERS U.S. FORCES, Fort Stevens, July 12, 1864. SIR: Agreeably to your verbal order communicated to me last night, I have the honor to submit the following observations with regard to the status of the forces within the command of Major-General McCook: Headquarters are located in rear of Fort Stevens. From the right of Stevens to Fort Totten, inclusive, the line is held by forces under command of Major-General McCook, as follows:
Provisional Brigade. Colonel Price (approximately) 2,800 Second District, Colonel Alexander (approximately) 550 12th Veteran Reserve, Colonel Farnsworth (approximately) 550 Quartermasteremployes (approximately) 1,800 Detachment of 7th Michigan Cavalry, Major Darling, operating between Fort Stevens and Bladensburg, only portion under General McCook's command 450 Total 6,150
From Fort Stevens' left to Fort De Russy troops of Major-General Wright and Major General McCook are intermixed, those reporting to Major-General McCook, as follows:
2d Vermont Volunteers (approximately) 232 3d Vermont Volunteers (approximately) 272 147th Ohio Volunteers (100-days men) 465 9th U.S. Veteran Reserve Corps 350 157th Ohio 184 . Total 1,503
Amount brought forward 6,150 Total 7,653 Civil War Defenses of Washington page H-9 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix H
Between Forts Stevens and Slocum there is a section (2 guns) 1st Ohio Battery [L, 1st Ohio] · 121 Between Forts Stevens and De Russy, section (2 guns) 1st Maine Battery 112 233 Grand total under General McCook 7,886 No other artillery aside from guns in the forts. An order has just been issued placing-Brigadier-General Meigs in command of the line from Stevens to Totten, inclusive, Brigadier-Generals Rucker and Paine and Lieutenant Colonel Haskin reporting to him. The left cannot be so well organized, owing to the intermixing of troops under different commanders. I would respectfully suggest that any future trouble liable to arise with regard to commanders be averted by orders from headquarters. To the left of Fort Totten there has been very little skirmish or picket firing. In front of Stevens and to the right and left of it firing is quite frequent. · The artillery firing has been from Stevens, De Russy, and Slocum for the purpose of shelling rebel pickets from cover of houses. No artillery or cavalry or any considerable body of infantry have been developed. Two prisoners belonging to a Georgia regiment, captured by our advanced skirmishers in front of Stevens, say they were of Colonel Cook's brigade, Rodes' division, Early's (formerly Ewell's) corps, consisting of divisions of Rodes, Gordon, and Ramseur; these directly in front of Stevens. The estimate placed upon this command, including Breckinridge's command, and the irregular Virginia troops is about 30,000, prisoners estimating from 25,000 to 50,000. General Meigs reports squads of cavalry seen to the right of Totten, thinks the enemy. The enemy maintain a pretty stiff picketline and are not easily driven. This part of the defense may be regarded as well organized. The line though not strongly defended is capable of resisting successfully a single line assault. A rebel sharpshooter just wounded severely a soldier standing on the parapet of Fort Stevens. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
N. P. CHIPMAN, Colonel and Additional Aide-de-Camp. Hon. E. M.STANTON, Secretary of War.
ORA, I, 37, Part 1 (serial 70), 234-35.
Report of Acting Rear-Admiral Lee, U. S. Navy, justifying his movement, without orders, for the protection of the capital. FLAGSHIP MALVERN, Potomac River, Below Washington, July 14, 1864-p.m. ..
Civil War Defenses of Washington page H-10 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix H
SIR: Returning on board this afternoon after having reported my anival in person at the Department, I received the Department's telegram of this date infonning me that the Department disapproves my leaving my station without ord~rs in an emergency like the present, and directing me to return to Hampton Roads without anchoring. I am deeply concerned at this censure of the Department and beg leave to state the circumstances which appear to excuse my coming to assist in the defense of the capital. It was known that a large rebel force was in Maryland and before Washington; that our forces had been defeated when attempting to repel this advance of the enemy; that the important military supplies at Baltimore and Annapolis had all been embarked ready for removal beyond the reach of the enemy; that the governors of States were trying to get out the militia.for the defense of the national capital; that the communications had been cut off by the enemy between Washington, Baltimore, and Philadelphia, and that the telegraph was not working. The Department's· telegram of the 10th instant was not received by me at Hampton Roads until 6 p.m. of the 11th instant. The defenses of Washington, 30 or 40 miles in length, owing to the reinforcements sent thence to the Army of the Potomac, were, it was understood, to depend upon a small garrison mostly of green troops. This defense had been strengthened by a detachment from the Washington navy yard, and as represented in the public prints, by a detachment from the New York navy yard also, sent to man the fortifications around Washington. I had just sent a division of this squadron, consisting of four steamers with heavy batteries, to Washington, one of which was an ironclad. In James River and Hampton Roads all was quiet. Obstructions were down in·the river and the ironclads and gunboats were watching
S. P. LEE, Actg. Rear-Admiral, Comdg. North Atlantic Blockading Squadron. Hon. GIDEON WELLES, . Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D. C.
NOR, Vol. 10, page 272-73. Civil War Defenses of Washington page H-11 Historic Resources Study Part I~Appendix H
361 ELEVENTH STREET, July 15, 1864-9.30 a.m.
MY DEAR HALLECK: Order Barnard to send an officer of engineers to make a careful measured survey of the rebel trenches at FortStevens. McCook rode over the line with me, pointed out lines of battle, recognized by empty ammunition boxes, cartridge package wrappers, &c., and also camps, recognized by camp-fires and old hats, shoes, and the usual debris of such occupation. McCook feels strongly on the subject, and will go with the officer. In view of the Intelligencer's articles it will be well to have them recorded in official form and get it engraved and published in papers of large circulation. The physical signs are of a large force lying in ambush hoping to tempt an attack by our weak garrison to overthrow and follow them into the lines. M.C.MEIGS. [lndorsement.]
JULY 15, 1864. Major-General AUGUR:
Please direct General Barnard to make the proposed survey. H. W. HALLECK, Major-General and Chief of Staff.
ORA; I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71 ), 333.
HDQRS. DEPT. OF WASHINGTON, 22D ARMY CORPS, July 15, 1864. Major-General BARNARD, Chief Engineer; Department of Washington:
GENERAL: The major-general commanding desires that you send a competent officer of engineers to make a measured survey of the position occupied by the rebels in front of our lines, especiaily the front covering Stevens, Slocum, and De Russy. Very respectfully, general, your most obedient servant,
J. H. TAYLOR, Chief of Staff and Assistant Adjutant-General. ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71 ), 334 Civil War Defenses of Washington page H-12 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix H
SPECIAL ORDERS No.175.
HDQRS. DEPT. OF WASHINGTON, TWENTY-SECOND ARMY CORPS, July 16, 1864. * * * * * * * * 4. In accordance with instructions from the headquarters of the Army, Maj. Gen. A. McD. McCook, U.S. Volunteers, is relieved from duty in this department, and will report in person to the Adjutant-General of the Army. 5. Maj. Gen. A. Doubleday and Brig. Gen. H. E. Paine, U.S. Volunteers, are relieved from duty in the defenses of Washington, and will reassume their duties on the military courts of which they are members. * * * * * * * * * * By command of Major-General Augur: C. H. RAYMOND, Assistant Adjutant-General
ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71), 352.
HDQRS. HARDIN'S DIVISION, 22DARMYCORPS, DEPARTMENT OF WASHINGTON, Washington, D.C., July 18, 1864. Lieut. Col. J. H. TAYLOR, Chief of Staff and Asst. Adjt. Gen., Dept. of Washington :
I have the honor to make the following report concerning the amount of force I deem necessary to hold the defenses north of the Potomac against a coup de main or sudden attack such as we have recently been threatened with: One regiment of heavy artillery from Fort Sumner, Md., to Fort Reno, D.C.; one from Fort Reno, D.C., to Fort Stevens, D. C.; one from Fort Stevens to Fort Lincoln, D.C.: one south of the Eastern Branch, with three regiments of 100-days' men, or other infantry regiments, each 1,000 strong, and
I am, colonel, your obedient servant, M. D. HARDIN, Brigadier-General, Commanding. ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71 ), 375.
HEADQUARTERS DE RUSSY'S DIVISION, Arlington, Va., July 18, 1864. Col. GEORGE W. GILE, Commanding Brigade, Veteran Reserve Corps:
COLONEL: The following telegram has just been received: WAR DEPARTMENT, July 18, 1864. Brigadier-General DE RUSSY: General Augur directs that you send the Sixth Regiment Veteran Reserve Corps to report to Colonel Wisewell, Military Governor District of Columbia. Please notify these headquarters of its departure. C.H. RAYMOND, Assistant Adjutant-General. You will carry out the above order and notify these headquarters when the regiment moves, and the general commanding wishes that one regiment be retained on duty on Columbia pike. By command of Brigadier-General De Russy:
THOS. THOMPSON,
Captain and Assistant Adjutant-General.
ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71 ), 375.
HDQRS. DEPT. OF WASHINGTON, 22D ARMY CORPS, July 19, 1864. Brevet Major-General BARNARD, Chief Engineer, Department of Washington: GENERAL: The major-general commanding directs me to say, in reply to your communication of this date, that it is not practicable to furnish a working detail of 1,000 men on the Eastern Branch Civil War Defenses of Washington pageH-14 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix H
front. Brigadier-General Hardin, commanding division, has been instructed to employ as many men as can be taken from the garrisons, in the manner indicated by you. I am, general, very respectfully, your most obedient servant,
J. H. TAYLOR, Chief of Staff and Assistant Adjutant-General. ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71 ), 385.
[CIRCULAR.] CHIEF QUARTERMASTER'S OFFICE, Washington Depot, July 19,_ 1864. The following extracts from letters of the Quartermaster-General, dated the' 16th instant, relative to the continuation of the military organizations of the employes of the Quartermaster's Department, are published for the information and guidance of the officers and employes of the depot: The organization of the clerks, workmen, and laborers of the Quartermaster's Department will be kept up; and to make it more efficient a certain time should be devoted to drill at regular periods. The officers should have letters of appointment from the Quartermaster-General, upon your nomination, unless the Secretary should consent to sign the appointments. This will be submitted to him. All persons employed by the department should wear the Quartermaster's Department badge, for which you will please make the necessary arrangements. Those who actually took the field during the late demonstration against Washington should wear this badge of white metal upon a patch of red cloth, circular in shape, showing one-eighth or one-quarter inch around the edge of the badge. By devoting a little time to this matter, I am of the opinion that a force of 5,000 or 6,000 effective men for the aid of the garrison at Washington can be raised. When tolerably familiar with the school of the soldier, they will be assembled in larger bodies and drilled occasionally by battalions and brigade. Those of the Quartermaster's Department should be organized into a brigade. The other Departments can probably furnish a second brigade, and the emulation between the two will have a good effect. Bugles, flags, and the necessary equipage for drill should be provided and placed in the armories. I prefer the bugle to the drum. Cooking equipage and shelter tents for as large a body as can probably be made movable should also be stored at some central armory, to be carried to the field when needed in wagons; knapsacks and blankets will not be wanted. The Quartermaster-General directs that the military organization of the depot employes into companies and regiments to for/n one brigade to be commanded by you (General D. H. Rucker)be made as soon as practicable. Each company will consist of captain, one first lieuten~t, five sergeants, five corporals, and 100 privates. Each_ regiment will have one colonel, one lieutenant-colonel, one major, one adjutant (a lieutenant), one quartermaster _and acting commissary of subsistence (a lieutenant), one sergeant-major, one quartermaster's sergeant, and one commissary sergeant. If a sufficient Civil War Defenses of Washing_ton pageH-15 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix H
number of musicians.can be found among the men each company will be allowed two. Suitable persons for the field and staff officers of regiments.and for line officers will be recommended to the Quartermaster-General. Their appointments will be subject to the revocation of the Quartermaster-General. The appointment of non-commissioned officers will be made as prescribed in the Anny Regulations. Colonels will be selected from the commissioned officers of the Anny and volunteers on duty at the depot; lieutenant-colonels in the same manner; majors from clerks and superintendents, captains from the superintendents, overseers, and wagon-masters, and lieutenants and non-commissioned officers from the same. All employes whose services can practicably and without detriment to the public service be spared will attend daily drills. Instructions will be given in Casey's Infantry Tactics, commencing with the school of the soldier; especial attention being given to the manual of arms, and that the men be habituated to load and fire with facility and accuracy. In view of furnishing uniform clothing to the.brigade, a list of the sizes with number of each size of the following-named articles will be made and forwarded to this office as soon as practicable, viz: Flannel sack-coats, trousers (foot), and forage caps. The clothing will not be issued until the question of such issue is decided by the Secretary of War, to whom itis to be submitted. Report the location of the armories, and what arrangements can be made for the preservation and care of the uniforms should they be issued for drill. The War ~epartment will be requested to order an officer of the Adjutant General's Department to report to the Quartermaster-General to act as adjutant and inspector of the whole organization. The organization of the companies and regiments to form the brigade as directed by the Quartermaster-General is intrusted to Capt. E. E. Camp, assistant quartermaster, to be assisted by Capt. Charles H. Tompkins, assistant quartermaster. These officers will enter upon this duty immediately and complete the organization with as little delay as possible. A list of the names of the regimental and company officers will be sent to this office as soon as the regiments are organized, together with a complete return of each regiment showing its strength and organization. The points at
HDQRS. DEPT. OF WASHINGTON, 22D ARMY CORPS, July 19, 1864. Brig. Gen. M.D. HARDIN, Commanding Division: GENERAL: The major-general commanding desires that all men who can be spared from the garrisons of the works constituting the front, east, and south of the Eastern Branch, be employed in tivii War Defenses of Washington pageH-16 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix H
clearing the approaches of brush, &c., commencing on the crests, &c., where the enemy, in developing himself, would naturally establish sharpshooters and his skirmishers. I am, general, very respectfully, your most obedient servant, ·
J.H. TAYLOR, Chief of Staff and Assistant Adjutant-General. ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71 ), 387.
ALEXANDRIA, July 19, 1864. (Received 8.45 p.m.) Colonel TAYLOR, Assistant Adjutant-General: COLONEL: The patrols report all quiet to-day; it is reported that the pickets of the enemy were quite strong on Grove Creek yesterday. · · H.H. WELLS, Lieut. Col., Prov. Mar. Gen., Defenses South of the Potomac. ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71), 387 . . ..
HEADQUARTERS CAVALRY BRIGADE, Near Fort_Buffalo, Va., July 19, 1864. Lieut. Col. J. H. TAYLOR, Chief of Staff and Assistant Adjutant-General: COLONEL: I have the honor to report all quiet in this vicinity, Two scouting parties came in to-day from the direction of Aldie and report nothing in that vicinity but small parties. Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
H. M. LAZELLE, Colonel Sixteenth New York Cavalry, Comdg. Brig. ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71), 387.
HEADQUARTERS HARDIN'S DIVISION, July 19, 1864. . SIR: I have the honor to make the-following report of the operations of my command on the 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th instant: On the night'of the 10th I was ordered to make my headquarters at Tennallytown. I learned before leaving the city that Major-General McCook was to command a reserve force to be stationed at Crystal Civil War Defenses of Washington pageH-17 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix H
Spring. I left the city about 11 p.m. The last report from Major Fry, commanding the cavalry on the Rockville road being that he was falling back and would make a stand just outs1de of Tennallytown, the enemy pushing him back rapidly. Upon aniving at Foit Reno, headquarters First Brigade, Colonel Warner commanding, I felt assured there was not so evident danger to the defenses as I was led to suppose from the cavalry reports. Everything was very quiet. Colonel Warner had made good dispositions of his troops, and the Veteran Reserves were corning up rapidly: Colonel Gile, with First Brigade of Veteran-Reserves reported about midnight. Colonel Lowell, Second Massachusetts Cavalry, having moved out at daylight Monday morning, in command of all the available cavalry, commenced skirmishing. About 6.30 a.m. the enemy's . advance fell back several miles to their reserves, when they began forcing Colonel Lowell's command back. The enemy occasionally fired a small rifled gun near the road. Colonel Lowell remained on infantry picket-line. Cavalry scouts were sent out the River and Aqueduct roads. No enemy reported in that direction. Heavy clouds of dust and occasionally troops and wagons were seen from signal station at Fort Reno, moving apparently from Rockville in direction of Seventh-street pike. General McCook was notified, the skirmish line strengthened from Fort Reno to Rock Creek, and a proper disposition of the infantry supports made. Skirmishing was quite brisk on the right near Rock Creek until dark. During the night of the 11th the pickets were very much strengthened from Brookeville road to Rock Creek: One company of Veteran Reserves, under Captain Clark, Sixth Regiment Veteran Reserve Corps, made a gallant effort to take a barn which the enemy were using to advantage against our skirmishers in front of Fort De Russy. Captain Clark was slightly wounded and many of his company were wounded. These very efforts and the determined way of holding the picket-line showed the enemy that he would have to make a desperate assault to carry this portion of the line, which I believe one of the weakest points on the front. This resistance on the picket-line and the advance of the Sixth Corps skirmishers it is considered made the enemy think we were prepared for an assault. I respectfully call attention to the reports of the brigade commanders appended. Such telegrams as are in my reach are appended. Many, I think were carried off by the operators. My adjutant- . general had to remain in the city. I sent my inspector-general,.Captain Markle, to the Second Brigade. There did not appear to be sufficient attention paid to pickets on that front. He was put there to
commanding the cavalry. The information given by him was always reliable. I am indebted to Colonel Gile, commanding First Brigade, Veteran Reserve Corps, and to the officers and men of that corps for our principal success. I have the honor to mention my staff-:-Captain Chandler, assistant adjutant-general; Captain Markle, acting assistant inspector-general; Lieutenant Waterbury, Fourth New York Heavy Artillery, acting aide de-camp; Lieutenant Carroll, Fifth U.S. Artillery, acting aide-de-camp; Captain Nesmith, assistant quartermaster', and Lieutenant Hough, Ninth New York Artillery, ordnance officer; in so long a line, were kept almost constantly in the saddle and most cheerfully performed all duties required of them. Reports of firing in action are herewith inclosed. I am, sir, very respectfully, your obed_ient servant,
M;D. HARDIN, Brigadier-General, Commanding. Lieut. Col. JOSEPH H. TAYLOR, Assistant Adjutant-General. ADDENDA.
HEADQUARTERS HARDIN'S DIVISION, TWENTY-SECOND ARMY.CORPS, DEPT. OF WASHINGTON, July 14, 1864. Surg. R. 0. ASBOTT, U.S. Army, Medical Director, Department of Washington: I have the honor to submit the following list of casualties on the line of defenses north of the Potomac, from July 11 to 14, inclusive, belonging to Twenty-second Corps:
Wounded. Killed. Total Monday, July 11, 1864 39 6 45 Tuesday, July 12, 1864 15 5 20 Wednesday, July 13, 1864 7 1 8 Total 61 12 73
ROBERT REYBURN, Surgeon, U.S. Vols., Surgeon-in-Chief, Hardin '.s Division.
ORA, I, 37, Part 1 (serial 70), 236-37. Civil War Defenses of Washington page H-19 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix H
CITY POINT, VA., July 20, 1864. Major-General MEADE: A call is made for one more regiment of heavy artillery for the defenses of Washington. You may designate one, to be sent back as soon as the Sixth Corps begins to return. U.S. GRANT, Lieutenant-General.
ORA, I, 40, Part 3 (ser.ial 82), 345.
CITY POINT, July 20, 186~2 p.m. (Received 9.35 p.m.) Major-General HALLECK, Chief of Staff: If General Barnard can be spared from Washington I would like to have him ordered back to the field. If he cannot be spared now send him as soon as he can be conveniently spared. I think immediate steps should be taken for completing and connecting the fortifications about Baltimore. The officers in charge of the works about Washington can take charge of those of Baltimore also. I have heard nothing of the determination come to on my recommendation about the merging of the four departments about Washington into one. U.S. GRANT, Lieutenant-General. ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71), 400.
WASHINGTON, July 21, 1864-11.30 a.m. Lieutenant-General GRANT, City Point, Va.: General Barnard is ordered to report to you. Engineer officers have been sent several times to Baltimore to lay out the works. Some are there now. I think, from personal examination, that they are better located than the defenses of Washington. It appears that Early sent a small force south with his plunder, and massed the rest near Winchester. General Averell had a skirmish there yesterday, and reports having killed and wounded over 300 rebels, taking 200 prisoners and 4 pieces of artillery. Nothing heard from Wright for three days. When he received your orders he replied that he would return as soon as assured of rebel retreat. Your telegram about merging departments is in the hands of the Secretary of War. I have no good reason for removing or superseding General Augur. He is capable and efficient. General Franklin would not give satisfaction. The President ordered him to be tried for negligence and disobedience of orders when here before, but General McClellan assumed the responsibility of his repeated delays in obeying orders. Civil War Defenses of Washington pageH-20 · Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix H
H. W. HALLECK, Major-General and Chief of Staff.
ORA,, I, 40, Part 3 (serial 82), 360.
HEADQUARTERS CHIEF ENGINEER OF DEFENSES, Washington, July 22, 1864. Maj. Gen. C. C. AUGUR, Commanding Department of Washington: GENERAL: In compliance with your directions, I have caused the ground occupied by the rebel troops to be surveye9 and the locations of camps noted, and send you a sketch(*) herewith; also a report of Lieutenant Oberteuffer and Mr. Hergesheimer (U.S. Coast Survey) on the subject. No very definite statement of actual numbers was obtained, but it is certain that, besides the 1,500 cavalry which approached Tennallytown, on the Rockville road, and the cavalry which encamped at Silver Spring, very heavy bodies· of infantry came up on the Seventh-street road, bivouacking from Silver Spring to Batchelor's, two miles distant. Twenty pieces of artillery are known to have been brought up to Silver Spring and five pieces were with McCausland's command. The belief that ·a very considerable force advanced from Rockville to Leesborough on Monday was founded by myselfupon observations made from Fort Reno on Monday of dust; not upon any given appearance of dust at one moment, but upon the permanence of its exhibition at the same points, indicating the continued occupation of the road, by marching columns. For hours such dust clouds appeared on the road from Rockville to Leesborough on Monday; indeed they were seen by me from about 8 a.m. till 2 p.m., and observed by others during the rest of the day. The statement of persons in the vicinity confirm the observations from Fort Reno, as they generally give to the time the columns Were passing given points, both in advance and retreat; a duration of nearly twelve hours. The line marked "rebel skirmish line" was marked by the hasty cover of fence rails, earth, &c., thrown up, as well as by the retnnants of cartridges, .ammunition-boxes, and other relics. On the other side of the road in the woods opposite Silver Spring a line of relics has been traced which has been supposed to have been a line of battle, but which Lieutenant Oberteuffer considered a mere line of communication with the cavalry camp. I am, very respectfully, your most obedient,
J. G. BARNARD. P. S.-By orders from headquarters U.S. Army, I leave tomorrow to report to General Grant. . During my absence Colonel Alexander, it is presumed, will act as chief engineer of the defenses of Washington. Civil War Defenses of Washington . pageH-21 Historic Resources Study Par(I-Appendix H
[lnclosure.] HEADQUARTERS CHIEF ENGINEER OF DEFENSES, Washington, July 21, 1864. Maj. Gen. J. G. BARNARD, Chief Engineer: GENERAL: We respectfully report the following as the res_ult of our examination of the ground lately occupied by the rebels, made in obedience to your orders: The rebel force approached Washington by two roads from Rockville-the Seventh-street road and the turnpike road through Tennallytown. The force on the Tennallytown road was McCausland's brigade of cavalry and mounted infantry, consisting of five regiments, three of which were the Twenty-second Virginia Mounted Infantry, Twenty-second and Fourteenth Virginia Cavalry; in all, about 1,500 men, including Jackson's battery of artillery, five guns. This force arrived about 8 o'clock on Monday morning and left during Tuesday night and were picketed along the road both sides of the fences, extending from Mr. Hawn's house to the old church. The main force, under General Early, passed down the Seventh-_street road, the rear, consisting of Echols' and Wharton's brigades, reached and encamped on Mr. Batchelor's place about 6 o'clock Monday evening. Most of this force was encamped along the Seventh street road between Batchelor's and Blair's. Two small cavalry camps to the eastward, near the Sligo, were formed apparently as a rendezvous for roving bands of cavalry in search of horses, &c., and for observations on their extreme left. The road marked on the accompanying sketch,(*) passing by Judge Dunlap's house near Rock Creek, was used as a line of communication between McCausland's and the main force, and by General Williams' brigade of infantry on the retreat Tuesday afternoon. Mr. Batchelor, who lives on the Seventh-street road about two miles above Blair's, states that the rebels commenced passing his house toward Washington about 9 o'clock Monday morning (July 11). All of the cavalry had not passed until about 12 m., when they were followed by a body of sappers and miners, or infantry with picks and shovels, and that the infantry and artillery continued to pass constantly until 6 o'clock in the evening, when the rear guard, consisting of the brigades of Generals Echols and Wharton, encamped or bivouacked near his house on the side toward Washington. The rear guard remained near his house till Tuesday evening about 7 o'clock, when they were the first to commence the retreat, carrying the wagons with them. Mr. Batchelor states that he remained on his front porch all night while the rebels were retreating; that in the retreat there were only three halts of about fifteen minutes each, and that the rear guard, consisting of about 2,000 cavalry, had not all passed until 5 o'clock Wednesday morning. Mr. Batchelor estimates the artillery at twenty pieces. Mr. Davis, who keeps the toll-gate at Silver Spring, saw the artillery pass his place to Blair's place, where it was parked, and estimates it at about twenty pieces. Mrs. Barnes, who lives at the upper end of Blair's place, was at home all the time the rebels were in the neighborhood. The first rebel killed by our pickets fell and was buried near her house. The rebels bivouacked around her house. She frequently heard their conversation,
frequently saw Generals Early and Breckinridge, and was questioned by General Early as to the number and characters of the garrisons of the forts in front. Very respectfully submitted. J. H. OBERTEUFFER, JR., Lieutenant and Acting Assistant Adjutant-General. E. HERGESHEIMER, U.S. Coast Survey. ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71), 414-16.
HDQRS. FIRST BRIGADE, VETERAN RESERVE CORPS,
Washington, D.C., July 22, 1864.
COLONEL: I have the honor to make the following report of the operations of the First Brigade, Veteran Reserve Corps, during the late rebel invasion: Pursuant to orders received from headquarters Military District, dated July 10, 1864, the Ninth Regiment Veteran Reserve Corps, Lieut. Col. R. E. Johnston commanding, left Camp Fry, D.C., at 4 p.m. and reported to Major-General McCook, commanding at Crystal Spring, Md., at 8 p.m .. and bivouacked for the night, the rest of the brigade remaining in camp (with orders to be ready to move at short notice) until 6 p.m., when I received orders to report without delay to you. I immediatelY, ordered the regiments of the brigade to rendezvous at Camp Fry, and at 9 .15 p.m. the brigade took up the line of march, arriving at Tennallytown at 11.15 p.m., when, in accordance with your instructions, the following disposition was made of the command: The Twenty-second Regiment Veteran Reserve Corps, Lieut. Col. A. Rutherford commanding, was placed in the rifle-pits in front of Fort Sumner; the Sixth Regiment Veteran Reserve Corps, Lieut. Col. F. S. Palmer commanding, in rifle-pits on the left of Fort Reno and directly in front of Tennallytown, its right resting on the Rockville pike; the First Regiment Veteran Reserve Corps, Lieutenant Colonel Trotter commanding, on the right of Fort Reno in the rifle-pits; the Nineteenth and Twenty-fourth Regiments, commanded respectively by Col. 0. V. Dayton and Maj. J. W. H. Stickney, massed in column of division directly in rear of Fort Reno.
Kearny and took possession of the rifle-pits in front of the fort. At 4 p.m. the Ninth Regiment was o~dered to advance as skirmishers and relieve the Twenty-fifth New York Cavalry (dismounted). After a brisk engagement, in which the regiment lost 1 killed and 11 wounded, they succeeded in relieving the cavalry and advancing the line some distance to the front, and remained on the skirmish line until the advance of the Sixth Corps, Army of the Potomac, which relieved seven companies, three companies remaining on the line. After 5 p.m. three companies of the Nineteenth Regiment Veteran Reserve Corps, one company of the Sixth and one company of the First Regiments were deployed as skirmishers in the front and on the flanks of Fort De Russy and Battery Smead, and succeeded in advancing the line some 1,50Q yards to the front. The same hour the Twenty-fourth Regim_ent was ordered from Fort Mansfield to Fort De Russy, and shortly after arriving at that point was sent back to Fort Reno, occupying the rifle-pits on the right of the fort. At 7 .30 p.m. the enemy was seen re-enforcing his lines. I accordingly sent the Sixth Regiment to strengthen the skirmish line on the right and Center, and six companies of the Twenty-second Regiment on the left of the line. Our skirmish line now extended from the Rockville pike on the left to about 2,000 yards beyond Rock Creek on the right. At 3 a.m. July 12 the whole command was under arms. At 6 am. I ordered Col. F. S. Palmer, commanding the right of the skirmish line, to advance his line and take possession of a hill about a quarter of a mile in advance, then occupied by rebel sharpshooters, who were annoying our line very much. This was accomplished after considerable resistance from the enemy, with the loss of 1 man wounded. The left and center of the line, which was composed of three companies of the Nineteenth Regiment and six companies of the Twenty-second Regiment, also moved forward until the left of the line was nearly two miles in advance of the defenses. At 7 o'clock the Twenty-fourth Regiment moved from Fort Sumner to Fort Kearny. At I p.m. I relieved the Sixth Regiment, which was on the skirmish line, by the First Regiment Veteran Reserve Corps. At 2 p.m. I received ord1;:rs to send one regiment to Fort Reno. My command at that time was in such a position that I was compelled to send the Sixth Regiment, which had just been relieved from picket. This regiment on arriving at Fort Reno was ordered to
about six miles on the Rockville pike, to support a section of artillery and Colonel Lowell's cavalry, then engaging the enemy. At 12.30 p.m. all troops of the brigade then on the skirmish line, except the Ninth Regiment, were relieved and took their former positions in the rifle-pits. At 2 p.m. the Sixth Regiment returned to Fort Reno. At 8.40 p.m. I received your order to report with my command without delay to General De Russy at Arlington. This order was obeyed as promptly as possible, and at 2 p.m. July 14 I reported with all my command, except the Ninth Regiment, to General De Russy. Our loss during the skirmish in the defenses north of the city was:(*} The conduct of officers and men of the various regiments of the brigade was unexceptionable. I should deem it unjust to particularize those whom opportunity made conspicuous, satisfied that all fully appreciated the great responsibility resting upon them, knew their duty, and performed it. Regimental reports+ herewith inclosed rehearse in detail the several duties performed by them during our brief campaign. All of which is very respectfully submitted by very respectfully, your obedient servant,
GEO. W. GILE, Colonel, Comdg. First Brigade, Veteran Reserve Corps. Colonel WARNER, Comdg. Defenses of Washington near Tennallytown. ORA, I, 37, Part 1 (serial 70), 343-45.
CITY POINT, VA., July 22, 1864-9 p.m. (Received 7 a.m. 23d.) Major-General HALLECK, Washington, D.C.: Your dispatch of 10 a.m. today received. I telegraphed several days ago to retain Wright and the other forces until the retreat of
U.S.GRANT, Lieutenant-General.
ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71), 413-14. Civil War Defenses of Washington pageH-25 Historic Resources Study Part !~Appendix H
SPECIAL ORDERS No. 180. HDQRS. DEPT. OF WASHINGTON, TWENTY-SECOND ARMY CORPS, July 22, 1864. * * * * * * * * * * 2. The tete-du-pont at Chain Bridge and the bridge is hereby attached to the First Brigade, De Russy's division. The commander of that brigade will detail a permanent guard of one company to take charge of the bridge and guns covering it. 3. Capt. George West, Veteran Reserve Corps, now on duty at Chain Bridge, is hereby relieved, and will report for duty with his detachment to Col. M. N. Wisewell, Military Governor of Washington. * * * * * * * * * * By command of Major-General Augur: C.H. RAYMOND, Assistant Adjutant-General.
ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71 ), 416.
HDQRS. SECOND REGT. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VOLS., Camp near Fort Slocum, D.C., July 23, 1864. GENERAL: In obedience to Special Orders, No. 9, dated headquarters Northeast Defenses of Washington, D.C., Fort Lincoln, July 11, 1864,
Although the skirmishing was very brisk there have been no casualties to our knowledge. The whole regiment signified their willingness to take position in the skirmish line, but owing to short range and inferior kind of arm the commanding general deemed it inexpedient for them to expose themselves unnecessarily. Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
WM.O.DREW~ Lieutenant-Colonel, Commanding Regiment. Brig. Gen. M. C. MEIGS.
ORA, I, 37, Part I, (serial 70), 263-64.
DAYTON, OHIO, July 25, 1864. Lieut. Col. J. fl. .TAYLOR, · Chief of Staff, Department of Washington: COLONEL: Please find inclosed a hasty and succinct report of military operations in front of Washington, D~C.. during the 10th, 11th, and 12th of July. The report is necessarily imperfect in detail, but it is deemed sufficient as a matter of record. I am, colonel, respectfully, your obedient servant, A. McD. McCOOK, Major-General of Volunteers.
[lnclosure.] DAYTON, OHIO, July 25, 1864. COLONEL: I have the honor to submit a succinct report of the military operations in front of Washington, D.C., pending the advance upon it by a portion of the rebel army commanded by General Early.
Monday morning discovered the fact that the only troops on the north of Washington were the small garrisons in the forts, small detachments of cavahy in the front, and the troops above mentioned. Hearing of the near approach of the eneniy, the idea of a reserve camp was at once abandoned and every man was brought forward and posted in the rifle-pits to the best advantage, and as strong a skirmish line as was prudent established. During the morning several additional regiments of the Veteran Reserve Corps and several detachments of dismounted cavalry reported for duty. They were posted in the rifle-pits on either side of the main road leading to Silver Spring. Captain Berry, of the Eighth Illinois Cavalry, being stationed with his company on the road leading from Silver Spring to Leesborough, dispatched a courier at 10 a.m. the 11th,_ informing me that the enemy was advancing in force on that road with infantry, artillery, and cavalry. At 12 m. a strong line of the enemy's skirmishers came in view, advancing upon our position. The picket-line at this moment was composed of 100-days' men of One hundred and fiftieth Ohio, and a portion of the Twenty fifth New York Cavahy (dismounted). Being satisfied that they could not contend favorably against the enemy's line, were ordered to fall back slowly, fighting, until they reached the rifle-pits. Fire was then opened at proper points upon our line, and the enemy was held in check until the dismounted of the Second Division of the Cavalry Corps, Army of the Potomac, 600 strong, commanded by Maj. George G. Briggs, Seventh Michigan Cavalry, were made ready to go out, drive the enemy back, and re-establish our picket-line. This was handsomely done about 1.30 p.m., the enemy's skirmishers being forced back, and our line well established at 1,100 yards in front of the works. The enemy not developing any force other than their skirmish line, affairs remained in this condition until evening. About 3 p.m. Maj. Gen. H. G. Wright, U.S. Volunteers, commanding the Sixth Army Corps, reported to me at Fort Stevens, infonning me that the advance of his corps would be up in a short time. I directed him to furnish a force 900 strong of this veteran corps for picket duty during the night, constant skirmishing being kept up between the lines until after dark on the 11th instant. At 9 p.m. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General U.S. Army, reported at Fort Stevens with about 1,500 quartermaster employes, armed and equipped. They were at once ordered into position near Fort Slocum, placed on right and left in rifle-pits. At 10 p.m. Colonel Price reported with about 2,800 convalescents and men from
during the day. The enemy, on retiring their line on the evening of the 11th, seized and retained possession of a house on the right of the Silver Spring road, situated on an elevated piece of ground, surrounded by an orchard and large shade trees (Rives), which afforded excellent cover for sharpshooters, and commanded our advance line. They also posted sharpshooters in Mrs. Lay's house to the left of the road. From these two points our skinnish line was very much annoyed by the enemy, they killing and wounding about 30 of our skinnishers during the day. I determined these two points must be carried. General Wright was ordered to furnish a brigade to make the assault (as I had failed to carry these points with Captain Beattie's sharpshooters, of General Getty's division, Sixth Corps). Brig. Gen. Frank Wheaton, U.S. Volunteers, was ordered to direct th1::_moye_m~n~ of_th~_~SSflultj_pg tr_Qops. These troops having gained their position previous to assault at about 6 p.m., the two positions held by the enemy were vigorously shelled from Fort Stevens. Then at a signal Wheaton's troops dashed forward, and, after a spirited contest, gained the ground. This attack developed new forces ofthe enemy that had been concealed in a ravine beyond Mrs. Lay's house, and in the depression beyond the copse on the right of the road. The enemy's line was re-enforced by at least a brigade, the contest was kept up until after dark, we having gained all the ground desired, and rude intrenchments were thrown up upon it. That night the enemy withdrew their forces from our front. At dawn on the 13th none of them could be seen. Two companies of infantry were at once deployed as skirmishers, their flanks covered by a few mounted men, and pushed forward to gain all the information possible. Going forward in person I found nothing but the deserted camps of the enemy, and a few stragglers; also a hospital at Sligo Post-Office, containing about 70 rebels wounded too severely to be moved, 11 of them commissioned officers, including surgeons and attendants-about 90 in all. The prisoners taken between Fort Stevens and Leesborough numbered not less than 200, including the hospital. The number killed and wounded of the enemy I am unable to state, as all those who could be transported were taken away. Their loss must have been
Having instructions to hold the Sixth Corps in reserve, a further explanation may be necessary for the attack ordered on the evening of the 12th: First. The points assailed were commanding ones when in possession of the enemy enfiladed and commanded a portion of the picket-line necessary to be maintained in front of the works. Second. These points in our possession gave us observation over a ravine to the left and a depression of ground on the right of the Silver Spring road, not in view from the forts, and in which the enemy could mass a large force. Third. It was believed that the veterans of this corps could do the work better, and with less loss of life, than the other troops under my command. There are other and minor reasons, but these are deemed sufficient. __ My thanks are due to Maj. Gen. H. G. Wright, U.S. Volunteers, for his earnest co-operation in every duty. To Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General U.S. Army, commanding the line from Fort Totten to De Russy, my thanks are due for his willing and untiring discharge of duty. Brig. Gen. D. H. Rucker, U.S. Volunteers, commanding quartermaster employes; Brig. Gen. H. E. Paine, commanding line on right of Fort Stevens, and Brig. Gen. M.D. Hardin, U.S. Volunteers, commanding the line from Fort De Russy to Sumner, have my thanks for their valuable assistance in properly maintaining the portions of the line intrusted to their care. Lieut. Col. B. S. Alexander, U.S. Engineers, was of great service in furnishing maps and explaining lines and roads. Capt. Charles Dupont, Thirteenth Michigan Battery, deserves great credit for the skill displayed in directing the artillery of Fort Stevens . . Lieutenant-Colonel Frazee, One hundred and fiftieth Ohio (100-days' men), displayed efficiency and zeal during the 11th and 12th instant.
them be well cleared and kept so. Second. That a proper supply of assorted small-arm ammunition be kept constantly stored in the respective forts upon the line. All of which is respectfully sub~tted. A. McD. McCOOK, Major-General of Volunteers, Comdg. Northern Defenses. Lieut. Col. JOSEPH H. TAYLOR, Chief of Staff, Department of Washington.
ORA, I, 37, Part 1 (serial 70), 230-34.
QUARTERMASTER-GENERAL'S OFFICE, Washington, July 25, 1864. COLONEL: On Saturday, the 9th of July, after consultation with the Secretary of War, I directed the clerks of the Quartermaster-General's Office, and the clerks and workmen employed by the officers of the quartermaster's department in the District of Columbia and in Alexandria to be organized and armed. On Sunday, the 10th,
march to Fort Slocum and place the men as might be advised by Colonel Haskin, commanding the forts on the right. Colonel Haskin supplied a staff officer to point out in the darkness the line of rifle-pits extending from Fort Stevens to Fort Totten; about one mile in length. The men were posted therein and lay upon their arms all night. The next morning, 12th, I received Special Orders, No. 2, from Major-General McCook's headquarters, and assuming command of the troops in the intrenchrnents from Fort Stevens to Fort Totten, I proceeded to organize them into a division of three brigades as follows: First Brigade, Brig. Gen. D. H. Rucker, composed of the quartermaster's men of the depot of Washington, with a detachment of the Provisional Brigade, occupied the intrenchrnents on the right between Forts Stevens and Totten. Second Brigade, Brigadier-General Paine, composed of the Twelfth Veteran Reserves, the Second District of Columbia Volunteers, and three companies of the quartermaster's men of the depot of Washington, occupied the intrenchments on the left, between Forts Slocum and Stevens. Third Brigade, commanded first by Colonel Price, of the [Seventh] New Jersey Volunteers, then by Col. A. Farnsworth, Twelfth Veteran Reserves, and afterward by Colonel Alexander, of the Second District of Columbia Volunteers, a provisional brigade of these regiments, organized from the hospital and convalescent and distribution
Four hundred men were detached from the command on the 12th to be placed on the picket~ line by staff officers of Major-General McCook. The Twelfth Veteran Reserve and the Second District Columbia were relieved from duty in the trenches about 4 p.m. of the 12th July, by two regiments of the Provisional Brigade, and were themselves placed in the reserve until about 9 p.m., at which time, under instructions from General McCook, they were ordered to march to Fort Saratoga to report to Major-General Gillmore, who had asked for re-enforcements, and were encamped for the night near Fort Thayer, where they remained during the 13th. On the 14th these two regiments, by order of Major, General McCook, returned to my command. The forces of this division had been hastily organized and sent to the field in an emergency and without baggage. They wete supplied during the 12th and 13th with shelter-tents, blankets, and such equipage as was necessary to their comfort and health while on duty in the trenches. On the 14th, under orders-from Major-General Augur, the enemy having retired from the front, the quartermaster's men were relieved from duty in the trenches, and I turned over the command of the remainder of the division to Brigadier-General Paine, and directed General Rucker to march the civilians to Washington and return them to their regular duties, but to keep up their military organization and drill. . Major Darling, of the Seventh Michigan Cavalry, commanding cavalry outpost, with a force of about 460 cavalry, operated in front
and placed on duty. The whole civil force of the quartermaster's department on military duty on this occasion was about 2,700 men. I have to express my satisfaction with the conduct of both the soldiers and civilians who were under my .command. Though hastily organized and equipped they moved promptly at the call of danger. I had on no occasion to inflict punishment or administer reproof during the time they were under my observation, and their services were useful and important in the defense of the capital, seriously threatened by a considerable rebel army under skillful and experienced leaders. Those who were on duty in the city relieved at least an equal number of trained soldiers and enabled them to go to the front, while those who were placed in the intrenchments extended the line of battle fully a mile to the right of the center of attack, and by their presence and bearing, standing upon the parapets and exposing themselves, perhaps, more than more experienced soldiers would have done, they convinced the enemy th~t the fortifications of Washington were not unmanned. I inclose such reports as I have received from subordinate commanders, and remain, very respectfully, M.C.MEIGS, Quartermaster-General, Brevet Major-General. Lieut. Col. JOSEPH H. TAYLOR, Chief of Staff and Assistant Adjutant-General. [lnclosure.] Extract from letter of Bvt. Maj. Gen. M. C. Meigs, dated Washington, D.C., July 16, 1864.
Twice while McClellan was on his way to the James, or there, they did by the Shenandoah put Washington in danger; but there were troops here then to defend it: now with an enterprising and uniformly successful commander, a larger army, trained to confidence and success through three years of doubtful conflicts and two months of most bloody, desperate, and successful fighting, the crippled army of Lee, relying upon the intrenchments of Richmond and the weakness of the Washington garrisons, sends again by the familiar road a column of 25,000 or 30,000 men, breaks communications north and east of Baltimore, defeats a veteran division of the Army of the Potomac (Ricketts') hastily thrown across the line of march, drives Wallace' and Ricketts back upon Baltimore, and sending small parties to alarm and raise the neighborhood, to burn the house of the Governor, and prevent the troops of the north passing beyond, alarmed Baltimore, this column concentrates suddenly upon the north front of Washington. The invalids, now called Veteran Reserves, of the police garrison of Washington, are relieved from guard duty by the clerks of the Quartermaster General's Office. The old soldiers in hospital and in convalescent and distribution camps are hastily organized into provisional regiments, dismounted cavalrymen, for whom horses are not here, are sent into the trenches to act as infantry, and the mechanics, agents, clerks and overseers, and laborers of the depot quartermaster, who can for a day or two in emergency be detached from their ordinary duties, are organized and armed, and marched to the trenches. The head of the column of the Sixth Corps of veterans from the Army of the Potomac arrives from Petersburg on I
Civil War Defenses of Washington pageH-34 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix H
the day that the head of the Nineteenth Corps reaches Washington from New Orleans, and on the very day that the rebels send their skirmishers within forty rods of the salient of Fort Stevens, and within sight of Fort Reno. The former on the Seventh-street road, and the latter on the Rockville or Tennallytown road. On Monday morning at daylight our cavalry was sent out the Tennallytown road to force the enemy to develop himself in line of battle. A handsome skirmish showed at this point in front of Reno about 1,200 cavalry and a horse battery. Later in the day General McCook · reported the rebels were advancing in force. I had offered the services of the quartermaster's men, of whom we had about 3,000 armed, who were disposable for this purpose, to General Halleck. He thought that it would be enough for them to guard the stores in the city against riot or incendiary attempts. I then offered them to General Augur, commanding the forces, and he gladly accepted them and requested that they be sent to Major-General McCook at Fort Stevens, on the Seventh-street road. I called the men out; 400, who were under General Augur's quartermaster, had been sent out in the morning, 700 more had gone to the lines in front of Alexandria, and I marched about 5 p.m. with 1,500 or 2,000 toward Fort Stevens. Reported to McCook just as it grew dark, and he sent an officer from Fort Slocum to point out the position he wanted us to occupy. We found it as well as we could in the darkness. The new moon gave a little light and our forces, which th~ next morning numbered 1,500,
extended in sight. An occasional shot from a suspicious picket and the low of a cow or the bray of a mule alone broke the stillness of the inoming, and at last the sun arose and all remained quiet. Cavalry were sent out, who reported the rebel positions abandoned. The house of the Postmaster General, Montgomery Blair, two miles out Seventh-street road, burned; old Francis P. Blair's house, on the farm, turned topsy-turvey, all his liquors consumed, and his papers ransacked, and the enemy in retreat toward Rockville and the fords of the Potomac. We remained in position till full daylight, and then sent the men to their breakfast and continued our work of clearing off obstructions to our fire and completing our intrenchments. I rode along the lines right and left. In the course of the day an officer from the War Department handed me a letter from the Secretary, notifying me that the President had appointed me a major-general by brevet in the United States Anny, and I accepted and thanked the President and Secretary for the honor and confidence. The commission happened to find me exercising a full major-general's command. I had command of the right wing of that portion of the army which was directly in front of the enemy; my command extended in line of battle two miles, and was 5,000 strong.
Statement of Artificer Nelson A. Fitts, Company B, Ninth New York Heavy Artillery, of the Confederate strength, &c. Sunday morning, July 10, on the left of New Market, while retreating, I was taken prisoner by a squad of the Twentieth Virginia Cavalry, and was taken to the headquarters of that regiment and marched with them to Silver Spring, on Seventh-street road, getting there on Monday the 11th about 3 p.m. The cavalry joined the rest of the command between Rockville and Seventh-street Civil War Defenses of Washington page H-36 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix H
road, and I passed the entire length of it; saw their troops and artillery. I also observed some of the inhabitants that gave them information in regard to the forces in Washington, and I could point out the places and men if I were to go back on the same road. On the 12th, about sundown, we left Seventh street in a hurry, marched to Rockville, getting there at daylight on the 13th; halted half an hour, and then went on until 2 p.m., then stopped until dark. We followed the line of telegraph from Rockville to Poolesville, halted on the Maryland side until light (I saw their train and artillery parked), then crossed the Potomac at Edwards Ferry. The prisoners and infantry forded the river and halted, and then their artillery crosse;d. I counted forty two pieces as they crossed. They had told me that they had sixty pieces, and I counted them to find out. The colonel of the Twentieth Virginia Cavalry told me that their force at Monocacy was 50,000, and judging from what I saw of the troops myself! should think their whole force was between 40,000 and 50,000. There was Ewell's corps, commanded by Early and Breckinridge, also a part of A. P. Hill's corps that went to Baltimore. After crossing the Potomac the prisoners left the troops and marched toward Leesburg, halting about three miles this side on the 14th about 2 p.m.; staid there until the 16th at 1 a.m. Whilst there, they were attacked in the rear; I could hear the artillery. We left on the 16th and marched to Upperville; halted there until dark, then started to cross the mountains at Ashby's Gap, and there
implicit confidence may be placed in his statements. His estimate of the enemy's numbers may, perhaps, be received with a grain of allowance, but of the forty-two pieces of artillery at Edwards Ferry I have no doubt, a fact which it may be well to know. Should any investigation into the conduct of the citizens of Maryland residing on the roads over which the enemy marched during his late incursion be made, Artificer Fitts might be a useful witness in certain cases. B. S. ALEXANDER, Lieutenant-Colonel, Aide-de-Camp. . . ORA, I, 37, Part 1 (serial 70), 253-54.
HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY, July 27, 1864. Major-General AUGUR: In addition to the batteries of field artillery which should be kept in readiness to move on the threat~ned point, I think it will be well to place in the forts some field pieces with ammunition, to bear upon the approaches when the enemy comes within short range. These guns can be worked by the same men who work the large guns, as both will not be equally effective at the same time. Consult General De Russy and Colonels Alexander and Haskin on this subject, and as to where the guns should be placed. This must not interfere with the organization of field batteries for use here or in the field. H. W. HALLECK, Major-General and Chief of Staff. [lndorsement.]
HDQRS. DEPT. OF WASHINGTON, 22D ARMY CORPS, July 27, 1864. Respectfully referred to Lieutenant-Colonel Haskin, chief of artillery, who, in consultation with General Do Russy and Colonel Alexander, will determine the number and kind of guns which can be properly used to advantage, as indicated by the major-general and chief of staff. This having been determined, requisitions will be at once made. By command of Major-General Augur: J. H. TAYLOR, Chief of Staff and Assistant Adjutant-General. ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71), 464.
HDQRS. DEPT. OF WASHINGTON, 22D ARMY CORPS, July 27, 1864. Brig. Gen. M.D. HARDIN, Commanding Division, Twenty-second Army Corps: Civil War Defenses of Washington . pageH-38 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix H
GENERAL : The major-general commanding directs me to inform you that the Seventh Regiment Veteran Reserve Corps will report for duty to you July 28, a.m. I am, general, very respectfully, your most obedient servant, J. H. TAYLOR, Chief of Staff and Assistant Adjutant-General. ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71 ), 464.
HDQRS. HARDIN'S DIVISION, 22DARMYCORPS, DEPARTMENT OF WASHINGTON, Washington, D. c:, July 28, 1864. Lieut. Col. J. H. TAYLOR, Chief of Staff and Assistant Adjutant-General: COLONEL: In reply to your communication of the 27th instant, I have the honor to report, . from my observation of the line yesterday, that the brush in front of Forts Sumner, Mansfield, and Reno has been nearly cleared, although more work should be done on that front. On Rock Creek and in front of Fort De Russy, and from Fort Slocum east to Fort Lincoln the brush is not cleared. A great amount of work remains to be done on that line. On account of the limited number of troops in this command it has been impossible to complete the work, although all my available force has been engaged on it. I most respectfully request 300 workmen, or as many as can be furnished, be sent at once to clear the brush now remaining, as above stated. The brush is from five to eight feet in height. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, M.D. HARDIN, Brigadier-General, Commanding. ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71), 479.
SPECIAL ORDERS No. 89. HEADQUARTERS HARDIN'S DMSION, July 28, 1864. 1. The Seventh Regiment Veteran Reserve Corps, Lieut. Col. H. G. Thomas commanding, having reported to these headquarters for assignment to duty in this command, is hereby assigned to the Second Brigade, and will report to Colonel Hayward, commanding, for assignment to the posts in this command. This regiment will move at 5 o'clock to-morrow morning, July 29, and report as· .above. By command of Brigadier-General Hardin: R. CHANDLER, Assistant Adjutant-General. ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71 ), 479. Civil War Defenses of Washington pageH-39 Historic Resources Study Part !~Appendix H
I HDQRS. DEPT. OF WASHINGTON, 22DARMYCORPS, Washington, D.C., July 29, 1864. Maj. Gen. H. W. HALLECK, Chief of Staff, &c.:
SIR: In compliance with your instructions of the 27th instant, I called together yesterday • General De Russy, General Hardin, Lieutenant-Colonel Haskin, and Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander, for the purpose of consultation as to what additional armament of field pieces it may be desirable to place in the forts defending the city. We find that the armament of these works was settled by a board of officers convened for that purpose by orders from the Secretary of War, dated November 9, 1863.(*) The works have been arranged in accordance with the report of this board, and to make any
Fort Reno.-Should have four additional field pieces to complete the armament. Incas~ of attack two or three light batteries should at once be sent to this important post, talcing position at first on the ridge between Tennallytown and Fort Gaines. Battery Rossell.-Being an inclosed work with a magazine, and occupying an important position on the right of Fort Reno, should be armed with two field howitzers, 24 or 32 pounders, and four 12-pounder field guns. Fort Keamy.-There should be four light field guns added to this fort to arm Battery Terrill.
SOUTH OF THE POTOMAC, Forts Marcy and Ethan Allen.-There ought to be six field pieces added to the armament of each of these works, to be used in the adjacent batteries in case of threatened attack. Two additional (mounted) batteries should be sent to this position in case the enemy appears in force. Fort C. F. Smith is sufficiently armed, but in case of a threatened attack the batteries on the north side of the river, flanking this work, should be armed, the north battery with two 10- pounder Parrotts, and the south battery with two Napoleon guns.
ORA, I, 37, Pt. II, 492-95.
HDQRS. HARDIN'S DIVISION, 22D ARMY CORPS, DEPARTMENT OF WASHINGTON, Washington, D.C., July 28, 1864. Colonel HAYWARD, Second Brigade: Civil War Defenses of Washington pageH-42 Historic ResourcesStudy Part I-Appendix H
I send you order assigning the Seventh Regiment Veteran Reserve Corps to Second Brigade. General H~din desires that it shall be distributed as follows: Two companies at Fort Stevens, two companies at Fort Slocum (headquarters Seventh Regiment Veteran Reserve Corps), one company at Fort Totten, one company at Fort Slemmer, two companies at Fort Bunker Hill, one company at Fort Saratoga, one company at Fort Thayer, two companies at Fort Lincoln. No change will be made in the Ohio National Guard (One hundred and fiftieth), as this new regiment will require to be instructed by the companies of your regiment. You .will direct that requisition be made for heavy artillery tactics, and that this regiment shall commence at once to learn the drill. Their morning report will be consolidated at regimental headquarters and sent to your headquarters, as is usually done, and all papers will come through brigade headquarters. General Hardin desires that you will detail a force to cut brush on Rock Creek, in front and to the left of Fort Stevens, about one-half a mile.to the front. All the available force that can be spared from your brigade should be detailed for this purpose until the brush is cut. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, R. CHANDLER, Assistant Adjutant-General. P. S.-The Seventh Regiment Veteran Reserve Corps has been ordered to move at 5 a.m. to-morrow, and halt at Fort Stevens to receive orders from you. It will probably be there at about 7 a.m. I have directed the commanding officer to report to you. ORA, I, 37, Part 2 ($erial 71 ), 480.
[CIRCULAR.] HDQRS. DEPT. OF WASHINGTON, TWENTY-SECOND ARMY CORPS, Washington, D.C., July 29, 1864. To do away with misapprehension on the subject of passes, the following is published for the information and guidance of all concerned. The officers named below are authorized to issue passes as herein limited: Lieut. Col. H. H. Wells, provost-marshal-general, Defenses South of the Potomac, generally within the limits of his territorial jurisdiction, to officers and soldiers, with permits from their commanding general, and to citizens, to visit Washington and return; to grant permits to well known loyal citizens, resident outside our picket-lines, to come in for limited family supplies to Alexandria and to pass out with them. His deputies at Fort Albany, Fort Ethan Allen, and Falls Church will do the same for the same class of persons in their vicinity. Those resident beyond the picket-line, who come to Washington, must have their passes or permits approved at
Potomac, the rule being that all persons are to obtain their passes and permits from the authorities on their side of the river. Brigadier-Generals Slough and De Russy, the commanding officers of the cavalry brigade at Falls Church and Carp.p Stoneman, the commanding officers· at Giesborough and the Rendezvous of Distribution, are authorized to grant passes to men in their commands to visit Washington and Alexandria and return. Lieut. Col. E. M. Greene, chief quartermaster of the department, can alone give passes to citizens to visit Freedmen's Village and Mason's Island. The chiefquartermaster of this department, the quartermaster and commissary in charge . of depots here and at Alexandria, can give passes to their employes while in the performance of their duties. All passes to visit the fortifications on either side of the river; to go beyond the lines, except in cases of resident citizens provided for above; to places on the river above and below the defenses, and for colored persons to leave the city, must be issued from these headquarters. A copy of this circular will be furnished to the guards on the different bridges and ferries within the department, and they are to be carefully instructed in its requirements. By command of Maj. Gen. C. C. Augur: J. H. TAYLOR, Chief of Staff and Assistant Adjutant-General. ORA, I, 31, Pt. II, 495-96.
HDQRS. HARDIN'S DIVISION, 22D ARMY CORPS, DEPARTMENT OF WASHINGTON, Washington, D. C., August 1, 1864. Colonel MARBLE, First Brigade: The Second District of Columbia Volunteers has been ordered to Tennallytown and on the Rockville pike. Give Colonel Alexander any information you may possess, and keep your command in shape repel an attack if one is made. Have your pickets strengthened and vigilant on all the roads. Very respectfully, R. CHANDLER, Assistant Adjutant-General. ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71), 562.
HDQRS. HARDIN'S DIVISION, 22DARMYCORPS, DEPARTMENT OF WASHINGTON, Washington, D. C., August 1, 1864-10.30 p.m. Civil War Defenses of Washington pageH-44 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix H
Colonel ALEXANDER, Second District of Columbia Volunteers: The general commanding directs that you move at once with your regiment to Tennallytown, and remain during the night to repel any cavalry which may attempt to approach. Post your men on the Rockville pike and vicinity, and throw out pickets to the front. Colonel Marble will give you any information about the roads which you do not possess. It will be necessary for your regiment to ·move as soon as possible, as cavalry is reported approaching. Very respectfully, .R. CHANDLER, Assistant Adjutant-General. ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71 }, 562.
HDQRS. HARDIN'S DIVISION, 22D ARMY CORPS, DEPARTMENT OF WASHINGTON, Washington, D. C., August 1, 1864-11 p.m. Colonel HAYWARD, Second Brigade: It is reported that rebel cavalry is approaching on the Rockville road. The general commanding directs that you strengthen your
HDQRS. DEPT. OF WASHINGTON, 22D ARMY CORPS, August 1, 1864. Major WAITE, Eighth Illinois Cavalry, Comdg. at Muddy Branch: MAJOR: In your report of July 31 you say: "When eighteen of my men were fighting Mosby's . whole command yesterday, I am informed Major Thompson was within supporting distance." The major-general commanding desires that you ascertain the truth of this report, and in your communication state specifically the distance of Major Thompson or his command from the seen~ of the skirmish, and the means within his control of knowing the true state of affairs. Civil War Defenses of Washington pageH-45 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix H
I am, major, very respectfully, your most obedient servant, J. H. TAYLOR, Chief of Staff and Assistant Adjutant-General. How badly wounded is Lieutenant De Laney? We all hope not seriously. ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71 ), 563.
OFFICE CHIEF SIGNAL OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF WASHINGTON, Washington, August I,· 1864. Capt. JOSEPH H. SPENCER, Signal Officer, U.S .. Army: CAPTAIN: I have the honor to make the following report of this detachment's operations for the month of July, 1864: Nothing very important transpired except the ordinary business of the corps until the 10th, when Capt. E. H. Russell and party were ordered to report to me for duty. The enemy had already made their appearance in considerable force in front of Fort Reno, on the Rockville pike, and also in front of Fort Stevens, on the Seventh-street road. I received verbal orders from General Augur to station my officers so that communication could be had with all principal forts on the north of the Potomac. Accordingly, Lieut. P.H. Niles was placed on the Soldiers' Home, from whence he could communicate with all the forts on the line north of Potomac. This station proved to be of much importance, as communication could be held direct from pro vost-marshal's building in the city to any of the forts through it. Lieut. Asa T. Abbott was stationed at Fort Stevens; Sergeant Kintner at Fort Slocum, and Corpl. William Wallace at Fort De Russy. Later in the day Lieut. R. P. Strong reported for duty, in obedience to orders from office signal officer, and was ordered to Fort Totten. Sergt. H. A. Sofield was taken from Fort Smith and put in charge of station at Fort Bunker Hill. Capt. Thomas J. Sawyer reported on the 11th, in obedience to orders from signal office, and
duties at Signal Camp, the exigency having passed, and their services were not needed in the field as much as in camp. The· officers and men were prompt in the discharge of their duties, and I take pleasure in recommending to your notice Lieut. Asa T. Abbott, whose station was continually under the enemy's fire, and who many times narrowly escaped being struck by the enemy's bullets, but maintained his position and continued to work his station, under fire, for nearly two days. * * * * * * * . * * * The health of the detachment is very good. I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, WM.B.ROE, Captain and Chief Signal Officer, Dept. of Washington. ORA, I, 37, Part 2 (serial 71 ), 564.
HEADQUARTERS HARDIN'S DIVISION, TWENTY-SECOND ARMY CORPS, DEPT. 'OF WASHINGTON, Washington, D.C., August 5, 1864. Colonel HAYWARD, Second Brigade: By inclosed order; No. 192,(*) another regiment of Veteran Reserve Corps is assigned to our division, and by orders, No. 92, assigned to Second Brigade. General Hardin thinks you had better assign the Seventh Regiment of Veteran Reserve Corps to Stevens and Slocum, and this new regiment Veteran Reserve Corps to Totten, Slemmer, and Bunker Hill, in the proper proportion. The provisional battalion
ORA, I, 43, Part 1 (serial 90), 696.
QUARTERMASTER-GENERAL'S OFFICE, Washington, D.C., November 3, 1864. Hon. EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War: SIR: I have the honor to submit the usual annual report of the operations of the Quartermaster's Department during the fiscal year ending the 30th of June, 1864:
SOLDIERS' CEMETERIES. Careful records of the burials of soldiers in the cemeteries in the neighborhood of Washington have been kept. The grounds near the Soldiers' Home, north of the city, having been filled by the burial of nearly 8,000 persons, by your direction a portion of the Arlington estate has been appropriated as a national cemetery. The grounds have been carefully surveyed and suitably laid out and inclosed. Already nearly 3,000 interments have taken place in this national cemetery. The graves are carefully sodded, and at the head of each is planted a neat headboard, painted white, on which are inscribed in black letters (the number referring to the burial record) the name of the soldier, his company and regiment, and the date of his death. I transmit herewith an extract from the report of Capt. James M. Moore, assistant quartermaster, who has, during the greater part of the fiscal year, had charge of interments of soldiers dying in Washington. The bodies of the loyal officers and soldiers who fell in the sortie from the defenses of Washington, which drove off the rebel army in July last, have been buried in a piece of ground selected for the purpose in the midst of the battle-field and in sight of Fort Stevens. It is hoped that Congress may see .fit to cause a monument to be erected to the memory of these patriots who fell in the defense of the capital itself. In other cities around which hospitals are collected, under general orders and regulations, careful records of burials are kept, which should ultimately be transmitted to Washington and there preserved for future reference.
ORA, III, 4 (serial 125), 891-92.
HEADQUARTERS HARDIN'S DIVISION, TWENTY-SECOND ARMY CORPS, DEPT. OF WASHINGTON, Washington, D.C., November 27, 1864. COMMANDING OFFICER SECOND BRIGADE: In the disposition of the troops of the Second Brigade General Haskin desires that you will station the Fourteenth Company Massachusetts Artillery at Fort Bunker Hill when it arrives. Section 5, Special
ORA, I, 43, Part 1 (serial 91), 677-78. Appendix I Civil War Defens es of ·· Washington Chronology Civil War Defenses of Washington page 1-1 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix I
Appendix I: Civil War Defenses of Washington Chronology
April 9, 1861-Department of Washington created by GO 9, AGO, to consist of State of Maryland and the District of Columbia
April 10, 1861-Bvt. Col. Charles F. Smith arrives at hdqrs of dept per GO 9, AGO
April 15, 1861-Lincoln calls for volunteers to protect the capital-calls for 75,000 militia
April 17, 1861-Virginia no longer part of the Union-State ratified the ordinance of secession
April 1861-Created Potomac flotilla
April 19, 1861-troops began to arrive from the north
April 19, 1861-states of Delaware and Pennsylvania added to dept.-GO 3, Hdqrs of the Army
April 19, 1861-after April 19, several small river steamers and tugs were employed in patrolling the Potomac River Potomac Flotilla-[E.E. Billings, "Mil Activities in Washington in 1861,"RCHS, 1962-63, p.131]
April 22, 1861-ln obedience to General Orders, No. 3, from the Headquarters of the Army, Washington, dated 19th instant, (')Major-General Patterson assumes command of the Military Department of Washington, which "is extended so as to include, in addition to the District of Columbia and Maryland, the States of Delaware and Pennsylvania."
April 26, 1861-Breakthrough of 7th NV. 8th Mass. And 1st RI to Washington
April 27, 1861-Col. J.F.K. Mansfield put in command of Department of Washington to consist of District of Columbia, Fort Washington and the country adjacent, and the State of Maryland as far as Bladensburg, inclusive-GO 12, AGO
April 28, 1861- Maj. J. G. Barnard, of the Corps of Engineers, having been assigned to this department for duty by order of the lieutenant-general commanding the Army, he is hereby attached to these headquarters as chief engineer of this department. First Lieut. F. E. Prime, of the Corps of Engineers, will report to Major Barnard for d_uty. By order of Colonel Mansfield-GO No. 11, Dept. Of Wash.
May 1861-Early in May, Commander J.H. Ward assigned to command of the Potomac Flotilla-[E.E. Billings, "Mil Activities in Washington in 1861,"RCHS, 1962-63, p. 131]
May 23, 1861-Virginia ordinance of secession approved by public referendum-at 2 am on morning of 24th, Union troops move across Potomac into Virginia, occupy the heights and begin erecting fortifications on morning of 24th began a seven week concentrated effort to erect these fortifications-Forts Runyon, Ellsworth and Corcoran first built-Fort Runyon's perimeter exceeded that of any subsequent work-Forts Albany, Haggerty, Bennett
May 27, 1861-GO No. 26, AGO-All that part of Virginia east of the Allegheny Mountains and north of James River, except Fort Monroe and sixty miles around the same, will for the present constitute a new military geographical department, under the command of Brig. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U.S.A., whose headquarters will be movable according to circumstances.
May & June, 1861-Engineers had surveyed the topography of the northern approaches to Washington
June 1861m-McDowell command troops in area including defenses Civil War Defenses of Washington page 1-2 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix I
July 8, 1861-house resolved that sect war should furnish plans and estimates for the completion of a chain of defenses to guard Washington from attack from the south and also report on the expediency of constructing fortifications north of the Potomac
July 21, 1861-defeat at Bull Run and ensuing panic spurred additional construction-Johnston wrote "fortifications upon which skillful engineers had been engaged" deterred him from
July 25, 1861-adds counties of Prince Georges, Montgomery, and Frederick, MD to Dept. And all Attached to the Division of the Potomac-GO 47, AGO
July 27, 1861- McClellan assumed command of the forces around Washington on July 27-McClellan becomes c & c of Army and champions a fortification system -found 50,000 inf.-less than 1000 cavalry-650 arty organized into nine imperfect batteries of 30 pieces, GO 1, A of P
August 1861-Mac put J.G. Barnard in charge of construction-began creation of a really complete system of defenses August 17, 1861-Departments of Northeastern Virginia, Washington, and of the Shenandoah merged into the Department of the Potomac [GO 15, Hdqrs of the Army] [The Departments of Washington and Northeastern Virginia will be united into one, to which will be annexed the Valley of the Shenandoah, the whole of Maryland and of Dela ware, to be denominated the Department of the Potomac, under Major-General McClellan-head-quarters Washing ton-who will proceed to organize the troops under him into divisions and independent brigades]
August 20, 1861-GO No. 1, A of P, The following-named officers are attached to the staff of the Army of the Potomac: Maj. J. G. Barnard, chief engineer, Brig. Gen. W F. Barry, volunteer service, chief of artillery, Maj. J. N. Macomb, chief topographical engineer-by order of Mac
August 25, 1861-Provision al Brigades organized under Fits John Porter in the Department of the Potomac [Welter, I, 170)
August 30, 1861-Maj. Abner Doubleday will immediately take charge of all the heavy artillery defenses from the Long Bridge to Fort Corcoran, and in case of an attack will take the best position to command the whole, GO 16, A of p
Late Summer and Fall of 1861-Low water in Potomac River panicked city so Mac hurriedly threw up works securing of roads first concern
September 30, 1861-GO No. 18, A of P, the 32 forts in the defenses officially received names
October 18, 1861-Starting on this date-McClellan directed Barnard and Barry "to determine the minimum strength of garrisons-artillery and infantry-required for the various works in and about Washington to satisfy the condi tions of a good defense."-within a week they reported a need for a total force of 33,795 (both garrison and re serve)-based estimates on Lines of Torres Vedras
Oct 22, 1861-1 st report from Barnard & Barry about numbers necessary to man defenses
Oct. 24, 1861-Further report on forces necessary to man defenses
Nov 1, 1861-Scott retires Civil War Defenses of Washington pagel-3 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix I
December 10, 1861-'Bernard made a report on the defenses to Congress which they had requested·on July 8, 1861
Dec 11, 1861--SW. Cameron, to Hon. SPEAKER, OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, I have the honor to transmit . herewith a copy of a letter of Brig. Gen. J. G. Barnard, chief engineer of the Army of the Potomac, setting forth the necessity for an early appropriation of $150,000 for _completing the defenses of Washington. In view of the urgency of the case, as expressed by the commanding general of the Army in his indorsement submitting the letter to this Department, I commend it to _the early and favorable action of Congress.
Jan 9, 1862, Totten to SW-have honor to transmit, herewith, a report from Major J.G. Barnard, Brig General and Chief Engineer of the Army of the Potomac, in response to the Resolution of the House _of Representatives of 8th July 1861, calling for information respecting the defences of the city" info is important and confidential-stay with committee Totten concurs with Barnard
January 13, 1862-Barnard wrote "I look upon the garrisoning of these works-that is, with artillerymen-as under all circumstances indispensible, and an absolutely necessary preliminary to any offensive operation of the Army."{or, I, 5-671-72, 677-85, 699
January 31, 1862-Lincoln stipulated that Washington must be left secure against attack
Feb 13, 1862-Appropriation of 150,000. approved February 13, 1862. 2. AN ACT making an appropriation for completing the defenses of Washington, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Represen tatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for complet ing the defenses of Washington: Provided, That all arrearages of< ar122_889 > debts already incurred for the objects of this act shall be first paid out of this sum: And provided further, That no part of the sum hereby appropriated shall be expended in any work hereafter to be commenced.[U.S., Treasury Department .... Statement of Appropriations and Expenditures for Public Buildings, Rivers and Harbors, Forts, Arsenals, Armories and Other Public Works from March 4, 1789, to June 30, 1882, Senate Executive Document No. 196. 47th Congress, 1st Session, 1882, page 540)
Feb 26, 1862-RG393, Part 11, Vol 7/48, 1 AC, General Os & SOs, E 3722, Feb 1862-p. 337, Hdqrs, Mil. Def. North of the Potomac. Feb. 26, 62, GO No. 1, In pursuance of SO 54, from the Hdqrs, A of P, A. Doubleday assumes command of "all the Military Defences in this vicinity, North of the Potomac."
March 8, 1862-Lincoln's General War Order No. 3-army would make no change in base of operations "without leaving in and about Washington such a force as, in the opinion of the General-in-Chief and the commanders of army corps, shall leave said city entirely secure."
March 13, 1862-GO 101, A of P, In compliance with the President's War Order, No. 2, of March 8, 1862, the active portion of the Army of the Potomac is formed into army corps,
March 13, 1862-McClellan and corps commanders decided that between 25,000 and 40,000 men were required to man the defenses
March 16, 1862-Macs instructions to Wadsworth about defenses after he moves the troops
March 17, 1862-Brig. Gen. J. S. Wadsworth, having been assigned to duty by the direction of the President as Military Governor of the District of Columbia, will, besides the military command of the city of Washington, assume the charge of the defenses north and south of the Potomac in.the vicinity of Washington. The limits of his command will embrace the District of Columbia, the city of Alexandria, the grounds in front of and in the vicinity of the defen sive works south of the Potomac from the Occoquan to Difficult Creek, and the post of Fort Washington. He will have Civil War Defenses of Washington page 1-4 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix I
charge of the provisional brigades comprised of new troops arriving in Washington and will exercise supervision over troops temporarily in the city. SO No. 83, A of P
March 17, 1862-SPECIAL ORDERS No. 83., AOP-Brig. Gen. James S. Wadsworth, having been assigned to duty by the direction of the President as military governor of the District of Columbia, will, besides the military command of the city of Washington, assume the charge of the defenses north and south of the Potomac in the vicinity of Washing ton-The limits of his command will embrace the District of Columbia, the city of Alexandria, the ground in front of and in the vicinity of the defensive works south of the Potomac from the Occoquan to Difficult Creek, and the post of Fort Washington. He will have charge of the provisional brigades, composed of new troops arriving in Washington, and will exercise supervision over troops in the city.
March 29, 1862-inspection of forts on south side disclosed some problems
Late March 1862-Mac reported 73,456 men and 109 pieces of light artillery before his departure on April 1- included 35,467 men in the Shenandoah
Spring 1862-23 forts on VA side of Potomac and 14 forts and 3 batteries from the Potomac around by the north and east of the city to Anacostia, and 11 forts south of the Anacostia-Runyon was largest with perimeter of 1500 yards armament of forts principally 24 and 32 pounders with a few lighter field gun_s
April 1 or 2, 1862-BG James Wadsworth reported he had a total force of 19,022 "new and imperfectly disciplined men fit for duty" in the Military District of Washington
April 3, 1862-Lincoln ordered that Sect War would order one or the other corps of McDowell and Sumner to remain in Washington, DC for protection-McDowell's corps kept back
Congress appropriated $150,000 to complete the defenses with the stipulation that the money could not be spent on new ones
April 17, 1862-Mac began embarking troops at Alexandra for the Peninsula-Spring 1862-McClellan sought to move an army south toward Richmond
April 19, 1!362-Stanton ordered a mock alarm for the defenses on that day to test readiness
May 9, 1862-RG77, E-554, p. 40, May 9, 1862, Whipple to Lt. Col. Littlefield, 9th Regt. NY Vols., Cmdg. Ft. Lyon
"Mr. E. Frost been reassigned to duty as Engineer of Fortifications upon this side of the Potomac, you will please afford him and his party the necessary facilities for enabling him to repair the Magazines and such parts of the parapet as havt;! been damaged; also, to complete the defensive works in accordance with the original designs of the Engineer Department. Should he require a small detachment from your command-page 41-to assist in these repairs, you are requested to furnish daily details."
June 18, 1862-forces in and about Washington grouped into a corps under BG Samuel D. Sturgis and Wadsworth reverted to merely a military governor of the District of Columbia
June 22, 1862-RG393, Pt. II, Military Dept of Wash, E-642, Letters Sent, 1862-64, Vols. 98-100 DW. Vol 98, p. 148,
June 22, 1862, Gove to Maj. Samuel Breck?, MG-Manassas "I have been relieved of my Military Command. It has been turned over to Genl Sturgis who is to command all the troops in and about Washington except the Provost Guard." Civil War Defenses of Washington page 1-5 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix I
June 26, 1862-Pope placed in command of Army of Virginia and its main task was to protect Washington, DC
June 28, 1862-RG 77, Entry 6, Letters, Reports, and Statements Sent to the Secretary of War and Congress, 1836-68, Vol. 10, Apr. 22, 1859-Jan. 12, 1863, p. 431, Totten to SW. June 28, 1862-"ln answer to the verbal inquiry you addressed to me yesterday, I have to say that Bvt Capt Merrill of the corps of Engineers may be relieved from his present duties here and assigned to Gen I Pope's command. He should be directed to place in the hands of his civil assistants with full instructions as to their prosecution and preservation, the works and public property in and near this City that are now under his care."
June 30, 1862, AGO, SO No. 148, Extract, Para. 9
"Brevet Captain Wm. E. Merrill U.S. Engineers is relieved from his present charge of the fortifications around Washing ton, and will report to Major General Pope for duty in his command. Captain Merrill will place in the hands of his civil assistants the works and public property now under his charge and full instructions as to their prosecution and preservation." Sent to BG Wadsworth
July 4, 1862-RG77, Entry 18, LR, M 4160, July 5, 1862, Rec. On July 8, 3 enclosures, Brvt. Capt. Wm. E. Merrill to Mr. Frost-July 4-ln accordance with SO 148, AGO, June 30, I hereby turn over to your charge all the Fortifications on the South Side of the Potomac, and all the Engineer and Quartermaster property pertaining thereto. You will cause the usual receipt and invoice to made out as soon as practicable. Unless ordered by Competent Authority the Operations and roll of Employees will continue as at present. You will report as soon as practicable to Genl Sturgis, Commanding the Defenses of Washington, and wherever the Assistance of an Army Officer is necessary for the proper prosecution of your labors you will call upon Genl Whipple for such aid as may be necessary. To Mr. Gummell, July 4-ln accordance with SO 148, AGO, June 30, I hereby turn over to your charge all the Fortifications on the North Side of the Potomac, and all the Engineer and Quartermaster property pertaining thereto. You will cause the usual receipt and invoice to made out as soon as practicable. Unless ordered by Competent Authority the Operations and roll of Employees will continue as at present. You will report as soon as practicable to Genl Sturgis, Commanding the Defenses of Washington, and wherever the Assistance of an Army Officer is necessary for the proper prosecution of your labors you will call upon Lieut. Col. Haskin, A.D.C. to help you.
August 1862-Defenses North of the Potomac -Military District of the Defenses of Washington, Army of the Potomac organized [Welcher, I, 168]
August 3, 1862-Halleck orders Mac to move A of P to bring army back to Alexandria to aid in defense of DC
August-September-Lee moves north after 2nd Bull Run and panic once again hits Washington
August 20, 1862-ln virtue of Special Orders, No. 196, from the Headquarters of the Army, dated at Washington, August 19, 1862, Brig. Gen. J. G. Barnard assumes the command of the fortifications of Washington and troops assigned to the defenses. GO No.1 , Defenses of Washington-The fortifications and troops on the south side of the Potomac will remain under the immediate command of Brig. Gen. A. W. Whipple; those on the north side under charge of Lieutenant-Colonel Haskin, aide de-camp, through whom all orders will be transmitted and to whom commanding officers will make their usual reports.
August 28, 1862-Barnard to Henry Halleck-serious attack could not be met-garrisons withdrawn and sent into the field about a week earlier
August 30, 1862-RG77, Entry 18, LR. SW 3912, Aug 30, 1862, Stanton to C of E, Authorizes the Engr Dept to apply from the appropriations for Contingencies of Fortifications whatever funds are necessary in the opinion of the Officer Civil War Defenses of Washington page,1-6 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix I
Commanding the Defenses of Washington for increasing or strengthening the Defensive works, to the extent of $50,000.
August 30, 1862-ln consequence of the report made to me by Lieutenant-Colonel Webb, who has just completed an inspection of the works from Ethan Allen to Pennsylvania, I recommend as follows, viz: That at least ten well in structed artillerymen and an officer from the Second Pennsylvania Artillery be sent to Battery Vermont, and at least ten artillerymen belonging, respectively, to the same companies, with the officers now sent from the Second Pennsyl vania to Battery Cameron and Fort Gaines, be
September 1862-RG393, Pl 172, Pt. 1, E5385, Vol. 1-55A, Gos Department of Wash., 1862-
No. 3, Sept. 1862 [HDQRS, Defences of Washington, I. "The Military Governor of Alexandria will immediately organize a camp of convalescents, stragglers, and recruits, under the following regulations: VII. All recruits arriving, for regiments which are not near Washington, will be sent to the Convalescent Camp."
September 2, 1862-GO 122, AGO, MG McClellan will have command of the fortifications of Washington and of all the troops for the defense of the capital
September 2, 1862-GO No. 6, Defenses of Washington, The command of the fortifications of Washington and of the troops assigned to the defenses having been assumed by Major-General McClellan, the commanding officers of the troops within this command will receive their orders from and report to him through the usual channels.
September 2, 1862-Pope ordered his men to pull back into the Washington area entrenchments
September 2, 1862-1 inclose you a copy of the order I have just issued, relinquishing command, &c. A detailed · statement will be sent of troops and positions, but for your present convenience I would state that at the present mome.nt the state of things is this: General D. P. Woodbury is in command of forts and troops from Fort Blenker to Fort Lyon. In Fort Lyon is the Third Battalion New York Artillery and the Twenty-fourth Michigan (raw). In Forts Ellsworth, Ward, and Blenker is part of Colonel Tyler's regiment. The other troops assigned to Woodbury are: Engineer Brigade, Colonel Allabach's four regiments, General E. B. Tyler's brigade, Sixteenth Connecticut Regiment (in or near Fort Worth). Brig. Gen. A. W. Whipple commands forts and troops from Four Mile Run northward, including the Chain Bridge. A statement already in the hands of General McClellan gives a list of garrisons and troops. The Fifteenth Connecticut is to be added (by your orders), and is now over there. Colonel Doubleday has immediate command at the Chain Bridge, under General Whipple. The forts and troops north of the Potomac are in charge of Colonel Haskin, aide-de-camp. A list of the garrisons and troops is in the hands of the major-general commanding. J. G. BARNARD.
September 3, 1862-N.P. Banks letter to S. Williams-Upon further consultation with the General-in-Chief, he has authorized me to assign General Barnard to duty as chief engineer of all the defenses from the 3d instant, leaving the question of command on the north side as it was previously under Woodbury and Haskin. I have today issued orders to that effect. In regard to General Barnard, the arrangement now conforms to the wishes of the commanding general.
September 3, 1862-Barnard says he relinquished command of the Defences of Washington on the 3rd [RG77, E18, 89332] Civil War Defenses of Washington page 1-7 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix I
September 7, 1862-During the absence of the major-general commanding from Washington the immediate com mand of the defenses of the capital is assigned to Maj. Gen. N. P. Banks, who while exercising said command will be relieved from the command of his corps, SO 4, Hdqrs of the Army
September 7, 1862-S) 4, AOP. I. BG D.P. Woodbury is assigned to the command of all forts beyond the Eastern Branch, north of the Potomac
September 8,-1862-GO 1, Defenses of Wash., In compliance with Paragraph VII of Special Orders, No. 4, of the 7th instant, from the headquarters of Major-General McClellan, the undersigned hereby assumes the immediate command of the defenses of the capital during the absence of the general commanding from Washington
September 9, 1862-Maj. Gen. S. P. HEINTZELMAN, Fort Lyon, By direction of the President, you will at once assume command of all the troops for the defense of Washington south of the Potomac, under the general order of the major-general commanding the Defenses of Washington. The General-in-Chief desires that you will establish your lines of battle in addition to the defenses of the works, and will see that lines of communication are kept open in their rear, so that any point of attack may be readily re-enforced. Great care should be taken to establish the outposts, and to have the picket service efficiently performed. Please acknowledge. By command of Major-General Banks:
September 11, 1862-RG 77, E-553, Letters Sent, Vol. 1, p. 60-61, Barnard to Ripley, Sept 11, 1862, Haskin in command of all the forts on the [p. 61) North of the Potomac and north of Eastern Branch; Genl Woodbury of forts East of Potomac & Southeast of Eastern Branch & Gen I Porter or Col Tyler of those on the Southwest of the Potomac
Sept. 12, 1862-Brig. Gen. J. G. Barnard is assigned to the command of the troops for the immediate defense of Washington north of the Potomac. Brig. Gen. D. P. Woodbury, commanding defenses east of the Eastern Branch, and Lieut. Col. J. A. Haskin, commanding defenses west of the Eastern Branch, will at once report to General Barnard for orders, Defenses of Wash., SO No. 3, by Banks
September 13, 1862-N.P. Banks letter to S. Williams-Upon.further consultation with the General-in-Chief, he has authorized me to assign General Barnard to duty as chief engineer of all the defenses from the 3d instant, leaving the question of command on the north side as it was previously under Woodbury and Haskin. I have today issued orders to that effect. In regard to General Barnard, the arrangement now conforms to the wishes of the commanding general.
Sept. 13, 1862-SO No. 4, HDQRS, Defences of Wash.-Barnard assigned as Chief Engineer [RG77, E18, B9332)
Sept. 15, 1862-SO 242, AGO, Ill. Brig. Gen. W F. Barry, U.S. Volunteers, inspector of artillery, his assistant and staff, are assigned to duty in the city of Washington: D.C., to date from 1st instant.
September 16, 1862-SO 244, AGO, IV. Barry, in addition to other duties, will report to MG Banks, as chief of Artillery of the Defenses of Washington
October 1862-Casey's Division, under the command of Silas Casey, organized in October 1862 [Welcher, I, 167]
October 1862-Abercrombie's Division, under the command of John J. Abercrombie, organized in October 1862 [Welcher, I, 166)
Oct. 21, 1862-Barnard Recommends the appt of a Commission, MG Banks, BG Totten, BG Cullum, BG Barry, to examine the Defences of Washington. Appointment by SW arid order issued to AG, Oct 22, 1862 Civil War Defenses of Washington page 1-8 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix I
October 22, 1862-ordered the creation of a commission to study the fortifications and submit a report
October 22, 1862-RG77, E18, Letters Rec., SW3921, Stanton to C of E, Oct. 22, 1862-"The Chief Engineer, Defences of Washington is authorized to expend $50,000 on those defences from the appropriation for Contingen cies of fortifications including filed works, over and above the amount previously authorized."
October 23, 1862-RG77, Entry 18, LR, SW 3921, Oct. 23, 1862, received on the 23rd, Stanton to C of E, authorizes Chief Engr. Of Defenses of Washington to expend $50,000. On the defenses from the appropriations for Contingen cies of Fortifications including field works, the amount previously authorized
October 25, 1862-Sect War creates a commission to study and report on defenses-Totten, Barry, Barnard, Meigs, Cullum [SO 312, AGO, Oct 25, 1862
October 27, 1862-General Banks leaves this evening for the North and during his absence, General Heintzelman will exercise liis command [message from Halleck to McClellan, Oct. 27, 1862, Ors, I, 19, Pt. 2] November 1862-Artillery Defenses of Alexandria organized under Robert 0. Tyler in the Military District of the Defenses of Washington, Army of the Potomac [Welcher, I, 169]
December 1862-the defenses were "far from satisfactory"-then 53 forts and 22 batteries, entire perimeter was 37 miles, 643 guns and 75 mortars in defenses
December 6, 1862-GO 11, Def of Wash., I. pursuant to instructions from the commanding general, the District of the Defenses of Washington south of the Potomac will be discontinued
December 6, 1862-RG393, Pl 172, Pt. 1, E5385, Vol. 1-55A, GOs Department of Wash., 1862- No. 11, Dec. 6, 1862-1. Pursuant to instructions from the Commanding General, the District and Defences of Washington, south of the Potomac, will be discontinued.'
December 6, 1862-GO 11, Def of Wash., Ill. BG JJ Abercrombie may transfer his headquarters to the Arlington house
December 24, 1862-Commission to study and report on the defenses reports
Dec. 30, 1862, Barnard to Stanton, transmits report of Commission,
Early 1863- pursued recommendations of Commission
1863-Barnard, on July 7, 1863, wrote: To carry out these suggestions (approved by the War Department), I asked for and obtained an appropriation of $200,000. [ORA, I, 27, Pt. 3, Serial 45, page 596
Jan 5, 1863-RG 77, E-553, Letters Sent, Vol. 1, p. 156-Barnard to Frost, Jan 5, 63-"Your services will be no longer required. Please turn over your work and accounts to Mr. Childs who will be directed to assume charge of them."
Jan 10, 63-RG 77, E-553, Letters Sent, Vol. 1, p. 157-Barnard to Childs, Jan 10, 63-You will please take charge of the Engineer forces and works on the South side of the Potomac so far as they were under the charge of Mr. Frost
Feb 2, 1863-Department of Washington [22nd Corps] created to consist of district north of the Potomac River from Piscataway Creek to Annapolis Junction· and to the mouth of the Monocacy; and south by Goose Creek and Bull Run Mountains to the mouth of the Occoquan, GO 26, AGO-ORA, I, 25, I, page 1-Feb. 2, 1863-The Dept of Wash recreated, the troops constituting the 22nd A.C., P. 2, Heintzelman assumes command of Dept of Wash
Feb 2, 1863-John P. Slough, commander of District of Alexandria till Nov. 21, 1864 [Welcher, I, 162] Civil War Defenses of Washington page 1-9 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix I
Feb. 2, 1863-Artillery Defenses of Alexandria, Department of Washington created from Artillery Defenses of Alexan dria in the Military District of the Defenses of Washington, Army of the Potomac-Robert 0. Tyler remained in . command [Welcher, I, 169)
Feb. 2, 1863-Defenses North of the Potomac, _Twenty Second Army Corps, organized in newly created Department of Washington, commanded by Joseph A. Haskin [Welcher, I, 168)
Feb 2, 1863-John H. Martindale, commander of District of Washington till May 2, 1864 [Welcher, I, 162)
Feb 2, 1863-Casey's Division became Casey's Division, 22nd Army Corps [Welcher, I, 167)
Feb 2, 1863-Abercrombie's Division became -Abercrombie's Division, 22nd Army Corps [Welcher, I, 166)
Feb. 2, 1863-Provisional Brigades became Provisional Brigades, 22nd Army Corps under command of Silas Casey until discontinued on March 24, 1865 [Welcher, I, 170)
Feb. 5, 1863-Pennsylvania Reserve Corps ordered to Washington and soon became Pennsylvania Reserve Corps, 22nd Army Corps [Welcher, I, 171)
Feb. 7, 1863-MG A.P. Heintzelman assumed command of the re-created Federal Department of Washington
Feb. 20, 1863-Date of Act making appropriation for completing fortifications and erecting new ones for the Defenses of Washington, DC, $200.000. [U.S., Treasury Department. ... Statement of Appropriations and Expenditures for Public Buildings, Rivers and Harbors, Forts, Arsenals, Armories and Other Public Works from March 4, 1789, to June 30, 1882, Senate Executive Document No. 196. 47th Congress, 1st Session, 1882, page 540) Barnard, on July 7, 1863, wrote: To carry out these suggestions (approved by the War Department), I asked for and obtained an appro priation of $200,000. [ORA, I, 27, Pt. 3, Serial 45, page 596; Years appropriation of $200,000 reduced due to other exigencies
March 9, 1863-Ordered, first, that Brigadier-General Canby cause an immediate inspection to be made, by a competent officer, of all the fortifications and defenses around Washington, and that he make a detailed report of their condition for defensive purposes, and in respect to supplies, [p. 661) ammunition, and forces; also as to the condition of the roads leading from Washington to the defenses, and of all roads necessary for the military operations of the fortifications. Second, that he cause similar inspections to be made every week, and present to the Secretary of War in person a report on Wednesday until further orders, the first report herein directed to be made on Monday next, the 14th instant. Issued by Stanton
April 17, 1863-Defenses of Washington South of the Potomac created from Artillery Defenses of Alexandria, commanded by Robert 0. Tyler [Welcher, I, 169) [Dyer, 380 says April 15, 1863]
April 26, 1863-Thomas R. Tannatt assumed temporary command of the -Defenses of Washington South of the Potomac [Welcher, I, 170]
.\_ May 25, 1863-GO 1, Defences South of the Potomac, In compliance with orders received from headquarters Department of Washington, the undersigned hereby assu_mes command of the Defenses of Washington South of the Potomac. G. A. DE RUSS'{. Brigadier-General. [Welcher, I, 170]
Demand necessary for defenses of Potomac in 1863-work on Battery Rodgers and Fort.Foote
Gettysburg campaign once again panicked city-some troops withdrawn I Civil War Defenses of Washington page 1-10 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix I
July 15, 1863-Rufus King assigned command of all infantry then in Washingtpn awaiting transportation to Frederick, MD. And was ordered to organize then into a division [Welcher, I, 172]
July 18, 1863-King assumed command of King's Division, 22nd Army Corps [Welcher, I, 172]
October 14, 1863-MG C.C. Augur takes comma_nd of Department of Washington
October 17, 1863-Michael Corcoran assumed command of King's Division ·which became known as Corcoran's Division until Dec. 30, 1863 [Welcher, I. 172]
Oct 27, _1863-Barnard suggest the organization of an ordnance board to study artillery emplaced in defens_es-to Hdqrs of Army
November 9, 1863-ordnance board constituted to examine the status of the fortress artillery in the defenses Cullum, Barry, Barnard, G.A. DeRussy, B.S. Alexander [or, I, 29, pt. 2, 394-95, 443], SO 497, AGO
December 30, 1863-Robert 0. Tyler was ordered to report to CC Augur [Welcher, I, 172]
Jan. 1, 1864-Tyler's Division, 22nd Army Corps was created from Corcoran's Division [Welcher, I, 172]
January 15, 1864-1 respectfully request to be relieved from duty-at this place and assigned to duty in the field. Barnard
Feb. 2, 1864-GO 42, AGO, issues The following regulations for the care of field-works and the government of their garrisons, prepared by Brigadier-General Barry, inspector of artillery, U.S. Army, are published for the government of all concerned
Spring 1864-Grant moves south and significantly re·duces the defenses of Washington, particularly of infantry, some of which were replaced by men from the Invalid Corps
March 1864-Stanton ordered a full-scale inspection of the defenses by BG E.R.S. Canby
March 9, 1864-Lt. Gen. Grant assumed c & c of Army
March 25, 1864-The chief of artillery reports that 1,800 men can be immediately spared from ttie defenses of Washington, and it remains to be determined whether they shall be organized into field batteries or sent to the field as heavy artillery. Either will be done as you direct. Halfeck to Grant
May 1864-Defenses of Washington South of the Potomac was changed to De Russy's Division but it had unofficially been called De Russy's Division since Nov. 1863 [Welcher, I, 170]
May 2, 1864-Moses N. Wisewell replaces John H. Martindale in command of the District of Washington [Welcher, I, 163]
May 18, 1864-The designation of Joseph A. Haskin's Defenses North of the Potomac was changed to Haskin's Division, 22nd Army Corps [Welcher, I, 168]
May 18, 1864-1 have the honor to transmit herewith a report [dated May 17] of the inspection of the defenses of Washington, made by order of the Secretary of War. AP Howe, Inspector of Arty to Halleck
Wilderness and Spottsylvania losses required.some of artillery in Defenses of Washington to be sent south also nearly 18,000 men-some replacement by 100 days men Ci~il War Defenses of Washington pagel-11 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix I
·June 1, 1864-RG77, E18, A2004, Alexander to Totten, July 5, 1864-"I have the honor to report that on the 1st of June Gen. Barnard was relieved from duty as Chief Engineer of the Defences of Washington, and ordered to report to Head Quarters Army of the Potomac, and that since that time I have been in charge of these Defences."
June 21, 1864-Dept of Washington consists of that part of Maryland south of a line from the mouth of the Monacacy to Annapolis Junction ·and west of the Patuxent River, the District of Columbia, and the district of country in Virginia by Goose Creek and Bull Run Mountains to the mouth of the Occoquan-GO 214, AGO
July 1864-Jubal Early's troops in vicinity cause panic and his approach to city caused even more
July 2, 1864-The following acts and resolutions of Congress are published for' the information of all concerned: I. PUBLIC-No. 180. AN ACT making appropriations for the construction, preservation, and repairs of certain fortifica- . tions and other works of defense, for the year ending the thirtieth of June, eighteen hundred and sixty-five. $300,000.For providing obstructions to be moored in the Potomac River, to render the shore batteries more efficient for the protection of Washington against maritime attack, three hundred thousand dollars. For completing and· rendering more permanent the defenses of Washington, three hundred thousand dollars. Approved July 2, 1864. $300.000. GO 231, AGO, July 18, 18~4 [U.S., Treasury Department. ... Statement of Appropriations and Expenditures for Public Buildings, Rivers and Harbors, Forts, Arsenals, Armories and Other Public Works from March 4, 1789, to June 30, 1882, Senate Executive Document No. 196. 47th Congress, 1st Session, 1882, page 540]
July 6, 1864- In co.mpliance with your instructions of yesterday I proceeded last evening to make an examination of Chain Bridge and Aqueduct Bridge, and this morning I sent Mr. Childs, our civil assistant in charge of the works south of the Potomac, to make an examination of the Long Bridge, and I now have the honor to submit the following report on the defenses antl guards of the three bridges across the Potomac, viz, Barnard, Chief Engr. Of Defenses to Halleck
July 9, 1864-Martin D. Hardin took command of Haskin's Division, 22nd Army Corps and the command then became known as Hardin's Division [Welcher, I, 168] [Dyer, 379 says July 8, 1864 and still refers to command as Defences North of the Potomac]] -
Weekend of July 10-11, 1864-barely 9,000 men manned defenses with about 14,000 men in Early's command
July 11, 1864-Jubal Early and his forces arrive in the outskirts (Silver Spring, MD) of Washington, D.C. about noon .. , ..... and spent the rest of the day reconnoitering
July 12, 1864-reinforcements from 6th and 19th Corps had arrived and were placed in defenses-Early began his retreat that evening
July 12, 1864-ln the afternoon of the 11th, Early had decided to attack on the 12th but during the night and in the morning he learn·ed that the reinforcements from the 6th and 19th Corps had arrived and were placed in defenses; Early made a reconnaissance in force towards Fort Stevens and some heavy skirmishing ensued but he began his retreat that evening
July 21, 1864-General Barnard is ordered to report to you Halleck to Grant
July 27, 1864-Halleck took command of the departments around Washington concerned with the defense of the area
July 30, 1864-RG 77, E-553, Letters Sent, Vol. 2- p. 31-32, to Delafield, Aug 2/64-complying with your letter of 30th ulto_ Requesting that I relieve J. Eveleth from disbursing funds for D of W, and assigning that duty to myself attempting to do so-praises Eveleth Civil War Defenses of Washington pagel-12 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix I
August 7, 1864-MG Phil Sheridan assigned command of new Middle Military Div which included the Middle, Washington, Susquehanna and West Virginia departments
Threat to capital appreciably decreased following Early's raid
Surveys of the defenses conducted before Early's raid pointed out deficiencies and after the raid, work began to make improvements-sodding, bombproof construction, cutting and cleaning of undergrowth, entrenched camps or picket posts in advance of the line S of P
Oct. 14, 1863-Augur succeeds Heintzelman in command of Department
October 24, 1864-0rdered, That during the absence of Major-General Augur in the field, Brevet Major-General Meigs be, and he is hereby, assigned to the command of the defenses of Washington, of the troops of the Veteran Reserve Corps, and all other forces within the city and fortifications; and that he be specially charged with the proper protec tion of the military stores, depots, arsenals, and other public property within the defenses. He is specially enjoin1::dto see that due measures of vigilance and precaution are used against surprise and attack at all bridges, roads, avenues, and approaches to the city; will make proper inspections of all guards and sentinels and defensive arrangements, and, in general, will take such measures as may be necessary for the efficient protection of the national capital and of the public and private property therein. He will report from time to time to the Chief of Staff, or Secretary of War, .for instructions when needed. War Department ordered-memorandum to the AG
November 21, 1864-Henry H. Wells replaces Slough in command of the District of Alexandria [Welcher, I, 162)
December 10, 1864-RG77, E553, vol. 2, p. 107, to Lt James W Cuyler, Dec 10, 64-in compliance with orders from the Engr Dept, you are assigned as local engineer, in charge of construction of the outer defence, or picket line of the defences on the right bank of the Potomac; work is now in charge of Childs, in charge of defences south of Pot., will relieve him of those duties, do an inspection first, with Childs, report in writing every Saturday ·
December 10, 1864-District of Washington discontinued [Dyer, 376)
January 1865-John P. Slough replaces Henry H. Wells in command of the District of Alexandria [Welcher, I, 162)
Feb. 28, 1865-$300,000. Date of Act making appropriation for defenses of Washington for 1866. [U.S., Treasury Department. ... Statement of Appropriations and Expenditures for Public Buildings, Rivers and Harbors, Forts, Arsenals, Armories and Other Public Works.from March 4, 1789, to June 30, 1882, Senate Executive Document No. 196. 47th Congress, 1st Session, 1882, page 540)
April 9, 1865-Appomattox put end to work on defenses-at that time-68 forts, enclosed forts and batteries and 93 unarmed batteries for field guns-1421 gun emplacements-807 artillery pieces and 98 mortars were actually mounted in emplacements-20 miles of rifle trenches and 30, or 32, miles of military roads -three blockhouses also built
April 26, 1865-Orlando B. Willcox replaces Moses N. Wisewell in command of the District of Washington {Welcher, I, 163) Dyer, 376-says April 25, 1865)
April 26, 1865-John G. Parke replaces John P. Slough in command of the District of Alexandria [Welcher, I, 162) pril 29, 1865-C of E directed Alexander to suspend operations on field fortifications and collect and preserve Engineer equipment
May 6, 1865-Delafield letter to SW recommended abandonment of most of the forts Civil War Defenses of Washington page 1-13 Historic Resources Study Part I-Appendix I
June 7, 1865-John P. Slough replaces John G. Parke in command ofth.e District of Alexandria [Welcher, I, 162]
June 7, 1865-MG John G. Parke assumed temporary command of Department of Washington by right of seniority
June 19, 1865-GO 315-plan for disposition of defenses
June 23, 1865-GO 89 directed that 25 works should be maintained-other forts be abandoned and land restored to owners
June 26, 1865-Augur resumed command of Department of Washington
June 27, 1865-division of the US into mil. Divisions and depts.-
July 14, 1866-Alexander closed books on defenses Bibliography Civil War Defenses of Washington page I Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MANUSCRIPT MATERIALS Library of Congress Manuscript Division Anny-Engineers, Letterbook, 1862-64 The Papers of Harry F. Schonbom, Notebook, 1861-63 The Papers of Orlando M. Poe The Papers of Samuel P. Heintzelman The Winthrop Papers The Prints and Photographs Division Miscellaneous Civil War Prints and Photographs The Geography and Map Division · Miscellaneous Civil War Map, Plans and Drawings
National Archives Textual Records Record Group 46; Records of the United States Senate Record Group 77, Records of the Office of the Chief of Engineers Record Group 92, Records of the Office of the Quartermaster General Record Group 94, Records of the Adjutant General's Office, 1780s to 1917 Record.Group 233, Records of the United States House of Representatives Record Group 393, Records of United State Anny Continental Commands, 1821-1920
Cartographic and Architectural Archives-Maps, Drawings and Aerials Still Pictures Branch National Register Collections, National Park Service, North Capital and H Streets, N.W.
Civil War Defenses of Washington National Register Nominations and miscellaneous similar type nominations Civil War Defenses of Washington page 2 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Rock Creek Park, National Park Historical Files U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District AAA Site Fort Reno, Washington, D.C., Project Number-CO3DCO48401, March 1997," 4.1.1 General Site History U.S. Army Military History Institute, Carlisle Barracks, PA Manuscript Section Papers of Men who garrisoned forts in Washington, D.C. Army War Student Papers relating to the Defenses of Washington, D.C.
NEWSPAPER ARTICLES Arlington County, VA, Main Library . Newspaper Articles File Martin Luther King Library Newspaper Articles File Virginiana Room, Fairfax Regional Library, Fairfax County, Virginia Newspaper Articles File Washington Historical Society Newspaper Articles File
· PUBLISHED·WORKS AND UNPUBLISHED STUDIES Abbot, Henry Larcom. "Biographical Memoir of John Gross Barnard." Professional Memoirs, Corps of Engineers, United States Army and Engineer Department at Large, 5, January-February 1913, 83-90. Abbot, Henry Larcom. Siege Artillery in the Campaigns Against Richmond, with Notes on the Fifteen Inch Gun, Corps of Engineers Professional Paper No. 14. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1867.
Adams, F. Colburn. Siege of Washington, D. C. Written Expressly for Little People. New York: Dick & Fitzgerald, Publishers, 1867. "The Advance upon Washington in July, 1864.'.' Southern Magazine, 8, June 1871, 750-63. Aide-Memoire to the Military Sciences. Framed from Contributions of Officers of the Different Services, and Edited by A Committee of the Corps of Royal Engineers in Dublin, 1845-1846. Three Volumes. London: John Weale, 1846-52. Aide-Memoire to the Military Sciences. Framed from Contributions of the Different Services, and Edited Civil War D'efenses of Washington page 3 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
by A Committee of the corps of Royal Engineers, 1847-1849. Volume II. Second Edition. London: John Weale, 1853. Albro, Walt. "The Forgotten Battle for the Capital [July 1864]." Civil War Times Illustrated, 32, Janu ary/February 1993, 40-43, 56-61. Alexander, Edward Porter. "The Battle of Bull Run." Scribner's Magazine, 41, January 1907, 80-94. · '"'Alexandria to Rebuild Civil War Fort Ward." The Washington Post, Sept 1, 1960. Allen, Herbert F. L. Allen. "Washington Is Defenseless." The Evening Star, Nov 18, 1934. Alt, Betty Sowers and Bonnie Domrose Stone. Campfollowing: A History of the Military Wife. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1991. Ambrose, Stephen E. "Dennis Hart Mahan-A Profile." Civil War Times Illustrated, 2, November 1963, 30-35. Ambrose, William S. An Interpretive Earthworks Preservation Guide For Petersburg National Battle field. A Special Project submitted at Clemson University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Recreation and Park Administration, Department of Recreation and Park Administra tion. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Petersburg National Battlefield at Petersburg, Virginia. March 1976. American Battle Monuments: A Guide to Military Cemeteries and Monuments Maintained by the Ameri can Battle Monuments Commission. Edited by Elizabeth Nishiura. Deiroit, MI: Omnigraphics, Inc., 1989. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Edited by William Morris. New York, NY: American Heritage Publishing Co., Inc. And Houghton Mifflin Company, 1973. Andrews; J. Cutler. The North Reports the Civil War. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1955. "Area Forts: The Ramparts Once Watched.". The Washington Post, June 25, 1967. Armstrong, Cynthia Grant. "Fort Ward." Northern Virginia Heritage, 1, October 1979, 7-8, 20. The Army and Navy Journal, Volumes 1-3. "Army Road and Bridge Builders." In John D. Billings. Hardtack and Coffee or The Unwritten Story of Army Life. Boston: G.M. Smith and Co., 1887, 377-93.
Aubin, Henry. "District's Old Forts: Squirrels Man Ivied Ramparts." The Washington Post, Monday, December 28, 1970. Averill, Frank L. Guide to the National Capital and Maps of Vicinity including the Fortifications . . Washington, DC: Published by The Engineering Platoon of the Engineer Corps, D.C.N.G., 1892. Civil War Defenses of Washington page4 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Babits, Lawrence E. "A Confederate Earthwork's Internal Structure." Military Collector & Historian, 41, Winter 1989, 194-98. Barber, James G. Alexandria in the Civil War. Lynchburg, VA: H.E. Howard, Inc., 1988. Barnard, John Gross. The C.S.A. and the Battle of Bull Run. New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1862. Barnard, John Gross. A Report on the Defenses of Washington, to the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Corps of Engineers Professional Paper No. 20. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1871. Barnard, John G., "The Use of Iron in Fortifications," United States Service Magazine, 1, (January 1, 1864, 25-31. Barnard, John Gross and William F. Barry. Report of the Engineer and Artillery Operations of the Army of the Potomac from Its Organization to the Close of the Peninsular Campaign. New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1863. Bartlett, Tom. "Post of the Month: Marine Barracks and USMC Headquarters, Washington, D.C." U.S. Lady, (November 1967), 10-11 Battle, Stafford Levon. "In Defense of A Nation's Capital." Washington Living, May 1984, 50-53. "Battle Fields, &c." In C.H. Ingram and John P. Church. What You Most Want To Know. A Complete Guide and Directory, Prepared for the Members of the Grand Army of the Republic and Their Friends, Visiting the Washington National Encampment. Washington, DC: John C. Parker, 1892, 16-18. Battles and Leaders of the Civil War ... Edited by Robert U. Johnson and Clarence C. Buell. 4 Volumes.r New York: The Century Company, 1887-88. Beach, William H. The First New York (Lincoln) Cavalry from April 19, 1861 to July 7, 1865. New York: The Lincoln Cavalry Association, 1902. Bellard, Alfred. Gone for a Soldier: The Civil War Memoirs of Private Alfred Bellard. Edited by David Donald. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1975. "Beauty Duty Sought for 16 Old Forts." The Washington Post, May 7, 1965. Benedict, Grenville. Army Life in Virginia: Letters from the Twelfth Vermont Regiment and Personal Experience of Volunteer Service in the War of the Union, 1862-63. Burlington, VT: Free Press Associa tion, 1895. Billings, Elden E. "Military Activities in Washington in 1861." Records of the Columbia Historical SocietyofWashington, D.C., 1960-1962, 131-33. Bissell, Lewis. The Civil War Letters of Lewis Bissell: A Curriculum. Edited by Mark Olcott and David Lear. Washington, DC: The Field School Educational Foundation Press, 1981. Blanding, Stephen F. ln the Defenses of Washington or Sunshine in A Soldier's Lzfe. Providence, RI: E.L. Freeman, 1889. Civil' War Defenses of Washington page 5 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Bowen, John. Battlefields of the Civil War: A State-by-State Guide. London: Chartwell Books, Inc., 1986.
Brackenbury, Charles B. Field Works, Their Technical Construction and Tactical Application. London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co., 1888. Bradwell, LG. "On to Washington." Confederate Veteran, 36, March 1928, 95-96. Brager, Bruce L. "Fort Stevens-Lincoln Under Fire." Northern Virginian, 12, July-August 1982, 22-24. Wesley Brainerd. Bridge Building in Wartime. Edited by Ed Malles. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1997. Brewer, James H. The Confederate Negro: Virginia's Craftsman and Military Laborers, 1861-1865. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1969.
Brewer, Roy C. "Fort Scott-Past, Present, and Future." The Arlington Historical Magazine, 3, October 1965, 40-47. Brialmont, Alexis Henri. Hasty Intrenchments. Translated by Charles A. Empson. London: Henry S. King & Co., 1872. Brice, Martin. Forts and Fortresses: From the Hillforts of Prehistory to Modem Times-the Definitive Visual Account of the Science of Fortification. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 1990. Brice, Martin H .. Stronghold: A History of Military Architecture. London, England: B.T. Batsford, Ltd., 1984. Brooks, Noah. Mr. Lincoln's Washington: The Civil War Dispatches of Noah Brooks. Edited by P.J. Staudenraus. New York: Thomas Yoseloff, Publisher, 1967.
Brooks, Noah. Washington, D. C. in Lincoln's Time. Edited with a new commentary by Herbert Mitgang. Chicago, IL: Quadrangle Books, 1971.
The Brother's War: Civil War Letters to Their Loved Ones from the Blue and Gray. Ed. by Annette Tapert. New York: Vintage Books-various letters on the forts Brown, Glen. Papers Relating to the Improvement of Washington City. Washington, P.C.: The Govern ment Printing Office, 1901. Brown, J. Willard. The Signal Corps USA in the War of the Rebellion. Published by the U.S. Veterans Signal corps Association. Reprint. New York: New York Times, Co., 1974.
Brown, Leonard E. Forts DeRussy, Stevens, and Totten; General Background. Washington, DC: Division of History, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, National Park Service, 1968.
Brown, Leonard E. National Capital Parks: Fort Stanton, Fort Foote, Battery Ricketts. Washington, DC: Office of History and Historic Architecture, Eastern Service Center, National Park Service, 1970.
Browning, Robert S., III. ·"Two if by Sea: The Development ofAmerican Coastal Defense Policy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1983. Civil War Defenses of Washington page6 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Bryan, Wilhelmus Bogart. Compiler. Bibliography of the District of Columbia being A Ust of Books, Maps, and Newspapers, including Articles in Magazines and Other Publications to 1898. Washington, GPO, 1900. Bryan, Wilhelmus Bogart. A History of the National Capital from its foundation through the Period of the Adoption of the Organic Act. Volume II. 1815-1878. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1916, 539-40. Buchanan, James. The Works of James Buchanan. Edited by John Bassett Moore. Reprint. New York: · 1960. Buckholtz, Louis von. On lnfantry, Camp Duty, Field Fortification, and Coast Defence. Washington, DC: Selmar Siebert, 1860. Bushong, William. Historic Resource Study: Rock Creek Park - District of Columbia. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1990.
Butler, Benjamin F. Private and Official Correspondence of General Benjamin F. Butler during the Period of the Civil War ... 5 Volumes. Norwood, MA: Plimpton Press, 1917. Calvin, Rita A. Compiler. Selected Theses and Dissertations on the Washington, D.C. Region. Washing ton, DC: Center for Washington, DC: Center for Washington Area Studies, George Washington Univer sity, 1982. Caemmerer, H.Paul. A Manual on the Origin and Development of Washington; Senate Document No. 178, 75th Congress, 3d Session. Washington, DC: GPO, 1939. Caemmerer, H.Paul. "Topographic Features Relating to the Plan of Washington, D.C." The Military Engineer, 45, January-February 1952, 15-19. Caemmerer, H.Paul. Washington the National Capital, Senate Report No. 332, 71st Congress, 3d Ses sion. Washington, DC: GPO, 1932. "Calendar No. 1101, Senate Report No. 1036, 68th Congress, 2d Session, February 3, 1925. Carper, Robert L. Historic Structure Report, Administrative and Architectural Data Sections, Fort Washington Main Fort/Ravelin. Denver, CO: Denver Service Center, The National Park Service, 1982. Chandler, David G. "Haunted Acres: Visiting Battlefields." History Today, 26, November 1976, 743-48.
Chesney, Charles C. On the Value of Fortresses and Fortified Positions in Defensive Opera"rions. Second Edition, Revised. London: Byfield, Stanford & Co., 1868. Churchman, Deborah. "Searching for the Civil War [Report from the Forts]." The Washington Post, Weekend, October 23, 1981. The Civil War: A Newspaper Perspective. The Charleston Mercury; The New York Herald; The Rich mond Enquirer. A CD-ROM produced by Accessible Archives. ' Civil War Defenses of Washington page? Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
The Civil War Battlefield Guide. Edited by Frances H. Kennedy. Supported by the Conservation Fund. Second Edition. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1998.
"Civil War Forts." In Historic_Northem Virginia Buildings and Places. Published by the Northern Virginia Regional Planning and Economic Development Commi~sion. n.d.
Clinton, Amy Cheney. "Historic Fort Washington." Maryland Historical Magazine, 32, September 1937, 228-47. Coggins, Jack. "The Engineers Played a Key Role in Both Armies." Civil War Times Illustrated, 3, January 1965, 40-47. Colbert, Leo Otis. "Earliest Maps of Washington, D.C." The Military Engineer, 61, July-August 1949, 247-50. Colket, Meredith B. "The Public Records of the District of Columbia." Records of the Columbia Historical Society of Washington, D.C., Vols. 48-49: 1949, 281-99. Commemoration Ceremony on The One-Hundredth Anniversary of the Battle of Fon Stevens at Fon Stevens Pamphlet. Washington, D.C., July 11, 1964.
"Commemoration of Certain Military Historic Events, and for Other Purposes." House Report No. 1525, · 71st Congress, 2d Session, May 19, 1930, 24.
Cooling, Benjamin Franklin, III. "Civil War Deterrent: Defenses of Washington." Military Affairs (hereaf ter referred to as MA), 29, Winter 1965-66, 164-78.
Cooling, Benjamin Franklin, III. "Defending Washington During the Civil War." Records of the Colum bia Historical Society of Washington, D.C., Vol. 71-72, 1971-72, 314-37.
Cooling, Benjamin Franklin. Jubal Early's Raid On Washington 1864. Baltimore, MD: The Nautical and Aviation Publishing Company of America, 1989. Cooling, B. Franklin. Monocacy: The Battle that Saved Washington. Shippensburg,.PA: White Mane Publishing Company, Inc., 1997. Cooling, Benjamin Franklin, III. Symbol, Sword, and Shield: Defending Washington During the Civil War. Second Edition. Shippensburg, PA: White Mane Publishing Company, Inc., 1991.
Cooling, Benjamin Franklin, III and Walton H. Owen, II. Mr. Lincoln's Fons: A Gui1e to the Civil War Defenses of Washington. Shippensburg, PA: White Mane Publishing Company, 1988.
Cowdrey, Albert E. A City for the Nation: The Army Engineers and the Building of Washington, D. C., 1798-1967. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1979. Cox, James A. "Fort Delaware on the Water." Civil War Times Illustrated, 32, July-August 1993, 20-24, 26, 54. Ci~il War Defenses of Washington page 8 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Cox, William Van Zandt. "The Defenses of Washington-General Early's Advance on the Capital and the Battle of Fort Stevens, July 11 and 12, 1864." Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Washing ton, 1901, Vol. IV, 135-65. Cox, William Van Zandt. The Defenses of Washington-General Early's Advance on the Capital and the Battle of Fort Stevens, July 11 and 12, 1864 1-31. Pamphlet. Craighill, William P. The Army Officer's Pocket Companion. New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1863. Cramer, John Henry. Lincoln Under Enemy Fire: The Complete Account of His Experiences During Early's Attack on Washington. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1948. Cromie, Alice. A Tour Guide to the Civil War. Third Edition, Revised and Updated. Nashville, TN: Rutledge Hill Press, 1990 . .Cronin, Gerald E. "The Attacks on Our National Capital." Infantry Journal, 11, September/October 1914, 214-20. Crouch, Howard R. Relic Hunter: The Field Account of Civil War Sites, Artifacts, and Hunting. Fairfax, VA: SCS Publications, 1978. Crowell, Elizabeth A., Dennis Knepper and Marcia Miller. Archaeological Investigations of Fort C.F. Smith. July 1987. Engineering-Science, Inc., Washington, DC., 1987. Cullum, George W. Systems of Military Bridges in Use by the United States Army ... New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1863. Cummings, Maizie Jean. Battleground National Cemetery; An Example of A Victorian Mourning Area. George Washington University, August 24, 1990. Curry, W.W. "To the Potomac." Edited by Paula Mitchell Marks. Civil War Times lllustrated, 28, September/October 1989, 24-25, 59-65. Curtis, William T.S. "Cabin John Bridge." Records of the Columbia Historical Society of Washington, D. c., 2, 1899, 293-307. Dana, Charles A. "Early's Raid on Washington." In Charles A. Dana. "Reminiscences of Meri and Events of the Civil War." Part VII. McClure's Magazine, 11, May 1898, 38-40. Daughters of the American Revolution, District of Columbia, State Historic Committee, Historical Directory of the District of Columbia. Washington, DC: State Historic Committee, District of Columbia, Daughters of the American Revolution, 1922. David, Elizabeth S. "Fort Willard and the Defenses of Washington." Fairfax Chronicles, 10, November 1986-January 1987, i, 4-5. Davis, David G. "Fort Ward, Defending Washington." Castle [Ft. Belvoir, VA], 52, February 27, 1987, 7. Davis, William C. The Battle at Bull Run: A History of the First Major Campaign of the Civil War. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977. Civil War Defenses of Washington page·9 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
De La Croix, Horst,. Military Considerations in City Planning: Fortifications. New York: George Braziller, Inc., 1972. de Trobriand, Comte Regis. The Life and Memoirs of Comte Regis de Trobriand Major-General in the Army of the United States by His Daughter Marie Caroline Post. New York: E.P. Dutton & Company, 1910. de Trobriand, Comte Regis. Our Noble Blood: The Civil War Letters of Major-General Regis de Trobriand. Translated by Nathalie Chartrain. Edited by William B. Styple. Kearny, NJ: Belle Grove Publishing Co., 1997. "Defense_of Washington." Chapter Three in U.S., Engineer School. Engineer Operations in Past Wars. 2 Parts. Fort Humphreys, VA: Engineer School, 1926, Part I, pages 23-35. "Defenses of Washington." In DeB. Randolph Keim . .Keim s Illustrated Hand-Book. Washington and Its Environs: A Descriptive and Historical Hand-Book to the Capital of the United States of America. Fourth Edition-Corrected to July, 1874. Washington, DC: For the Compiler, 1874, 232-33. "The Defenses of Washington." In Noah Brooks. Mr. Lincolns Washington: Selections from the Writings of Noah Brooks Civil War Correspondent. Edited by P.J. Staudenraus. New York: Thomas Yoseloff, 1967, 197-99. "The Defenses of Washingtori During the War." The Evening Star, October 9, 1902. Dey, Richard A., Jr. "The Defenses of Washington, D.C., United States of America: Yesterday and Today." Army Digest, 24, August 1969, 18-21. Dickman, William J. Battery Rodgers at Alexandria, Virginia. Manhattan, KS: MA/AH Publishing, 1980. "The Dismantled Forts," The Evening Star, Thursday, Sept. 28, 1865. District of Columbia, Civil War Centennial Commission. Study in Patriotism, 1861-1865. Washington, D.C.: n.p., 1965? District of Columbia. Civil War Centennial Commission. The Symbol and the Sword; Washington, D. C. 1860-1865. Washington, DC: The District of Columbia, Civil War Centennial Commission, 1962. "District of Columbia, Washington Navy Yard, 1800-." United States Navy and Marine Corps Bases, Domestic. Edited by Paolo E. Coletta. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985), 181-82; "District's Old Forts," Washington Post, Dec. 10, 1970. Dodge, Grenville Mellon. "Use of Blockhouses During the Civil War." Annals of Iowa, 6, January 1904, 297-301. Donn, John W. "With the Army of the Potomac From the Defences of Washington to Harrison's Land ing." In District of Columbia Commandery, The Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States. War Papers, Paper 22. Civil War Defenses of Washington page 10 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Donnelly, Ralph W. "Fort Branch on the Roanoke." Periodical: The Journal of the Council on America's Military Past (formerly Council on Abandoned Military Posts), 9, Fall 1977, 30-38.
Douglas, Howard. Observations on Modern Systems of Fortification, Including that proposed by M. Carnot, and a Comparison of the Polygonal with the Bastion System; To which is Added, Some Reflec tions on Intrenched Positions, and a Tract on the Naval, Littoral, and Internal Defence of England. London:J.Murray, 1859.
Doyle John T. "Fort Lincoln: history and construction." November 13, 1933. This paper was prepared as part of Doyle's initiation into Phi Mu an engineering honor society. Records of Phi Mu University of Mary°Jand at College Park Libraries. Duane, James C. "History of the Bridge Equipage in the United States Army." In Printed Papers of the Essayers Club of the Corps of Engineers. Willet's Point, New York: Battalion Press, I 872, I, No. 1.
Duane, James C. Manual for Engineer Troops. New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1862. Duffy, Christopher. Fire and Stone: The Science of Fortress Warfare /660-1860. London: David and Charles, 1975. Duffy, Christopher. "Touring a Fortress," Fire and Stone: The Science of Fortress Warfare 1660-1860. London: David and Charles, 1975, 198-200. Dunkleman, Mark H. "Camp Seward on Arlington Heights; A Yankee Regiment's First Stop in Dixie." The Arlington Historical Magazine, 10, October 1994.
Duryee Sacket L. A Historical Summary of the Work of the Corps of Engineers in Washington, D. C. and Vicinity, /852-1952. Washington, DC: Washington Engineer District, 1952.
Dwight, Henry 0. "In the Trenches: Each Man His Own Engineer." Civil War Times Illustrated, 4, October 1965, 4-7, 30-31.
Early, Jubal A. "The Advance on Washington in 1864." Southern Historical Society Papers, 9, 1881, 297-312. Early, Jubal A. "General Barnard's Report on the Defences of Washington, in July 1864." Southern Magazine (Baltimore), 10, June 1872, 716-24. "Early's Raid on Washington." The Republic, Vol., VIII, No. 3, March 1877.
Edelin, William B. "The District of Columbia in the Civil War." M.A. thesis, Howard University, 1925.
Edgerton, Joseph S. "Capital's War Defense Revealed in Winter." The Washington Star, Feb 27, 1938.
Edmonds, James E. "The Engineers in Grant's Campaigns of 1864-5." Royal Engineers Journal, 52, September 1938, 452-54. Eggenberger, David. A Dictionary of Battles from 1479 B.C. to the Present. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1967. Civil War Defenses of Washington' page 11 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Eisen, Jack. "Viewing Washington's Forts." The Washington Post, April 3, 1984.
Eisterhold, John A. "Fort Heiman: Forgotten Fortress." The West Tennessee Historical Society Papers, 28, 1974, 43-54. Ellis, John B., Sights and Secrets of the National Capital; A Work Descriptive of Washington and All Its Phases. New York: United States Publishing Company, 1869.
"Engineer Equipment." In Francis A. Lord. Civil War Collector's Encyclopedia. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 1963, 91-99. "Engineer Equipment." In Francis A. Lord. Civil War Collector's Encyclopedia. Volume 2. W. Colum bia, SC: Lord Americana & Research, Inc., 1975, 46-49. "The Engineers." In Jack Coggins. Arms and Equipment of the Civil War. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1962, 99-105. Epling, Jimmie. "Pioneer Tools." Camp Chase Gazette, 15, October 1987, 18-19; November-December 1987, 22-23. Evans, Thomas J. and James M. Moyer. Mosby's Confederacy: A Guide to the Roads and Sites of John Singleton Mosby. Shippensburg, PA: White Mane Publishing Company, Inc., 1991. Everhart, William C. Vicksburg National Military Park, Mississippi. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1954. Everly, Elaine Cutler. "The Freedmen's Bureau in the National Capital." Ph.D. dissertation, George Washington University, 1972. Fairchilds, C.B., Compiler. History of the 27th Re~iment N.Y. Vols ..... Binghampton, NY: Carl & Matthews, 1888. Fairfax County and the War Between the States. Official Publication of the Fairfax County Civil War Centennial Commission. Fairfax County, VA: Office of Comprehensive Planning, Fairfax County, 1987. Fairfax County, Virginia: A History. By Nan Netherton, Donald Sweig, Janice Artemel, Patricia Hickin and Patrick Reed. 250th Anniversary Commemorative Edition 1992. Fairfax, VA: Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, 1992. Falls, Cyril. The Art of War from the Age of Napoleon to the Present Day. London, England: Oxford University Press, 1961. Farwell, Byron. Ball's Bluff: A Small Battle and Its Long Shadow. McLean, VA: EPM Publications, Inc., 1990. Featherstonhaugh, A. "Notes on the Defences of Petersburg." In Great Britain, Army, Corps of Royal Engineers. Papers on Subjects Connected with the Duties of the Royal Engineers ... Woolwich, England,: W.P. Jackson, 1839-76, New Series, 14, 1865, 190-94. · Fernald, Granville. Compiler. The Story of the First Defenders, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Civil War Defenses of Washington page 12 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Massachusetts Wash, DC. Washing~on, D.C.: Clarence E. Davis, 1892. Fiebeger, Gustav J. A Text-book on Field Fortification. Third Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1913. "Field Fortifications." In Egbert L. Viele. Hand-book for Active Service; Containing Practical Instruc tions in Campaign Duties.for the Use of Volunteers. New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1861, 92-148. "Field Intrenchments." Army and Navy Journal, 6, November 7, 1868, 184-85. "Fine, Lenore and Jesse A. Remington. The Corps of Engineers: Construction in the United States. Washington, DC The Government Printing Office, 1972. Fisher, Perry G. And Linda J. Lear. Compilers and Editors. A Selected Bibliography for Washington Studies and Descriptions of Major Local Collections, George Washington University Studies Number Eight. Washington, DC: George Washington University, May, 1981. Floyd, Dale E. "Army Engineers in the Civil War." In Military Engineering and Technology: Papers Presented at the 1982 American Military Institute Annual Meeting, U. S. Army Engineer Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Manhattan, KS: MA/AH Publishing, 1984, 23-32. Floyd, Dale E. "The Corps of Engineers' Role in Coast Defense." In Dale E. Floyd. Defending America's Coasts, 1775-1950: A Bibliography. Washington, DC: The Government Printing_Office, 1997, xi-xxvi. Floyd, Dale E. Defending America's Coasts, 1775-1950: A Bibliography. Washington, DC: The Govern ment Printing Office, 1997. Floyd, Dale E. Military Fortifications: A Selective Bibliography; Bibliographies and Indexes in Military Studies, Number 4. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc., 1992. Ployd, D_ale E. "The Place of Fortifications in the Civil War," Midwest Region Battlefield Update· [Na tional Park Service], 3, May 1994, 2-3. Floyd, Dale E. "The Place of Fortifications in the Civil War with Emphasis on Kentucky," Heritage Spirit [Kentucky Heritage Council], 3, September-October 1994, 9-12. Floyd, Dale E. "U.S. Army Officers in Europe, 1815-1861." In Proceedings of the Citadel Conference on War and Diplomacy 1977. Edited by David H. White and John W. Gordon. Charleston, SC: The Citadel, 1979, 26-30. "For Military Park," The Evening Star, Thursday, December 20, 1906. "For Park At Fort Stevens," The Washington Post, December 21, 1906. Forman, Stephen M. "Driving Tour: Sites to See in Washington." Blue & Gray Magazine·, 13, Spring 1996, 56-61. Forman, Stephen M. ''.The General's Tout: A Glimpse of Wartime Washington." Blue & Gray Magazine, 13, Spring 1996, 8-18, 20, 22, 46-55. Civil War Defenses of Washington page 13 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Forman, Stephen M. A Guide to Civil War Washington. Washington, DC: Elliott & Clark Publishers, 1995. "Fort Bayard Park Has Much History," The Washington Post, July 13; 1930. Fort Circle Parks, Civil War Defenses of Washington, Washington, D.C. Brochure. Washington,'D.C.: Parks and History Association in cooperation with the National Park Service, 1993. "Fort Foote, "The Evening Star, June 1, 1926; "Fort Foote Ordered Delayed," The Evening Star, June 12, 1926; "Fort Marcey's Guns Protected Bridge Entering 'Georgetown Pike," Fairfax Herald, February 25, 1972, 7. Fort Myer Post. The History of Fort Myer, Virginia. 100th Anniversary Issue, June 1863. Fort Myer, VA, Administrative History and Records Listings Page; A Narrative History of Fort Myer Virginia. Falls Church, VA: Litho-Print Press, 1954?. "Fort Myer, Va., (originally Fort Whipple) Historical Sketch, 1934. "Fort Sites Eyed for Future Use." The Washington Post, Friday, October 2, 1964. "Fort Stevens," Editorial in The Washington Star, March 27, 1911. "Fort Stevens at Brightwood." In Washington, D.C., Committee on Marking Points of Historic Interest, 1921. Points of Historic Interest in the National Capital. Washington, DC: Published by the Committee, 1921, 22. "Fort Stevens Battle Marked by G.A.R. Unit." The Washington Post, July 11, 1938. "Ft. Stevens Falls in Building Drive," The Evening Star, May 16, 1925; "Fort Stevens-Lincoln National Military Park," Senate Document No. 433, 57th Congress, 1st Session, June 26, ·1902. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1902. "Fort Stevens, Near Washington City." Confederate Veteran, 8, December 1900, 538. "The Fort the Wars Forgot," Army, 29, August 1975, 22-24.
"Fort Ward Museum & Historic Site." A 1990 pamphlet issued by the City of Alexandria; "Fort Ward Museum & Historic Site," An undated pamphlet issued by the City of Alexandria; "Fort Ward, Unscathed by War, Hit by Drought," The Evening Star, September 3, 1962; "Fortification-Land Defences-Profiles." Army & Navy Journal, I, November 14, 1863, 182. "The Fortifications of Washington." In Joseph Mills Hanson. Bull Run Remembers ... : The History, Traditions and Landmarks of the Manassas (Bull Run) Campaigns before Washington 1861-1862. Manassas, VA: National_ Capitol Publishers, Inc., 1961, pages 29-30. "The Forts." Chapter XXXV In Joseph Varnum, Joseph. The Washington Sketch Book. By Viator. New Civil War Defenses of Washington page 14 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
York: Mohun, Ebbs & Hough, 1864, 267-73 Fraser, Thomas. Field Intrenching: Its Application on the Battle-Field and Its Bearing on Tactics. London: Mitchell, 1879. Free at Last: A Documentary History of Slavery, Freedom and the Civil War. Edited by Ira Berlin; Bar bara J. Fields, Steven F. Miller, Joseph P. Reidy, and Leslie S. Rowland. Edison, NJ: The Blue & Gray Press, 1997. Frobel, Anne S. The Civil War Diary ofAnne S. Frobel of Wilton Hill in Virginia. McLean, VA: EPM Publications, Inc., 1992.
Fuller, John .F.C. "The Place of the American Civil War in the Evolution of War." Army Quarterly, 26 July 933, 316-25. Furney, Muriel. A Comprehensive History of Washington Soldiers' Home & Colony, 1891-1971: over eighty years of service to our States disabled.veterans. Compiled by Muijel Furney for Washington Soldiers' Home & Colony. Monroe, WA: Reformatory Industries Printing Plant, 1974(?). Gardner, Charles K., A Dictionary of ... the Army of the United States . .. Volunteers and Militia of the States ... and of the Navy and Marine Corps. New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1859. Gaskins, Ceres H. "Now and Then." Sound of McLean, 13, February 1975, 8, 12-13. Gatchel, Theodore Dodge. Rambling Through Washington: An Account of Old and New Landmarks in Our Capital City. Washington, DC: The Washington Journal, 1932. Gates, John M. "Evolution of Entrenchments During the American Civil War: A Vision for WWI Lead ers." Student paper, Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA, April 1991. "General Barnard's Report on the Defences of Washington, in July 1864." Southern Magazine (Balti more), X (1872), 716-24. The Geography of Defence. Edited by Michael Bateman and Raymond Riley. [Published on the Occa sion of the Annual Conference of the Institute of British Geographers, Portsmouth Polytechnic, January 1987] London: Croom Helm, 1987. Gibson, Dave. "The Arlington Lines." The Penman (Washington-Lee High School), 120), Spring 1950, 9-10, 48-51. Gillmore, Quincy A. Engineer and Artillery Operations Against the Defense of Charleston Harbor in 1863: Comprising the Descent Upon Morris Island, the Demolition of Fort Sumter, the Reduction of Forts Wagner and Gregg, with Observations on Heavy Ordnance, Fortifications, etc., Corps of Engineer Professional Paper No. 16. New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1865. Gillmore, Quincy A. Official Report to the United States Engineer Department, of the Siege and Reduc tion of Fort Pulaski, Georgia, February, March, and April, 1862, Corps of Engineers Paper on Practical Engineering No. 8. New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1862. Civil War Defenses of Washington page 15 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Gillmore, Quincy A. Supplementary Report to Engineer and Artillery Operations Against the Defences of Charleston Harbor in 1863. New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1868.
Girnuard, Mark. Cities & People: A Social and Architectural History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985. Goddard, Barbara and Palmer D. Wells. Fort Lesley J. McNair: An Historical Landmark (Washington, DC [1964) NWC), 1-2; . Gordon, Martin K. "The Origins of the Anacostia River Improvement Project: The Role of the Army Corps of Engineers." Soundings: A Journal of Writings and Studies of the Potomac River Basin Consor. tium, 4, Spring 1987, 10-18. Grafton, Henry D. "Field Fortification." Chapter II in Henry D. Grafton. A Treatise on the Camp and March with Which ls Connected the Construction of Field Works and Military Bridges. With an Appendix of Artillery Ranges, &c. for Use of Volunteers and Militia in the United States. Boston: W.P. Fetridge and Co., 1854, 23-38. Graham, Roy Eugene. "Federal Fort Architecture in Texas During the Nineteenth Century." Southwestern Historical Quarterly, 74, October 1970, 165-88. Grant, Ulysses S. The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant. Edited by John Y. Simon. Multi volume. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1967-. Greeri, Constance M. The Secret City: A History of Race Relations in the Nations Capital. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1967. Green, Constance M. Washington Village and Capital 1800-1878. And Washington Capital City 1879- 1950. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1962 and 1963. Grenville, John H. A Study of Embrasures: Shapes and Methods of Construction 1820-65; Manuscript Report Number 369. Ottawa, Canada: Parks Canada, 1980. Griess, Thomas E. "Dennis Hart Mahan: West Point Professor and Advocate of Military Professionalism, 1830-71." Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1969. Griffith, Paddy. Battle in the Civil War: Generalship and Tactics in America 1861-65. Nottinghamshire, England: Fieldbooks, 1986. Griffith, Paddy. "The Battlefield and Its Fortifications." In Paddy Griffith. Battle Tactics of the Civil War. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989, 117-35. Guerlac, Henry. "Vauban: The Impact of Science on War." Makers of Modem Strategy from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age. Edited by Peter Paret. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986, 64-90 .A Guide to the City of Washington, What To See, and How To See It. Washington, DC: Philip & Solomons, 1869. Pages 25-26. "A Guide to the Military Features in and About Washington." In Official Program, Army Relief Society, Civil War Defenses of Washington page ,16 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Military Exposition and Carnival, War College, Sept. 30th - Oct. 1st, 1927. Baltimore, MD: Printed by the Monumental Printing Co., 1927(?), 22-40.
"Gun Battery Yields Only Yankee Button, The Evening Star, April 25,_1958.
Hagerman, Edward. "The Evolution of Trench Warfare in the American Civil." Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1965.
Hagerman, Edward. "From Jomini to Dennis Hart Mahan: The Evolution of Trench Warfare and the American Civil War." Civil War History, 13, September 1967, 197-220. .
Haley, William D. Philp's Washington Described, A Complete View of the American Capital, and the District of Columbia; with Many Notices, Historical, Topographical, and Scientific, of the Seat of Gov ernment. Washington, D.C.: Philp & Solomons, circa 1861. Halle, Guy le. Histoire des Fortifications de Paris et leur Extension en Ile-de-France. Lyon, France: Editions Horvath, 1995.
Handly, Jacqui. Civil War Defenses of Washington, D.C.: A Cultural Landscape Inventory. Washington, D.C.: The Government Printing Office [Falls Church Office, Denver Service Center, National Park Service], 1996. Hansen, Reed. "Civil War to Civil Concern: A History of Fort Marcy, Virginia." M.A. thesis in History, George Mason University, 1973.
Hanson, Joseph Mills. Bull Run Remembers. .. The History, Traditions and Landmarks of the Manassas (Bull Run) Campaigns Before Washington 1861-1862. Manassas, VA: National Capitol Publishers, 1961.
Harbison, Robert. The Built, the Unbuilt and the Unbuildable: In Pursuit of Architectural Meaning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1991.
Hardin, Martiri D. "The Defence of Washington Against Early's Attack in July, 1864." In Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States. Illinois Commandery. Military Essays and Rcecollections ... Volume II. Chicago, IL: A.C. McClure and Company, 1894, 121-44.
Harrington, Peter. Archaeology of the English Civil War. Buckinghamshire, England: Shire Publications Ltd., 1992. Havenner, George C. Early History of Anacostia or Old Uniontown. Washington, D.C.: Anacostia Federal Savings & Loan Association, n.d.
Hardin, Martin D. _"The Defence of Washington Against Early's Attack in July, 1864." In Military Order of the LoyaI°Legion of the United States, Illinois Commandery. Military Essays and Recollections: Papers Read Before the Commandery of the_ State of Illinois, Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States. Volume II. Chicago, IL: A.C. McClure and company, 1894, 121-
Haskin, Frederic J. "Forts Around Washington." The Washington Star, September 8, 1935.
Heinl, Robert Debs. Soldiers of the Sea: The United States Marine Corps, 1775-1962. Annapolis, MD: U.S. Naval Institute, 1962. Civ'il War Defenses of Washington page 17 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Heitman, Francis B., Historical. Register and Dictionary of the United States Anny, from Its Organization, September 29, 1789, to March 2, 1903. 2 Volumes. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1903.
Helm, Judith Beck. Tenleytown, D. C.: Country Village into City Neighborhood. Washington, DC: Tennally Press, 1981.
Hennessy, John. The First Battle of Manassas: An End to Innocence July 18-21, 1861. Lynchburg, VA: H.E. Howard Inc., 1989.
Hennessy, John J. Return to Bull Run: The Campaign and Battle of Second Manassas. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993.
Heyden, Neil E. "The Fort Reno Community: The Conversion and Its Causes." Washington, DC: Depart ment of History, American University, 1981.
Hickenlooper, Andrew. "Our Volunteer Engineers." In Ohio Commandery, Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States. Sketches of War History. Cincinnati, Ohio: Robert Clarke and
Company, 1890, 3, 301-18.
Hicks, Frederick C. "Lincoln, Wright, and Holmes at Fort Stevens." Journal of the Jllinois Historical Society, 39, 1946, 323-32.
Hill, John. The First Battle of Bull Run: Campaign of First Manassas [American Civil War Notebook Series]. Fairfax, VA: CartoGraphics, Inc., 1991.
Hinds, James R. and Edmund Fitzgerald. "Fortifications iri the Field and on the Frontier." Periodical: The Journal of the .Council on America's Military Past, 9, Spring 1977, 41-48.
Hinds, James R. "Potomac River Defenses: The First Twenty Years." Periodical: The Journal of the Council on Abandoned Military Posts, 5, Fall 1973, 2-16.
"Historic Spot Is Site For New Homes," Washington Times, Oct 29, 1927.
Historical Times Jllustrated Encyclopedia of the Civil War. Edited by Patricia L. Faust. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1986
The History of Fort Myer Virginia 100th Anniversary Issue (Special Centennial Edition of the fort Myer Post), June 1963.
"The History of Fort Washington." Georgetown College Journal, February 1903, 231-33.
History of the Fifth Massachusetts Battery. Boston, MA: Luther E. Cowles, Publisher, 1902.
Hogaland, Kim. Guide to Resources for Researching Historic Buildings in Washington, D.C. Revised Edition. Washington, D.C.: N.P., 1962.
Hogg, Ian V. The History of Fortification. London, England: Orbis Publishing, 1981.
Holien, Kim Bernard. Battle at Ball's Bluff. Alexandria, VA: The Author, 1985. Civil War Defenses of Washington page.JS Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Holt, Sol. The Dictionary ofAmerican History. Paperback edition. New York, NY: MacFadden-Bartell Corporation, 1964. Home of the Commandants. Washington, DC: Leatherneck Association, 1956. Horton, Lois E. "The Days of Jubilee: Black Migration during the Civil War and Reconstruction." In Francine Curro Cary. Editor. Urban Odyssey: A Multicultural History of Washington, D. C. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1996, 65-78. Hughes, James Quentin. Military Architecture. Second Edition. Liphook, Hant, England: Beaufort Publishing Ltd., 1991. Hume, Gary Leroy. "A Comparative History of Two Early Nineteenth Century Fortifications." M.Arch.Hist., University of Virginia, 1968.
Hunt, Ora Elmer. "Defending the Citadel of the Confederacy [Richmond, VA]." In Francis T. Miller. The Photographic History of the Civil War. 10 Volumes. New York: The Review of Reviews Co., 1911, 5, 304-22. Hunt, Ora Elmer. "Defending the National Capital." In Francis T. Miller. The Photographic History of · the Civil War. 10 Volumes. New York: The Review of Reviews Co., 1911, 5, 75-108. Hunt, Ora Elmer. "Engineer Corps of the Federal Army." In Francis T. Miller. The Photographic History of the Civil War. 10 Volumes. New York: The Review of Reviews Co., 1911, 5, 222-54. Hune, Ora Elmer. "Entrenchments and Fortifications." Francis T. Miller. The Photographic History of the Civil War. 10 Volumes. New York: The Review of Reviews Co., 1911, 5, 194-218. Hurd, William B. Alexandria, Virginia 1861-1865. Alexandria, VA: City of Alexandria, 1970. Huston, James A. The Sinews of War: Anny Logistics, 1775-1953. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1966. Hutchins, Stilson and W.F. Morse. A Souvenir of the Federal Capital and of the National Drill and Encampment at Washington, D.C. May 23d to May 30th, 1887. Washington, DC: W.F. Morse, 1887. Hutchinson, Louise Daniel. The Anacostia Story: 1608-1930 Washington, DC: Published for the Anacostia Neighborhood Museum of the Smithsonian Institution by the Smithsonian Institution Press, 1977. Hutchinson, Thomas, Andrew Boyd and William H. Boyd. Compilers. Boyd's Washington and Georgetown Directory (also known as Hutchinson's Directory, etc.). 10 Volumes. Washington, DC: 1862-72. Hyde, John T. Elementary Principles of Fortification. London: Wm. H. Allen & Co., 1860. An Illustrated History: The City of Washington. By the Junior League of Washington. Edited by Thomas Froncek. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979. Civil War Defenses of Washington page 19 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
"In the Defense of Washington." Appendix I in U.S., Naval History Division. Civil War Naval Chronol ogy, 1861-1865 .. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1971. Ingle, Edward. The Negro in the District of Columbia. Baltimore, MD·: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1893. Innes, Lieutenant. "Notes on the Defenses of Charleston, South Carolina," In Great Britain, Army, Corps of Royal Engineers. Papers on Subjects Connected with the Duties of the Royal Engineers ... 33 Vol umes. Woolwich, England: W.P. Jackson, 1839-76, New Series, 13, 1864, 16-24.
Jacobs, Charles T. Civil War Guide to Montgomery County, Maryland. Rockville, MD: The Montgom ery County Historical Society and the Montgomery County Civil War Round Table, 1983.
Jacobs, Charles T. Civil War Guide to Montgomery County, Maryland. Revised Edition. Rockville, MD: The Montgomery County Historical Society, 1996. James, Felix. "Freedman's Village, Arlington, Virginia: A History." M.A. thesis, Howard University, 1967. Jebb, Joshua. Practical Treatise on Strengthening and Defending Outposts, Villages, Houses, Bridges, &c., in Reference to the Duties of Officers in Command of Picquets, as Laid Down in the Field Exercise and Evolutions of the Anny. Fifth Edition. London: William Clowes and Sons, 1857. Johnson, Andrews. The Papers ofAndrew Johnson. Edited by Leroy P. Graf, Ralph W. Haskins and Paul H. Bergeron. Multivolume. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1967-. Johnson, Leland R. "Civil War Railroad Defenses." Tennessee Valley Historical Review, 2, Summer 1972, 20-26. Johnson, Ludwell H. "Civil War Military History: A Few Revisions in Need of Revising." Civil War History, 17, June 1971, 115-130. Johnson, W.C. and E.S. Hartshorn. "The Development of Field Fortifications in the Civil War." Profes sional Memoirs, Corps of Engineers, United States Anny and Engineer Depanment at Large, 7, Septem ber October 1915, 570-602. Johnston, Allen John. "Surviving Freedom": The Black Community of Washington, D.C., 1860-1870. Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1880. Johnston, Charles. "Attack on Fort Gilmer." Southern Historical Society Papers, 1, June 1876, 438-42 [Petersburg]. Johnston, James H. "The Man Who (Almost) Conquered Washington." The Washington Post, March 18, 2001, Style Section, Fl, F4. Johnston, Norman J. Cities In the Round. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1983. Johnston, R.M. Bull Run: Its Strategy and Tactics. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1913. Jones, Dr. "Washington, July 10, 1864." Southern Historical Society Papers, 22 1894, 298-299. Civil War Defenses of Washington page20 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Jones, Archer. "Jomini and the Strategy of the American Civil War, A Reinterpretation." Military Affairs, 34, December 1970, 127-31. Jones, Jesse H. and George S. Greene. "The Breastworks at Culp's Hill." In Battles and Leaders of the Civil War ... Edited by Robert U. Johnson and Clarence C. Buell. 4 Volumes. New York: The Century Company, 1887-88, III, 316-17. Jones, Virgil C. "Action Along the Union Outposts in Fairfax." Historical Society of Fairfax County, Virginia, Inc. Yearbook, 3, 1954, 1-3. Jones, Virgil C. "First Manassas: The Story of the Bull Run Campaign." Civil War Times Illustrated, 19, No. 4, 1980, 3-12, 16-45. Jordan, Philip D. ''The Capital of Crime." Civil War Times Illustrated, 13, February 1975, 4-9, 44-47. "Jubal Early's Raid on Washington." In Noah Brooks. Mr. Lincoln's Washington: Selections from the Writings of Noah Brooks Civil War Correspondent. Edited by P.J. Staudenraus. New York: Thomas Yoseloff, 1967, 352-56. Judge, Joseph. Season of Fire: The Confederate Strike on Washington. Berryville, VA: Rockbridge Publishing Company, 1994. Julian, Allen P. "Atlanta's Defenses: The Fortifications Protecting Atlanta." Civil' War Times Illustrated, 3, July 1964, 23-24. Kastor, Elizabeth. "Battleground of Time Gone By." The Washington Post, July 12, 1996, Style Section, Fl-F2. Katcher, Phillip. Building the Victory: The Order Book of the Volun&eer Engineer Brigade, Army of the Potomac. Shippensburg, PA: White Mane Publishing Company, Inc., 1998. Keim, Ra_ndolph. Keim's Illustrated Hand-Book. Washington and Its Environs: A Descriptive and Historical Hand-Book to the Capital of the United States of America Fourth Edition, corrected to July, 1874 (Washington, DC: For the Compiler, 1874. Kelly, Dennis. ''The Second Battle of Manassas. Civil War Times Illustrated, 22, Na.. 3, 1983, 8-44. Kelly, Kathleen Anne. "Fortification of Washington, DC During the Civil War: Implications and Reali ties." M.A. Thesis in Architectural History, University of Virginia, 1984. Kimmel, Stanley. Mr. Lincoln's Washington. New York: Coward-McCann, Inc., 1957. Kindmark, Robert G. "John Gross Barnard: His Civil War Career and Mi)jtary Writings." Unpublished manuscript submitted for course, History 50, Allegheny College, Meadville, PA, April 30, 1978. Kleber, Louis C. "August, 1862: The Second Battle of Bull Run." History Today, 28, No. 12, 1978'. 803-09. Kline, Jerry, "Alexandria Restores Old Civil War Fort," The Washington Star, Aug 5, 1962. Kneitel, Tom. Directory of U.S. Army Forts, Camps, & Airfields ( 1789-1945. Cammack, NY: CRB Research Books, Inc., 1992. Civil War Defens~s of Washington page,21 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Kohn, Bernard. "Restored Civil War Fort Is New Sightseeing Shrine," The Sunday Washington Star, July 4, 1937.
Kreidberg, Marvin A. and Merton G. Henry. History of Military Mobilization in the United States Army 1775-1945; Department of the Army Pamphlet No. 20-212. Washington, DC: The Govemme.nt Printing Office, 1955.
Krick, Robert K. "Fire and Stone." In Touched by Fire: A Photographic Portrait of the Civil War. Edited by William C. Davis. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1986, Volume 2, 111-58.
La Ville et la Guerre sous la Direction de Antoine Picon. Besancon, France: Les Editions de L' Imprimeur, 1996.
Lackey, Louana M. "A Preliminary Archaeological and Historical Survey of A Portion of Fort Reno Park in Washington, D. C. Prepared by the Department of General Services of the District of Columbia." Washington, DC: The Potomac River Archeology Survey, American University, 1983.
Lee, Richard M. General Lee's City: An Illustrated Guide to the Historic Sites of Confederate Richmond. McLean, VA: EPM Publications, Inc., 1987.
Lee, Richard M. Mr. Lincoln's City: An Illustrated Guide to the Civil War Sites of Washington. McLean, VA: EPM Publications, Inc., 1981.
Lee, Robert E. Lee's Dispatches: *Unpublished Letters of General Robert E. Lee, C.S.A. to Jefferson Davis and the War Department of the Confederate States of America 1862-65 from the Private Collec tions of Wymberly Jones de Renne, of Wormsloe, Georgia. Edited by Douglas Southall Freeman. New York.: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1957.
Lee, Robert E. The Wartime Papers of R. E. Lee, Edited by Clifford Dowdey. New York, NY Bramhall House and Virginia Civil War Commission, 1961.
Leech, Margaret. Reveille in Washington. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1941.
Lendy, Auguste Frederic. Elements of Fortification, Field and Permanent. London: John W. Parker and Son, 1857.
Lendy, Augustus Frederic. Treatise on Fortification. Or, Lectures Delivered to Officers Reading for the Staff London: W. Mitchell, 1862.
Lessoff, Alan H. The Federal Government and the National Capital-.Washington, 1861-1902. Thesis, Johns Hopkins Univ, 1990.
Lewis, Emanuel Raymond. Seacoast Fortifications of the United States: An Introductory History. Wash ington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1970.
Lilley, David A. "Mapping in North America, 1775 to 1865, Emphasizing Union Military Topography .in the Civil War." M.A. Thesis, George Mason University, 1982.
Lincoln, Abraham. The Collected Works ofAbraham Lincoln. Edited by Roy P. Basler. 9 Volumes. New Civil War Defenses of Washington page 22 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953-55. Lincoln Day by Day: A Chronology, 1809-1865. Volume Ill: 1861-1865. Washington; DC: The Govern ment Printing Office, 1960. Lippitt, Francis J. A Treatise on lntrenchments.- New York: D. Van Nostrand, Publisher, 1866. Lfssimore, John Troy C. "Defenses of Washington, 1861-1865." M.A. thesis, Howard University, 1971. Little, Glenn J., II. Archaeological Research-Fort Earthworks: Fort Davis, Fort Mahan, Fort Dupont, for the National Park Service. Division of Archaeology, Department of the Interior, 1968. Longyear, John Munro. "Georgetown during the Civil War." Georgetown Today, 7, March 1975, 6-10._
Look to the Earth: Historical Archaeology and the American Civil War. Edited by Clarence R. Geier, Jr. and Susan E. Winter. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1994.
Lord, Francis A. "Army and Navy Textbooks and Manuals Used by the North during the Civil War." Military Collector & Historian, 9, Fall 1957, 61-67; Winter 1957, 95-102.
Lord, Francis A. Civil War Sutlers and Their Wares. New York: Thomas Yoseloff, Publisher, 1969. Lord, Walter. The Dawn's Early Light. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1972. Lounsbury, Thomas H. "In the Defenses of Washington." Yale Review, 2, April 1913, 385-411. Lowry, Don. Fate of the Country:The Civil War From June to September 1864. NY: Hippocrene, 1992. Lowry, Thomas P. The Civil War Bawdy Houses of Washington, D.C.. Fredericksburg, VA: Sergeant Kirkland's Museum and Historical Society, Inc., 1997. Luvaas, Jay. "Introduction." In The U.S. Army War College Guide to the Battles of Chancellorsville & Fredericksburg. Edited by Dr. Jay Luvaas and Col. Harold W. Nelson. Carlisle, PA: South Mountain Press, Inc;., 1988, x-xiv. Luvaas, Jay. The Military Legacy of the Civil War: The European Inheritance. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1959. Lykes, Richard W. Campaign for Petersburg. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1970. Lykes, Richard W. Petersburg Battlefields. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1951. McAllister, Robert, The Civil War Letters of General Robert McAllister, Edited by James I. Robertson, Jr. (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1965. McClellan, George B. McClellan's Own Story. The War for the Union, the Soldiers Who Fought It, the Civilians Who Directed It.And His Relations to It and toThem. New York: Charles L. Webster & Com pany, 1887. McClellan, Phyllis L. Silent Sentinel on the Potomac: Fort McNair, 1791-1991. Bowie, MD: Heritage Books, Inc., 1993. Civil War Defenses of Washington page 23 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
McClure, Stanley W. Guide Leaflets for the Tour of Historic Civil War Defenses, Washington, D. C. Washington, DC: The National Park Service, 1938 . . McCormick, Charles H. General Background: Forts Mahan, Chaplin, Dupont, Davis. Washington, DC: Division of History, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, National Park Service, 1967. McDonough, M.J. and P.S. Bond. "Use and Development of the Ponton Equipage in the United States Army with Special Reference to the Civil War." Professional Memoirs, Corps of Engineers, United States Army and Engineer Department at Large, 6, November-December 1914, 692-758. McElroy, John. Editor. 'The Civil War." Chapter 36. In John Clagett Proctor. Editor. Washington, Past and Present: A History. 4 Volumes. New York: Lewis, 1930, 376-88. McElwee, William. The Art of War: Waterloo to Mons. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1974. McFall, Lawrence. The Fortifications of Danville, Virginia During the War Between the States 1861- 1865. Danville, VA: N.P., 1984. McWhiney, Grady. "Who Whipped Whom? Confederate Defeat Reexamined." Civil War History, 1-1, March 1956, 5-26. McWhiney, Grady and Perry D. Jamieson. Attack and Die: Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern Heritage. University, AL: The University of Alabama Press, 1982. Macaulay, (John) S. A Treatise on Field Fortification and Other Subjects Connected with the Duties of the Field Engineer. London: James Fraser, 1834. Macaulay, (John) S. A Treatise on Field fortification and Other Subjects Connected Duties of the Field Engineer. Fourth Edition. London: G.J. Palmer, 1856. Mackintosh, Barry. Rock Creek Park: An Administrative History. Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1985. Macqueen, Philip 0. "New Aqueduct for the National Capital." The Military Engineer, 18, March-April 1926, 110-17. Macqueen, Philip 0. "Cabin John Bridge." The Military Engineer, 24, November- December 1932, 566- 68. Macqueen, Philip 0. "Repairing Old Water-supply Conduit." The Military Engineer, 19, September October 1927, 410-11. Magnusson, Jan. "Fort Scott." The Arlington Historical Magazine, 2, October 1964, 37-47. Mahan, Dennis Hart. A Complete Treatise on Field Fortification, with the General Outlines of the Principles Regulating the Arrangement, the Attack, and the Defense of Permanent Works. New York: Wiley & Long, 1836. Civil War Defenses of Washington page 24 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Mahan, Dennis Hart. Summary of the Course of Permanent Fortification and of the Attack and Defence of Permanent Works.for the Use of the Cadets of the U.S. Military Academy. Richmond, VA: West and Johnston, 1863. Mahan, Dennis Hart. A Treatise on Field Fortification, Containing Instructions on the Method of Laying Out, Constructing, Defending, and Attacking Intrenchments, With the General Outlines_Also of the Arrangement, the Attack, and Defence of Permanent Fortifications. Third Edition, Revised and Enlarged. New York: John Wiley, 1861. Mahon, John K. "Civil War Infantry Assault Tactics." Military Affairs, 25, Summer 1961, 57-68. "Marking the Forts, The Washington Star, Sunday Magazine, September 11, 1966. Mears, David. "A View of Washington in 1863." Records of the Columbia Historical Society of Wash ington, D.C., 1963-65, 210-20. Melder, Keith E. "Angel of Mercy in Washington: Josephine Griffing and the Freedmen, 1864-1872. Records of the Columbia Historical Society of Washington, D. C., Vols. 63-65, 1966, 243-72. Meglis, Anne Llewellyn. Compiler. A Bibliographic Tour of Washington, DC. Washington, DC: D.C. Redevelopment Land Agency, 1974. Mendell, George Henry. A Treatise on Military Surveying, Theoretical and Practical, Including a De scription of Surveying Instruments. New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1864. Merrill, William E. "Block-houses for the Railroad Defense in the Department of the Cumberland." In Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States, Ohio Commandery. Sketches of War History, 1861-1865. Cincinnati, Ohio: Robert Clarke and Company, 1890, 3, 384-421. Merrill, William E. "Blockhouses-Federal Means of Protecting Communication." Civil War Times Illustrated, 4, January 1966, 34-39. Merrill, William E. "The Engineer Service in the Army of the Cumberland." In Thomas B. Van Home. History of the Army of the Cumberland ... Cincinnati, Ohio: Robert Clarke and Company, 1875, 2, 439-58. Merrill, William E. "Map Reproduction." Professional Memoirs, Corps of Engineers, United States Army and Engineer Department at Large, l, October-December 1909, 414-16.
Meyer, Eugene L. ~•Holding Down the Fort in D.C." The Washington Post, Friday, January 23, 1987. Military Historical Society of Massachusetts, Boston. The Virginia Campaign of 1862. New York: Published for the Society by Houghton Mifflin, 1895. Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States, Illinois Commandery. Military Essays and Recollections: Papers Read Before _the Commandery of the State of Illinois, Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States. Volume II. Chicago, IL: A.C. McClure and Company, 1894. Miller, David V. The Defense of Washington During the Civil War. Buffalo, New York: Mr. Copy, 1976. Civil War Defenses of Washington page 25 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Miller, Francis T. The Photographic History of the Civil War. Ten Volumes. New York: The Review of Reviews Co., 1911.
Miller, John, Jr. "Men, Weapons and Tactics." Army Information Digest, 16, August 1961, 47-51.
Miller, T. Michael. "Jones Point: Haven of History." The Historical Society of Fairfax County, Virginia Yearbook, Volume 21-1986-1988, 15-73.
Miller, T. Michael. "The Saga of Shuter's Hill [Fort Ellsworth]." The Historical Society of Fairfax County, Virginia, Yearbook, Volume 19, 1983, 74-113.
Miller, William J. The Men of Fort Ward: Defenders of Washington. Alexandria, VA: The Friends of Fort Ward, 1989.
Mills, Eric. Chesapeake Bay in the Civil War. Centreville, MD: Tidewater Publishing, 1996.
Mitchell, Alexander D., IV. Washington, D.C.: Then and Now. San Diego, CA: Thunder Bay Press, 2000. ·
Mitchell, Joseph B. Outlines of the Worlds Military History. Harrisburg, PA: Military Service Publishing Company, copyright 1931, 4th Edition, August 1940.
Mitchell, Mary. Divided Town: A Study of Georgetown, D.C. During the Civil War. Barre, MA: Barre Publishers, 1968.
Mitchell, William A. Army Engineering. Washington, DC: The Society of American Military Engineers, 1927.
Mitchell, William A. Fortification. Washington, DC: The Society of American Military Engineers, 1927.
Morgan, James Dudley. Historic Fort Washington. Washington, DC: N.P. 1904.
Morgan, James Dudley. "Historic Fort Washington on the Potomac." Records of the Columbia Historical Society of Washington, D.C, 7, 1904, 1-19.
Morris, Richard B. Encyclopedia ofAmerican History. Updated & Revised Edition. New York, NY: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1965.
Mosley, Thomas V. "Evolution of American Civil War Infantry Tactics." Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, 1967.
Mott, Frank Luther. American Journalism: A History, 1690-1960. Third Edition. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1962.
Moulton, Charles H. Fort Lyon To Harpers Ferry: On the Border of North and South with "Rambling lour". The Letters and Newspaper Dispatches of Charles H. Moulton (34th Mass Vol. Inf). Compiled and Edited by Lee C. Drickamer and Karen D. Drickamer. Shippensburg, PA: White Mane Publishing Co., Inc., 1987.
Muller, Charles G .. The Darkest Day: 1814, the Washington-Baltimore Campaign. New York: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1963. Civil War Defenses of Washington page,26 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Muller, Charles G. "Fabulous Potomac Passage." U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, 90, May 1964, 85-91.
Mumford, Lewis. The Culture of Cities. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1938.
Mumford, Lewis. The City in History: Its Origins, Its Transformations: and Its Prospects. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1961.
Munden, Kenneth W. and Henry Putney Beers. Guide to Federal Archives Relating to the Civil War. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1962.
Munsey, Everard. "Capital's Citadel of 1861 Being Restored as Park," The Washington Post, July 15, 1961. Myer, Donald B. Bridges and the City of Washington. Wash, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1974. A Narrative History of Fort Myer Virginia. Litho-Print Press, Falls Church, VA, 1954(?).
National Military Park to Commemorate Battle of Fort Stevens. Hearings Before the Committee on Military Affairs, House of Representatives, Sixty-Eighth Congress, Second Session, on H.R. 11365, Monday, January 12, 1925, Statement of Hon. Samuel E. Cook oflndiana. Washington, DC: The Govern ment Printing Office, 1925. Nesbitt, Mark. Rebel Rivers: A Guide to Civil War Sites on the Potomac, Rappahannock, York, and James. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 1993.
Ness, George T., Jr. "Army Engineers of the Civil War." The Military Engineer, 57, January-February 1965, 38-40.
Ness, George T. "Engineers of the Civil War." The Military Engineer, 44, May-June 1952, 179-87.
Nettesheim, Daniel D. "Topographical Intelligence and the American Civil War." Unpublished Masters thesis, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 1978. Newell, Joseph Keith. "OURS." Annals of 10th Regiment, Massachusetts Volunteers, in the Rebellion. Springfield, MA: C.A. Nichols & Co., 1875.
Nichols, James L. Confederate Engineers. Tuscaloosa, AL: Con-federate Publishing Company, Inc., 1957. O'Brien, William J. "The Washington Arsenal, Historic Landmark of the Nation's Capital." Army Ord nance, 16, July-August 1935, 32-37. "Old Fort Stevens Sold, Purchased by Syndicate of Virginia and Maryland Capitalists": The Washington Star, March 22, 1911. "Old Fort Washington." Washington Post, August 17, 1884.
"Old Forts in Capital Park System." The Washington Star, August 3, 1933.
Oliver, Thomas, "Ft. Ward Emerges in Changed Role," The Washington Star, June 26, 1967. Civ'il War Defenses of Washington page 27 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Olszewski, George J. Historic Structures Report: Forts Carroll and Greble, Washington, D.C. Washing ton, DC: Office of History and Historic Architecture, Eastern Service Center, National Park Service, 1970. Oman, Anne H. "The Forts of Washington: Only Two Saw Hostile Action." The Washington Post, Weekend, May 27, 1983. Osborne, Charles C. "Early's Raid on Washington." MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History, 6, Autumn 993, 100-109. "Our Capital in Wartimes." Chapter IV. In Washington: Yesterday and Today. Prepared by Social Studies Teachers in the Washington, D.C., Public Schools under the direction of George J. Jones. Boston, MA: Ginn and Company, 1943, 54-72. Owen, Thomas J. "Dear Friends at Home ... "The Letters and Diary of Thomas James Owen, Fiftieih New York Volunteer Engineer Regiment, During the Civil War. Edited with an Introduction by Dale E. Floyd. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1985. "Palisades, Forts, and Wars." In Frederick Tilp. This Was the Potomac River. Alexandria, VA: Published by the Author, 1978, 164-82. "The Past, Present and Future of Fortifications." Anny & Navy Journal, I, December 26, 1863, 276. Paullin, Charles 0. "Alexandria County in 1861." Columbia Historical Society Records, Vol. 28, 1926. Peck, Taylor. Roundshot to Rockets: A History of the Washington Navy Yard and U.S. Naval Gun Fac tory. Annapolis, MD: U.S. Naval Institute Press, 1949. Penfield, Alanson. A Tale of the Rebellion: Facts and Figures from the Standpoint of A Departmental Clerk. 2nd Edition. Washington, DC: Intelligence Printing House, 1867. Piron, F.P.J. "The Systems of Fortification Discussed and Compared." United States Service Magazine, 5, January 1866, 34-40; February 1866, 108-14; March 1866, 225-34; April 1866, 328-32. Pitch, Anthony S. The Burning of Washington: The British Invasion of 1814. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1998. Poe, Orlando M. "The Defense of Knoxville." In Battles and Leaders of the Civil War . .. Edited by Robert U. Johnson and Clarence C. Buell. 4 Volumes. New York: The Century Company, 1887-88, III, 731-45. Poe, Orlando M., et al. "The Engineers with General Sherman's Army." Professional Memoirs, Corps of Engineers, United States Anny and Engineer Department at Large, 6, May-June 1914, 358-94. "The Present Condition of the Defenses of Washington, Built during the Civil War, 1861-1865." In Frank L. Averill. Guide to the National Capital and Maps of Vicinity including the Fortifications. Washington, DC: Published by The Engineering Platoon of the Engineer Corps, D.C.N.G., 1892, 14-24. Civil War Defenses of Washington page 28 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Price, William H. "Civil War Military Operations in Northern Virginia in May-June 1861 ." The Arling ton Historical Magazine, 2, October 1961, 43-49, 57.
Proctor, John Clagett. "The Battle of Fort Stevens: Early's Invasion of Washington July 11, 12, 1864." In John Clagett Proctor. Proctor's Washington and Environs, Written for the Washington Sunday Star ( 1928- 1949). Washington, DC: Published by the Author, 1949, 347-51. Proctor, John Clagett., ed. Washington, Past and Present: A History. 4 Volumes. New York: Lewis,. 1930. Public Park at Fort Thayer, District of Columbia, Senate Report No. 362, 60th Cong., 1st Sess., Washing ton, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1908.
"The Quest for Protection," in Cyril Falls. The Art of War from the Age of Napoleon to the Present Day. London, England: Oxford University Press, 1961, 113-27. R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates. Historic Resources Survey: Addendum to the 1970 Historic Structures Report-Forts Carroll and Greble. Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1991. Raines, Rebecca Robbins. "Getting the Message Through": A Branch History of the U.S. Army Signal Corps Army Historical Series. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1996.
The Rambler (Richard Rogers), "Old Fort Resists Siege of Time," The Washington Star, October 19, 1956. Richards, bavid Allen. "Civil War Diary of David Allen Richards." Edited with an Introduction by Frederick D. Williams. Michigan History, 39, JQne 1955, 183-220.
Risch, Ema. Quartermaster Support of the Army: A History of the Corps, 1775-1939. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1962. Roberts, Chalmers M. Washington, Past and Present: A Pictorial History of the Nation's Capital. Wash ington, DC: Public Affairs Press, 1950.
Roberts, Robert B. Encyclopedia of Historic Forti The Military, Pioneer, and Trading Posts of the United States. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1988.
Robertson, W. Glenn. "First Bull Run, 19 July 1861." Chapter 4 in Americas First Battles 1776-1965. Edited by Charles E. Heller and William A. Stofft. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1986, 81- 108. Robertson, James I., Jr. Civil War Sites in Virginia: A Tour Guide. Charlottesville, VA: The University Press of Virginia, 1982.
Robertson, James I., Jr. Civil War Virginia: Battleground for a Nation. Charlottesville, VA: The Univer sity Press of Virginia, 1991.
Robinson, Henry S. "Some Aspects of the Free Negro Population of Washington, D.C., 1860-1862." Maryland Historical Magazine, 64, Spring 1969, 43-64. ·Civil War Defenses of Washington page 29 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Robinson, Willard B. American Forts: Architectural Form and Function. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1977. Robinson, Willard B. "Maritime Frontier Engineering: The Defense of New.Orleans." Louisiana History, 18, Winter 1977, 5-62.
Rock, R.W. (pseudo.). History of the Eleventh Regiment, Rhode Island Volunteers, in the War of the Rebellion. Providence, RI: Providence Press Company, Printers, 1881.
Roe, Alfred S. The Tenth Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry 186/-/864. Springfield, MA: Tenth Regiment Veteran Association, 1909.
Roe, E.W. "Brief Historical Sketch of the Navy Yard at Washington, D.C." The Society of Naval Archi . tects and Marine Engineers. Historical Transactions 1893-1943. New York: The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1945, 34-35.
Rose, Cornelia B., Jr. Arlington County Virginia: A History. Arlington, VA: Arlington Historical Society, 1976. Rose, Cornelia B., Jr. "Civil War Forts in Arlington." Arlington (Virginia) Historical Magazine, 1, October 1960, 14-27.
Rose, Cornelia B., Jr. "Civil War Forts in Arlington." Northern Virginia Sun, March 14, 1960. Rowlands, M.J. "Defense: A Factor in the Organization of Settlement." In Man, Settlement and Urban ism: Proceedings of a Meeting of the Research Seminar in Archaeology and Related Studies Held at the Institute of Archaeology, London University, 1970. Edited by Peter J. Ucko, Ruth Tringham and G.W. Dimbleby. Lond
Ryan, Jim. "History Afoot At the Forts." The Washington Post, Weekend, January 6, 1989.
Salamane:a, Lucy. "When Washington Was-Fort Girdled." Washington Post, January 25, 1931, pages 5, 17.
Salay, David L. "Everyday Life at Fort Washington, Maryland, 1861-1872." Maryland Historical Maga zine, 87, Winter 1992, 420-27.
Salay, David L. "'very picturesque, but regarded as nearly useless': Fort Washington, Maryland, 1816- 1872." Maryland Historical Magazine, 81, Spring 1986, 67-86.
Schauffelen, Otmar. Die Bundesfestung und ihre Geschichte europas groBte Festungsanlage. Ulm, Germany: Armin Vaas Verlag, 1989.
Scheips, Paul J. "'Old Probabilities': A.J. Myer and the Signal Corps Weather Service." The Arlington Historical Magazine, 5, October 1974, 29-43.
Schildt, Bobbi. "Freedman's Village." Northern Virginia Heritage, 7, February 1985, 10-14, 19-20.
Schmitt, Edwin A. and Philip 0. Macqueen. "Washington Aqueduct." The Military Engineer, 41, May June 1949, 205-10. Civil War Defenses of Washington page 30 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Schumann, Paul. "Fort Negley: Guardian of Nashville." Periodical: The Journal of the Council on Abandoned Military Posts, 12, January 1981, 24-35. Scott, Henry L. Military Dictionary: Comprising Technical Definitions; Information on Raising and Keeping Troops; Actual Service Including Makeshifts and Improved Material; and Law, Government, Regulation, and Administration Relating to Land Forces. New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1861.
Scott, John S. A Dictionary of Civil Engineering. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, Ltd., 1958.
Scott, Pamela and Antoinette J. Lee. Buildings of the District of Columbia. Society of Architectural Historians' Buildings of the United States. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Sedgwick, Paul J. The Shield. Washington, DC: The District of Colu·mbia Civil War Centennial Commis sion, 1965.
"Semipermament J?efenses." In U.S., Engineer School. Pamphlet on the Evolution of the Art of Fortifi cation, Engineer School Occasional Paper No. 58. Prepared Under the Direction of William M. Black. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1919, 87-90.
Semmes, Katherine Ainsworth, for the Naval Officer's Wives Club of Washington, D.C. A Historic Heritage: The Washington Navy Yard. Washington, DC: the Club, 195-.
Seymour, Digby Gordon. Divided Loyalties; Fort Sanders and the Civil War in East Tennessee. Knox ville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1963.
Shannon, J. Harby. Index to "The Rambler" A Series of Articles by J. Harby Shannon on Washington and vicinity Published in The Sunday Star, Washington, D.C. over A Period of Years between 1912-/927. Reprinted from the Records of Columbia Historical Society of Washington, D.C., Fiftieth Anniversary Volume 46-47. Washington, DC: Columbia Historical Society, 1947.
Shea, William L. "The Camden Fortifications." Arkansas Historical Quarterly, 41, Winter 1982, 318-26.
Sheads, Scott Sumpter and Daniel Carroll Toomey. Baltimore during the Civil War. Lithicum, MD: Toomey Press, 1997.
Shiman, Philip Lewis. "Engineering Sherman's March: Army Engineers and the Management of Modern War, 1862-1865." Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1991.
Shoup, Francis A. "Dalton Campaign-Works at Chattahoochee-Interesting History." Confederate Veteran, 3, September 1895, 262-65.
"Site of 7 Corners Center Once Called Fort Buffalo," The Washington Post, Oct. 3, 1956
Smelser, Marshall. "Naval Considerations in the Location of the National Capital." Maryland Historical Magazine, March 1957, 72-74.
Smith, Howard K., Washington, D.C.: The Study of Our Nations Capital. New York: Random House, Inc., 1967. Civil War Defenses of Washington' page 31 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Smith, Katheryn Schneider. Editor. Washington at Home: An Illustrated History of Neighborhoods in the Nation '.s- Capital. Northridge, CA: Windsor Publications, 1988. Smith, Samuel D., Fred M. Prouty and Benjamin C. Nance. A Survey of Civil War Period Military Sites in Middle Tennessee, Tennessee Department of Conservation, Division of Archaeology, Report of Investi gations No. 7. Nashville, TN: Division of Archaeology, Tennessee Department of Conservation, 1990. Snell, T. Loftin. The Stranger'.!" Guide to Washington, D.C. [with map of the city] Washington, DC: Published by the Author, 1967. Soderberg, Susan Cooke. Lest We Forget: A Guide to Civil War Monuments in Maryland. Shippensburg, PA: White Mane Publishing Company, Inc., 1995. "Some Forts of the Civil War." In Daughters of the American Revolution, District of Columbia, State Historic Committee. Historical Directory of the District of Columbia. Washington, DC: State Historic Committee, District of Columbia, Daughters of the American Revolution, 1922, 74. Sommers, Richard J. Richmond Redeemed: The Siege at Petersburg. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1981. Spear, Donald P. ''The Sutler in the Union Army. Civil War History, 16, June 1970, 121-38. Spier, William. A History of the Ninth and Tenth Regiments, Rhode Island Volunteers .. Providence, RI: Snow and Farnham, 1872. Stackpole, Edward James. From Cedar Mountain to Antietam, August-September, 1862: Cedar Mountain, Second Manassas, Chantilly, Harpers Ferry, South Mountain, Antietam. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole, Company, 1959.
Stepp, John W. And William I. Hill. Editors. Mirror of War. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentiss Hall, 1961. Stewart, John. "Early Maps and Surveyors of the City of Washington, D. C." Records of the Columbia Historical Society of Washington, D. C., 2, 1899, 48-71. Stone, Charles P. "Washington in March and April, 1861." Magazine of American History 14 1885, 1-24. Straith, Hector. Treatise on Fortification and Artillery. London, England: Waller & Co., 1850. Strayer, Martha. "Old Fort Foote, A Forlorn and Forgotten Place." The Washington Daily News, Monday, July 20, 1931. Stuntz, Connie P., & Mayo S. This Was Tysons Comer, Virginia: Facts and Photos. Vienna, VA: By the Authors, 1990. Stuntz, Connie P., & Mayo S. This Was Vienna, Virginia: Facts and Photos. Vienna, VA: By the Au thors, 1987. Supplement to the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Edited by Janet B. Hewett. Assistant Editors: Jocelyn Pinson, Julia Nichols and Katherine Hill. Wilmington, NC: Broadfoot Pub lishing Company, Volume 42 (serial 54), Part 2-Records of Events, 1997. Civil War Defenses of Washington page 32 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
(Sydenham) Clarke, George S. Fortification: Its Past Achievements, Recent Developments, and Future Progress. London, England: J. Murray, 1890. Sydenham, George S. Clarke. "Provisional Fortification." Paper XIII. Professional Papers of the Corps of Royal Engineers. Royal Engineers Institute Occasional Papers, III (1879), 253-56 & plate. "Systems of Fortifications." Army & Navy Journal, I, January 2, 1864, 293. Talley, J. Wallace. Jamboree Time in Washington. Washington, DC: 1936. Tames, Mike. 'The Civil War in Northwest Washington." In Origins II. Washington, DC: Neighborhood Planning Council #2 and #3, 1976, 17-21. Templeman, Eleanor Lee, Fairfax Heritage no. 3: Fort Marcy's Fate Uncertain," Northern Virginia Sun, Feb 28, 1958. Templeman Eleanor Lee. "Fort Marcy's Fate Uncertain "[Fairfax Heritage No. 3). Northern Virginia Sun, February 28, 1958. Thacker, Joel D .. "Highlights of U.S. Marine Corps Activities in the District of Columbia." Records of the Columbia Historical Society of Washington, D.C, Volumes 51-52, 1951-52, 78-79
Thatcher, Joseph M. "Chevaux-de-frise: Hardware and Construction." Military Collector & Historian, 38, Winter 1986, 169-72. Thian, Raphael P. Notes Illustrating the Military Geography of the United States. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1881. Thienel, Phillip M. "Engineers in the Union Army, 1861-1865." The Military Engineer, 47, January February 1955, 36-41; March-April 1955, 110-15. Thienel, Phillip M. Mr. Lincoln's Bridge Builders: The Right Hand of American Genius. Shippensburg, PA: White Mane Books, 2000. Thompson, Gilbert. The Engineer Battalion in the Civil War: A Contribution to the History of the United States Engineers, Engineer School Occasional Paper No. 44. Washington, DC: Press of the Engineer School, 1910. Tindall, William. Standard History of the City of Washington, From a Study of the Original Sources. Knoxville, TN: H.W. Crew and Company, 1914. Tooley, Mark. "Battle at Fort Stevens Saved." The Washington Post, August 6, 1994. Toomey, Daniel Carroll. The Civil War in Maryland. Baltimore, MD: Toomey Press, 1983 [sixth edition, 1993). Townsend, George Alfred. Washington, Outside and Inside. A Picture and A Narrative of the Origin, Growth, Excellences, Abuses, Beauties, and Personages of Our Governing City. James Betts & Co., 1873. Civil War Defenses of Washington page.33 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Toy, Sidney. A History of Fortification from 3000 B.C. to A.D. 1700. London, England: Heinemann, 1955. Turtle\ Thomas. "History of the Engineer Battalion." In Printed Papers of the Essayers Club of the Corps of Engineers. Willet's Point, NY: Battalion Press, 1872, I, No. 8. United States Army Logistics 1775-1922: An Anthology. Selected and Edited by Charles R. Shrader. Volume 1. Washington, D.C.: The Government Printing Office, 1997. United States Statutes at Large, Containing the Laws and Concurrent Resolutions ... and Reorganization Plans, Amendments to the Constitution and Proclamations, 1789-. Washington, D.C.: The Government Printing Office, 1845-. U. S., Adjutant General's Office, List of Military Posts, etc .. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1902. U.S., Armed Forces Information School, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, The Army Almanac: A Book of Facts Concerning the Army of the United States. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1950. .
U.S., Army, Corps of Engineers. Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers to the Secretary of War for the Year 1870.Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1870. U.S., Army, Corps of Engineers. Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers to the Secretary of War for the Year 1873, House Executive Document 1, Part 2, Vol. II. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1873. U.S., Army, Corps of Engineers. Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers to the Secretary of War for the Year 1874, House Executive Document 1, Part 2, Vol. II .. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1874. U.S., Army, Corps of Engineers. Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers to the Secretary of War for the Year 1875, House Executive Document 1, Part 2, Vol. II. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1875. U.S., Army, Corps of Engineers. Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers to the Secretary of War for the Year 1876, House Executive Document 1, Part 2, Vol. II. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, I 876. U.S., Army, Corps of Engineers. Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers to the Secretary of War for the Year 1877, House Executiv~ Do~ument 1, Part 2, Vol. II. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1877. U.S., Army, Corps of Engineers. Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers to the Secretary of War for the Year 1878, House Executive Document 1, Part 2, Vol. II. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1878. U.S., Army Corps of Engineers.• Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers to the Secretary of War for the Civil War Defenses of Washington page 34 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Year 1879, House Executive Document 1, Part 2, Vol. II. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1879. U.S., Anny, Corps of Engineers. Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers to the Secretary of War for the Year 1880, House Exec_utive Document ],.Part 2, Vol. II. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 180. U.S., Anny, Corps of Engineers. Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers to the Secretary of War for the Year 1882, House Executive Document 1, Part 2, Vol. II. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1882. U.S., Anny, Corps of Engineers. Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, to the Secretary of War for the Year 1885, House Executive Document 1, Part 2, Vol. II. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1885. U.S., Anny, Corps of Engineers. History of the Washington Aqueduct. Written by Philip 0. Macqueen. Washington, DC: Washington District, Corps of Engineers, 1953. U.S., Anny, Corps of Engineers. Report of the Chief of Engineers Accompanying Report of Secretary of War, 1867. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1870. U.S., Anny, Judge Advocate General. Military Reservations, and Military Parks, and National Cemeter ies Compiled by James B. McCrellis. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1898. U. S., Anny, Judge Advocate General. United States Military Reservations, National Cemeteries, and Military Parks Edited by Charles E. Hay, Jr. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1904. U.S., Anny, Judge Advocate General. United States Military Reservations, National Cemeteries, and Military Parks Edited by Lewis W. Call. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1907. U.S., Anny, Judge Advocate General. United States Military Reservations, National Cemeteries, and Military Parks Edited by Lewis W. Call. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1910. U.S., Anny, Judge Advocate General. United States Military Reservations, National Cemeteries, and Military Parks Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1916. U.S., Civil War Sites Advisory Commission. Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields: Technical Volume ll: Battle Summaries. Revised and Reprinted. Researched and Written by Dale E. Floyd and David W. Lowe. Washington, D.C.: The Government Printing Office, 1998. U.S., Congress. American State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, 1789-1838. 38 volumes. Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton, 1832-61. U.S., Congress, House of Representatives. Establish A National Military Park at Fort Stevens, House of Representatives Report No. 1537, 68th Congress, 2d Session (February 20, 1925) [to accompany H.R. 11365]. Civil War Defenses of Washington' page 35 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
U.S., Congress, House of Representatives. Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States. 57th Congress, 1st Session, 1901-02. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1902, 290 (HR 10528). U.S., Congress, House of Representatives. Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States. 58th Congress, 2d Session. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1904, 270 (HR 12149). U.S., Congress, House of Representatives. Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States . 58th Congress, 3d session, 1904-05. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1905, 455 (HR19204). U.S., Congress, House of Representatives. Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States. 1907-08, _60th Congress, 1st Session. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1908, 16, (HR291). U.S., Congress, House of Representatives. Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States. 66th Congress, 1st Session. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1919, 594 (HR 10695). U.S., Congress, House of Representatives. Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States .. 67th Congress, 1st Session. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1921, 497 (HR 8792). U.S., Congress, House of Representatives. Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States. 67th Congress, 2d Session, 19221-22. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1922, 116 (HR 8792). U.S., Congress, House of Representatives. Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States . 68th Congress, 2d Session, 1924-25. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1924, 280,288, 476 (S.J.117). U.S., Congress, House of Representatives. Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States . 69th Congress, 1st session 1925-26. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1926, 739, 1099 (HR 12644). U.S., Congress, House of Representatives. Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States . . 70th Congress, 1st Session, 1927-28. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1928, 378, 11744 (HR 10556). U.S., Congress, House of Representatives. Journal of the House of Representatives of the United State~. 71st Congress, 2d session, 1929-30. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1930, 431,523 (HRl 1489). .
U.S., Congress, House of Representatives. Military and Naval Defenses, House Executive Document No. 92, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, 1862. U.S., Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Military Affairs. Permanent Fortifications and Sea-Coast Defenses, House Report No. 86, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, 1862. 1 Civil War Defenses of Washington page 36 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
U.S., Congress, Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War. Report. 6 Volumes and Supplement. Washington, D.C.: The Government Printing Office, 1863, 1865-66. U.S., Congress, Senate. Fort Stevens-Lincoln National Military Park; Senate Document No. 433, 57th Congress, 1st Session, June 26, 1902. U.S., Congress, Senate. Journal of the Senate of the United States, 56th Congress, 2d Session. Washing ton, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1901, 247 (S6065). U.S., Congress, Senate. Journal of the Senate of the United States, 57th Congress, 1st Session, 1901-02. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1902, 228,521,527 (S4476). U.S., Congress, Senate. Journal of the Senate of the United States, 58th Congress, 2d Sessiop. Washing ton, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1904, 119 (S3886). U.S., Congress, Senate. Journal of the Senate of the United States, 59th Congress, 1st Session, 1905-06. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1906, 525,547 (S6265). · U.S., Congress, Senate. Journal of the Senate of the United States, 59th Congress, 2d Session. Washing ton, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1907, 91 (S7646). U.S., Congress, Senate. Journal of the Senate of the United States, 60th Congress, 1st Session. Washing ton, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1908, 216 (S5132). U.S., Congress, Senate. Journal of the Senate of the United States, 62 Congress, 2d Session. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1912, 75, 93, 107. · U.S., Congress, Senate. Journal of the Senate of the United States, 62d Congress, 3rd Session. Washing ton, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1912, 70 (S8142). U.S., Congress, Senate. Journal of the Senate of the United States, 67th Congress, 1st Session. Washing ton, DC: .The Government Printing Office, 1922, 14 (S4). U.S., Congress, Senate. Journal of the Senate of the United States, 68th Congress, 1st Session, 1923-24. Washington, DC: The Government _Printing Office, 1924, 58 (S 1340). U.S., Congress, Senate. Journal of the Senate of the United States, 68th Congress, 2d Session, )924-25. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1925, 50 (Sl340). U.S., Congress, Senate. Journal of the Senate of the United States, 69th Congress, 1st Session. Washing ton, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1926, 436, 712 (S4401). U.S., Congress, Senate, Senate Report No. 243, 44th Congress, 1st Session, 1876. U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on the District of Columbia. Park Improvement Papers: A Series of Twenty Papers Relating to the Improvement of Park System of the District of Columbia. Washington, D.C.: The Government Printing Office, 1903. Civil War Defenses of Washington page 37 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on the District of Columbia. Park Improvement Papers: A Series of Twenty Papers Relating to the Improvement of Park System of the District of Columbia, No. 4, Fort Stevens, Where Lincoln Was Under Fire by William V. Cox. Washington, D.C.: The Government Printing Office, 1903,17-25. U. S., Corps of Engineers. Regulations for the Corps of Engineers and Topographical Engineers. Wash ington, DC: A.0.P. Nicholson, 1857. U.S., Department of Defense, The Joint Chiefs of Staff. Dictionary of United States Military Terms for Joint Usage (Short Title: JD); JCS Pub. I. Washington, DC: The Joint Chiefs of Staff, February 1, 1962. U.S., Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Fort Circle Parks Master Plan. April 1968. Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1968. U.S., Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Guide Leaflet for the Tour of-Historic Civtl War Defenses-Washington, D.C. Sheet #1. Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1938. U.S., Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Capital Parks. Washington, D.C.: The Government Printing Office, 1963. U.S., Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources, Park Historic Architecture Division. Earthworks Landscape Management Manual. Prepared Andropogon Associates, Ltd., Ecologi cal Planning and Design. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1989. U.S., Department of the Interior, National Park Service, George Washington Memorial Parkway. Earthworks Landscape Management Plan. Fort Marcy. Washington, DC: U.S., Department of the Interior, National Park Service, George Washington Memorial Parkway, 1995. U.S., Engineer School. Engineer Operations in Past Wars. 2 Parts. Fort Humphreys, VA: Engineer School, 1926. U.S., Engineer School. History and Traditions of the Corps of Engineers' Engineer School ROTC Text ST25-I. Fort Belvoir, VA: Engineer School, 1953. U.S., Engineer School. Pamphlet on the Evolution of the Art of Fortification, Engineer School Occa sional Paper No. 58. Prepared Under the Direction of William M. Black. Washington, DC: The Govern ment Printing Office, 1919. U.S., Inspector General's Office, Outline Descriptions of the Posts and Stations of Troops in the Geo graphical Divisions and Departments of the United States. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 187). U.S., Army, Judge Advocate General, United States Military Reservations, National Cemeteries, and Military Parks, Edited by Lewis W. Call. Washington, D.C.: The Government Printing Office, 1910. U.S., Military Academy, West Point, Department of Military Art and Engineering. Notes on Permanent Land Fortifications. •WestPoint, New York: Department of Military Art and Engineering, U.S. Military Academy, 1944. 18 pp. & 12 Figures. Civil War Defenses of Washington page 38 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
U.S., National Archives. Civil War Maps in the National Archives. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1964. U.S., National Archives. A Guide to Civil War Maps in the National Archives. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1986. U.S., National Archives. The Southeast During the Civil War: Selected Records in the National Archives of the United States, Reference Paper No. 69. By Dale E. Floyd. Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Service, 1973. U.S., National Park Service. Fort Washington, Maryland. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1966. U.S., National Capital Parks and Planning Commission. Plans and Studies: Washington and Vicinity, National Capital Parks and Planning Commission Supplemental Technical Data, 1928. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1929. U.S., National Park Service, National Capital Parks. Interpretive Prospectus. Fort Circle Parks. Na tional Capital Parks. Washington, DC. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1971. U.S., Naval History Division. Civil War Naval Chronology, 1861-1865. Washington, DC: The Govern ment Printing Office, 1971. U.S. Navy, Chesapeake Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Draft Report: Underwater Archaeological Investigations, Washington Navy Yard, Anacostia Waterfront, Washington, D.C. Prepared by Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Bartlett, Tennessee.· Contributing Authors Stephen R. James, Jr., Michael A. Cinquino Argana and James A. Duff. Washington, D.C.: October 1994. U.S. Navy, Engineering Field Activity, Chesapeake Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Special Study: Cultural Resources Management of Historic Washington Navy Yard Building Drawings. Novem ber 1994: Prepared by ONYX. Washington, DC: The Division, 1994. U.S., Navy Department. Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebel lion. Multivolumes. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1894-1927.
U.S., Office of National Capital Parks. The Defenses of Washington, 1861-1865. By Stanley W. McClure. Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1967. U.S., Quartermaster Department, Outline Description of U. S. Military Posts and Stations in the Year 1871. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1872. U.S., Surgeon's General's Office. Surgeon General Circular No. 8, A Report on the Hygiene of the United States Army, with Descriptions of Military Posts. Washington, DC: GPO, 1875. U.S., Treasury Department. ... Statement ofAppropriations and Expenditures for Public Buildings, Rivers and Harbors, Forts, Arsenals, Armories and Other Public Works from March 4, 1789, to June 30, 1882. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1882. Civil War Defenses of Washington page 39 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
U.S., War Department. Annual Reports of the Secretary of War. Washington, DC; Various Publishers, 1823~. U. _S., War_ Department. Atlas to Accompany the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. 3 Volumes. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1891-95. U.S., War Department, Military Reservations. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1937-42. U.S., War Department. Report of the Secretary of War, Being Part of the Message and Documents Communicated to the Two Houses of Congress at the Beginning of the Second Session of the Forty Second Congress, House Executive Document 1, Part 2, 42d Congress, 2d Session. Volume II. Washing ton, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1871. U.S., War Department. Report of the Secretary of War, with the Reports of Officers, for the Year 1869, Accompanying Papers Abridged. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1869. · U.S., War Department. Revised United States Army Regulations of 1861, with an Appendix containing the Changes and laws Affecting Army Regulations and Articles of War to June 25, 1863. Washington, D.C.: The Government Printing Office, 1863. U.S., War Department. The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. 70 Volumes. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1880-1901. U.S., Work Projects Administration, Federal Writer's Program. Washington, D.C.: A Guide to the Nation' Capital, American Guide Series, Randall Bond Truett, Editor, New Revised Edition (Original edition published by The George Washington University of Washington, D. C. In 1942) New York: Hastings House Pubishers, 1968. Vandiver, Frank E. Jubal's Raid: General Early's Famous Attack on Washington in 1864. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960. Vauban, Sebastien le Prestre de. A Manual of Siegecraft and Fortification. Translated and Edited by George A. Rothrock. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1968. Verill, G.W. "Defenses of Washington Fort Scott; Sabbath at Ft. Scott [Letter of soldier G.W. Verill, November 30, 1862)." The Arlington Historical Magazine, 6, October 1979, 13-14. Viator [Joseph Bradley Varnum]. The Washington Sketch Book. New York: Mohyn Ebbbs & Hough, 1864. Viele, Egbert L. "Field Fortifications." Chapter IX in Egbert L. Viele. Hand-book for Active Service; Containing Practical Instructions in Campaign Duties, for the Use of Volunteers. New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1861, 92-148. Visconage, Michael D. "A Living Monument to Marine History." Marine Corps Gazette, 71 December 1987, 54; Vorek, Robert. "A Preliminary Report of the 1984 Excavations at Fort Reno Park, Washington, D. C." Civil War Defenses of Washington page,40 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Wagner, Arthur L. "Hasty Entrenchments in the War of Secessi_on." In The Military Historical Society of Massachusetts. Civil and Mexican Wars 1861, 1846. Volume 13 of the Papers of the Military Historical Society of Massachusetts. Boston: The Military Historical Society of Massachusetts, 1913, 127-53. Wagner, Arthur L. "Hasty Entrenchments in the War of Secession." Journal of the Military Service lnstitution of the United States, 22, February 1898, 225-46.
Wainwright, Charles S. A Diary of Battle: The Personal Journals of Colonel Charles S. Wainwright. Edited by Allan Nevins (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1962. A Walking Tour of Fort C.F. Smith Park. Pamphlet for Arlington Park. Arlington, VA: Arlington, n.d. Ward, Ruth. "Life in Alexandria CountrYduring the Civil War." The Arlington Historical Magazine, 7, Month(?) 1994, 3-5. [total-3-10) Warrington, J. Les. "In Defense of Washington." AAA World (Potomac Dir.), 3, May/June 1983, 2f. Washington, D.C., Committee on Marking Points of Historic Interest, 1921. Points of Historic lnterest in the National Capital. Washington, DC: Published by the Committee, 1921. Washington, D.C., Neighborhood Planning Councils 2 and 3. Footsteps: Historical Walking tours of Chevy Chase, Cleveland Park, Tenleytown, Friendship. Washington, DC: Neighborhood Planning Councils 2 and 3, 1976. Washington at Home: An Illustrated History of Neighborhoods in the National Capital. Kathryn Schneider Smith, Editor. Northridge, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., produced in cooperation with the Columbia Historical Society, 1988. Washington During War Time: A Series of Papers Showing the Military, Political, and Social Phases During 1861 to 1865. Official Souvenir of the Thirty-Sixth Annual Encampment of the Grand Army of the Republic. Collected and Edited by Marcus Benjamin Under the Direction of the Committee on Literature _ for the Encampment. Washington, DC: The National Tribune Co., n.d. Ways, Henry C. The Washington Aqueduct 1852-1992. Washington, D.C.: The Government Printing Office, 1996(?). ·
Webb, Anne C. "Fort Strong on Arlington Heights." The Arlington Historical Magazine, 5, October 1973, 34-39. Webb, Anne Ciprani. "Fort Strong on Arlington Heights," Periodical: The Journal of the Council on Abandoned Military Posts, 4, July 1972, 2-6. \ Welcher, Frank J. The Union Army, 1861-1865: Organization and Operations, Volume 1, The Eastern Theater. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1989. Wert, Jeffry E. 'The Snicker Gap War," Civil War Times Illustrated, 17, July 1978, 30-40. Civil War Defenses of Washington page41 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Wertz, Jay and Edwin C. Bearss. Smithsonian's Great Battles & Battlefields of the Civil War: A Definitive Field Guide Based on the Award-Winning Television Series by Master-Vision. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1997. Wheatley, William J. "Fort De Russy to be Restored: Surrounding Section in Rock Creek Park Being Cleared to Open Area," The Washington Star, Dec. 5, 1926; White, John C. "A Review of the Services of the Regular Army During the Civil War (Engineers)." Journal of the Military Service Institution of the United States, 45, September-October 1909, 226-29. White, Thomas E. "Washington and Environs-1865." Arlington Historical Magazine, 3, October 1968, 17-20.
Whitehome, Joseph W.A. The Battle of Second Manassas: Self-Guided Tour. Washington, DC: The Government Printing Office, 1990. Whitt, Jane Chapman. Elephants and Quake rt Guns: A History of Civil War and Circus Days. New York: Vantage Press, Inc., 1966. Whyte, James H. The Uncivil War: Washington during the Reconstruction 1865-78. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1958. Wiley. Bell I: The Life of Billy Yank: The Common Soldier of the Union. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1952.
Willett, James R. "A Method of Determining a Plane of Defilement." United States Service Magazine, l, June 1864, 618-21. Williams, Alpheus Seth. From the Cannon's Mouth: The Civil War Letters of General Alpheus S. Will iams. Edited l,,y Milo M. Quaife. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1959. Williams,_Ames W. ''The Location of Battery Rodgers." Echoes of History, 5, April 1975, 33-34. Williams, Ames W. "The Occupation of Alexandria." Virginia Cavalcade, 11, Winter 1961-62, 33-34. Williams, Eilliam Hazaiah. "The Negro in the District of Columbia during Reconstruction." The Howard (University) Review, 1, June 1924, 97-148. Williams, J.C. Life in Camp. New Hampshire: Claremont Manufacturing Co., 1884. Williams, Melvin Roscoe. "Blacks in Washington, D.C., 1860-1870." Ph.D. dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University, 1976. Williams, Melvin Roscoe. "A Blueprint for Change: The Black Community in Washington, D.C., 1860- 1870." Columbia Historical Society Records, Vols. 71-72, 1971-72, 358-93. Williams, William Hazaiah. ''The Negro in the District of Columbia During Reconstruction." M.A. th_esis, Howard University, 1924. ' Civil War Defenses of Washington page-42 Historic Resources Study Part I-Bibliography
Wills, Mary A. Confederate Batteries Along the Potomac. Commissioned by the Prince William County Historical Commission, June, 1978. Reprinted, 1983.
Wills, Mary A. The Confederate Blockade of Washington, D. C., 1861-1862. Parsons, WV: McClain Printing Co., 1975.
Wilshin, Francis F. Manassas (Bull Run) National Battlefield Park, Virginia, National Park Service Historical Handbook Series No. 15. Revised Edition.·washington, D.C.: The Government Printing Office, Manassas, 1957. Wilson, John M. "The Defenses of Washington, 1861-1865." #38 in The Washington, DC Commandery, The Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States. War Papers. Washington, DC: The Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States, 1901. Woodruff, Thomas M. "Early War Days in the Nation's Capital." In Commandery of Minnesota, Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States. Glimpses of the Nation's Struggle. Volume 3. New York: Merrill, 1893, 87-105. "World's Greatest Earthworks Protected Capital." The Sunday Washington Star, March 1, 1931, pages l- 2, 7. Worthington, Glenn H. Fighting For Time or the Battle that Saved Washington and Mayhap the Union. Reprint. Shippensburg, PA: Beidel Publishing House, Inc., 1985.
Wright,.David R. "Civil War Field Fortifications: An Analysis of Theory and Practical Application." M.A. thesis, Middle Tennessee State University, 1982. Young, John M. Excavations at Fort Lincoln, Washington, D.C. September 25, 1968. Youngberg, Gilbert A. History of Engineer Troops in the United States Army, 1775-1901, Engineer School Occasional Paper No. 37. Washington, DC: Press of the Engineer School, 1910. Yule, Heriry. Fortification for Officers of the Army and Students of Military History. London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1851.