DOCSLIB.ORG

War Comes to Scottsville by Richard L

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
War Comes to Scottsville by Richard L Scottsville Museum Newsletter Number 24 Page 4 War Comes to Scottsville By Richard L. Nicholas Next year will mark the 150th anniver- would end the peaceful solitude of sary of one of the most important Scottsville. events in the history of Scottsville since its official founding in 1818. It After leaving Winchester on Febru- was during the week of March 6-10, ary 27, 1865, and passing through 1865 that Scottsville was occupied by Harrisonburg, Staunton, and Union soldiers under the command of Waynesboro against minimal opposi- Civil War General Philip H. Sheridan. tion, Sheridan’s men spent the week- While the event was of little signifi- end of March 3-4-5 (Friday, Satur- cance within the context of the overall day, Sunday) in Charlottesville doing Civil War, it had an enormous, endur- considerable damage to the city and ing, and very personal impact on the surrounding area. On Monday morn- people of Scottsville and the neigh- ing, March 6, Sheridan split his com- boring countryside that were caught in mand into two columns, both with the path of ten thousand marauding the mission of destroying the James Yankee cavalrymen. What follows is a River and Kanawha Canal and summation of that historic tragedy continuing the destruction of the with emphasis on some of the people Virginia Central Railroad. in our community who were directly affected. General Philip Sheridan Sheridan and General George Arm- Courtesy of National Archives, strong Custer’s 3rd Division headed For almost four years, Scottsville and Washington, DC southwest along the Charlottesville- the surrounding area along the James Lynchburg rail line and parallel road, River in central Virginia had been Union General Ulysses S. Grant. wreaking havoc on the way. At the lucky. The Civil War had been raging same time, the three brigades of in other areas of the State since the Major General Thomas C. Devin’s first land battle of the war at Big Beth- At the beginning of 1865, Grant 1st Division took the road south to el near Hampton on June 10, 1861. developed a grand three-part strategy Scottsville and the James River. The Over the next three and one-half years to end the war. First, the Union Army plan was for the two divisions to reu- dozens of other battles and campaigns of the Potomac would maintain unre- nite near the town of New Market had been fought on the soil of the lenting pressure on Lee’s army (now Norwood) in Nelson County. eastern and northern parts of the Old around Richmond and Petersburg; The combined force would then Dominion and in the Shenandoah Val- second, General Sherman’s Army of cross the James River, continue on ley. As a result, most of those areas Tennessee was to attack northward south, and eventually meet Sher- had been thoroughly devastated and from Georgia into the Carolinas to- man’s Army moving north. wards Lee’s rear; and third, Sher- ravaged, and much of Virginia’s coun- tryside lay desolate, barren, and war- idan’s Army of the Shenandoah, con- sisting of 10,000 cavalrymen in two The first of Devin’s contingent to worn. arrive in Scottsville on Monday divisions, was ordered to raid south from Winchester up the Valley, and afternoon was Brigadier General All during this time, Scottsville had destroy the Virginia Central Railroad Alfred Gibbs’ Reserve Brigade been spared the physical destruction and the James River and Kanawha consisting mainly of men from so common elsewhere in the State. Canal. If successful, Sheridan’s Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and However, the town’s insulation from cavalry was then to cross the James Rhode Island. The other two the stark realities of war ended abrupt- brigades of the 1st Division, River, cut Lee’s communications ly in March of 1865 – only a month accompanied by Generals Devin west of Richmond, and join up with before the end of the conflict – as an and Wesley Merritt, passed through indirect consequence of orders from Sherman. It was Sheridan’s force that (Continued on page 5 Scottsville Museum Newsletter Number 24 Page 5 town later that day and proceeded up- -or-less charred by the intense heat. town. Livestock (especially horses), river along the canal tow path and riv- No accident or loss of life, however, forage, fowl, and food supplies were er road to Howardsville where they occurred. especially vulnerable to theft. A typi- camped for the night. cal example of the destruction in Scottsville was described by a soldier The residents of Scottsville would th Records indicate that most of the phys- probably have taken issue with Gibbs’ in the 7 Michigan Cavalry of Stagg’s ical damage in and around Scottsville assertion that only incidental damage Brigade: Here we captured a fleet of was inflicted between Monday after- was inflicted upon the civilian popula- canal boats loaded with supplies for noon and mid-day Tuesday by troopers tion. Albemarle County tax records Richmond. The fact that the Union of the Reserve Brigade assisted by at indicate that buildings were burned on forces were near at hand caused the least one Michigan regiment from at least eleven lots in Scottsville, and Rebel officer in charge to call on the Stagg’s Brigade. In his official report not all were of any military value. citizens of the town to carry away all of events in Scottsville on March 6th Seven of the buildings were located the flour and meat they could, so we and 7th, General Gibbs wrote the fol- on lots south of Main Street and adja- found many houses filled with these lowing: On the 6th marched without cent to the canal basin and consisted commodities, which were either de- transportation to Scottsville, twenty- of a collection of lumber warehouses, stroyed by us or issued in smaller one miles (from Charlottesville); some unidentified structures, and even quantities to the negroes and poor worked until midnight destroying the nearby Columbian Hotel. Far whites, who were in starving condi- James River Canal, locks, boats with greater damage was reported by the tion. Many queer experiences came subsistence supplies, and bridges. 7th, Chief Engineer of the James River and from searching the houses for con- burned woolen factory with a large Kanawha Canal who reported 26 cealed goods. One healthy woman quantity of cloth, candle factory with a houses “burnt” in Scottsville. was apparently at the point of death large amount of candles, lard-oil, etc; on a bed made on top of seven barrels large five-story flouring mill, with Gibbs also did not mention the fact of flour. flour, corn, and wheat; a large manu- that numerous eyewitness accounts factory, machine shops, and tobacco confirm that the soldiers administered A little publicized facet of Civil War warehouses. I regret that a few private significant plundering, pillaging, and history is that even the few citizens in dwellings, close to the mill, were more other atrocities upon many people in the South, who professed loyalty to R.B. Moon Map, 1873. Scottsville lots in red sustained “Injury by fire” during Sheridan’s Raid (Continued on page 6) according to the 1866 Albemarle Tax Book (Lots 3,4,5,6,17,18,19, 133, 140, 153, and 154). Scottsville Museum Newsletter Number 24 Page 6 (Continued from page 5) about four (4) days when they left that he did or suffered anything for they went in the direction of Rich- the cause,” and furthermore, he had the Federal government, were also mond.” sold five mules and a horse to the subjected to indiscriminate depreda- Confederate States government. tions by the invading Union armies. George W. Dillard was another self- As a result, in 1871 Congress created proclaimed Union loyalist with a Virginia Moore wrote that in addi- the Southern Claims Commission to Scottsville address, who claimed to tion to his farm near Glendower, investigate such cases throughout the have suffered damages from Sher- Dillard also owned the old house secessionist states and to compensate idan’s men and that he had been known as “Chester” located on the purported “loyalists” for any damag- appointed Postmaster by the Grant hill above Scottsville. However, he es they may have suffered. Administration. Dillard submitted a apparently did not move to “Chester” claim on October 30, 1872, for $300 until after the war. Dillard’s pro- One individual from Scottsville with for one large sorrel horse and one Union allegiance must not have been Union sympathies who made a re- bay horse taken about March 9. much of a hindrance to his ac- quest for compensation was Joseph ceptance in the community because W. Wyatt, an ex-slave, who had Dillard stated that he lived on a in the post-war years, he went on to bought his freedom from his owner hundred-acre farm about four miles become a prominent citizen and in Mathews County for $650. He from Scottsville (believed to have property owner in and around testified that he had lived in Fluvan- been near Glendower) and “had Scottsville. na until June 1862 before moving to nothing against the Government of Scottsville, and that he had no con- the United States.” Furthermore, “I The last of Devin’s horsemen depart- nection to the Confederate Govern- was threatened to be hanged and shot ed Scottsville by mid-day Tuesday ment. Wyatt submitted a claim on on account of my Union sentiments. (March 7) and moved up the James May 24, 1874, for $254.62 for a I had a pistol pointed at my head and River along the canal tow path and horse, 14 barrels of flour, 150 a knife at my side.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Collection Focuses on Important Pieces of 19Th-Century Texas Silver
    YA L E UNIVERSITY A R T PRESS For Immediate Release GALLERY RELEASE August 15, 2017 SELECTIONS FROM THE WILLIAM J. HILL COLLECTION ON VIEW AT THE YALE UNIVERSITY ART GALLERY Collection focuses on important pieces of 19th-century Texas silver August 15, 2017, New Haven, Conn.—The Yale University Art Gallery is pleased to present an installation of twenty-seven pieces of Texas silver lent by Houston businessman and philanthropist William J. Hill. The silver will be on view through December 10, 2017, in the museum’s gallery devoted to the arts of New France, New Spain, and Texas, on the first floor of Street Hall. Hill has been an enthusiastic collector of Texas-made objects and a gener- ous donor of Texas-made furniture, ceramics, and other works of art to the Gallery, some of View of the installation of Texas silver lent by William J. Hill, which are shown alongside the silver. American decorative arts galleries, Yale University Art Gallery The history of the territory that became the state of Texas is complex. Spanish conquista- dors arrived in Texas in the 16th century, and by the late 17th century the Spanish had established an outpost at El Paso. At the same time, France was vying with Spain over control of the land in the Mississippi Valley, including the area called Texas. When Mexico won its independence from Spain in 1821, Texas became part of Mexico. Following a revolt against the Mexican government in 1835 to 1836, Texas became a republic, although Mexico did not recognize it. The United States annexed Texas as a state in 1845, and at the conclusion of the Mexican-American War in 1848, Mexico acknowledged its independence.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil War Generals Buried in Spring Grove Cemetery by James Barnett
    Spring Grove Cemetery, once characterized as blending "the elegance of a park with the pensive beauty of a burial-place," is the final resting- place of forty Cincinnatians who were generals during the Civil War. Forty For the Union: Civil War Generals Buried in Spring Grove Cemetery by James Barnett f the forty Civil War generals who are buried in Spring Grove Cemetery, twenty-three had advanced from no military experience whatsoever to attain the highest rank in the Union Army. This remarkable feat underscores the nature of the Northern army that suppressed the rebellion of the Confed- erate states during the years 1861 to 1865. Initially, it was a force of "inspired volunteers" rather than a standing army in the European tradition. Only seven of these forty leaders were graduates of West Point: Jacob Ammen, Joshua H. Bates, Sidney Burbank, Kenner Garrard, Joseph Hooker, Alexander McCook, and Godfrey Weitzel. Four of these seven —Burbank, Garrard, Mc- Cook, and Weitzel —were in the regular army at the outbreak of the war; the other three volunteered when the war started. Only four of the forty generals had ever been in combat before: William H. Lytle, August Moor, and Joseph Hooker served in the Mexican War, and William H. Baldwin fought under Giuseppe Garibaldi in the Italian civil war. This lack of professional soldiers did not come about by chance. When the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787, its delegates, who possessed a vast knowledge of European history, were determined not to create a legal basis for a standing army. The founding fathers believed that the stand- ing armies belonging to royalty were responsible for the endless bloody wars that plagued Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • “Never Was I So Depressed”
    The Army of Northern Virginia in the Gettysburg Campaign “Never Was I So Depressed” James Longstreet and Pickett’s Charge Karlton D. Smith On July 24, 1863, Lt. Gen. James Longstreet wrote a private letter to his uncle, Augusts Baldwin Longstreet. In discussing his role in the Gettysburg Campaign, the general stated: General Lee chose the plan adopted, and he is the person appointed to chose and to order. I consider it a part of my duty to express my views to the commanding general. If he approves and adopts them it is well; if he does not, it is my duty to adopt his views, and to execute his orders as faithfully as if they were my own. While clearly not approving Lee’s plan of attack on July 3, Longstreet did everything he could, both before and during the attack, to ensure its success.1 Born in 1821, James Longstreet was an 1842 graduate of West Point. An “Old Army” regular, Longstreet saw extensive front line combat service in the Mexican War in both the northern and southern theaters of operations. Longstreet led detachments that helped to capture two of the Mexican forts guarding Monterey and was involved in the street fighting in the city. At Churubusco, Longstreet planted the regimental colors on the walls of the fort and saw action at Casa Marta, near Molino del Ray. On August 13, 1847, Longstreet was wounded during the assault on Chapaltepec while “in the act of discharging the piece of a wounded man." The same report noted that during the action, "He was always in front with the colors.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Civil War: a War of Logistics
    THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR: A WAR OF LOGISTICS Franklin M. Welter A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS December 2015 Committee: Rebecca Mancuso, Advisor Dwayne Beggs © 2015 Franklin M. Welter All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Rebecca Mancuso, Advisor The American Civil War was the first modern war. It was fought with weapons capable of dealing death on a scale never before seen. It was also the first war which saw the widespread use of the railroad. Across the country men, materials, and supplies were transported along the iron rails which industrial revolution swept in. Without the railroads, the Union would have been unable to win the war. All of the resources, men, and materials available to the North mean little when they cannot be shipped across the great expanse which was the North during the Civil War. The goals of this thesis are to examine the roles and issues faced by seemingly independent people in very different situations during the war, and to investigate how the problems which these people encountered were overcome. The first chapter, centered in Ohio, gives insight into the roles which noncombatants played in the process. Farmers, bakers, and others behind the lines. Chapter two covers the journey across the rails, the challenges faced, and how they were overcome. This chapter looks at how those in command handled the railroad, how it affected the battles, especially Gettysburg, and how the railroads were defended over the course of the war, something which had never before needed to be considered.
    [Show full text]
  • The Battle of Sailor's Creek
    THE BATTLE OF SAILOR’S CREEK: A STUDY IN LEADERSHIP A Thesis by CLOYD ALLEN SMITH JR. Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS December 2005 Major Subject: History THE BATTLE OF SAILOR’S CREEK: A STUDY IN LEADERSHIP A Thesis by CLOYD ALLEN SMITH JR. Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Approved by: Chair of Committee, Joseph Dawson Committee Members, James Bradford Joseph Cerami Head of Department, Walter L. Buenger December 2005 Major Subject: History iii ABSTRACT The Battle of Sailor’s Creek: A Study in Leadership. (December 2005) Cloyd Allen Smith Jr., B.A., Slippery Rock University Chair: Dr. Joseph Dawson The Battle of Sailor’s Creek, 6 April 1865, has been overshadowed by Lee’s surrender at Appomattox Court House several days later, yet it is an example of the Union military war machine reaching its apex of war making ability during the Civil War. Through Ulysses S. Grant’s leadership and that of his subordinates, the Union armies, specifically that of the Army of the Potomac, had been transformed into a highly motivated, organized and responsive tool of war, led by confident leaders who understood their commander’s intent and were able to execute on that intent with audacious initiative in the absence of further orders. After Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia escaped from Petersburg and Richmond on 2 April 1865, Grant’s forces chased after Lee’s forces with the intent of destroying the mighty and once feared iv protector of the Confederate States in the hopes of bringing a swift end to the long war.
    [Show full text]
  • Meigs Chapter 8
    CHAPTER 8—1861 [FEB.] 20TH. To Washington, where I had again the happiness of em- bracing my wife and children. Finding them all well and rejoiced, like myself, to be once more together. As I left Washington on the 22nd of October, I have been just 4 months absent, less 2 days. [FEB.] 21ST. To Engineer office. General Totten took me over to see the Secretary, 1 who received me most kindly. Complimented me upon my conduct and said he was glad to see me back again in Washington, in my right place. He told me that Floyd had told the cabinet that he had a long rigamarole of a letter from Captain Meigs, that pestilent fellow who got trouble wherever he went, and that it was perfectly ridiculous that he wanted men and guns to defend the Tortugas and some heap of rocks, perfectly indefensible. And the cabinet, not being prepared to expect false representations from one of their colleagues, believed him, thought me a silly fellow, and did not read my letters. Soon after Floyd’s exposure, General Scott 2 came. One of the first things he called attention to was the great importance of holding with sufficient garrison and stores the fortress of the Tortugas and of great asset. Then Floyd’s speech about my letters was told to him. He ad- vised them to read my reports, that he had a letter from me which was very much to the point and not at all rigamarole. On reading them, Mr. Holt says he is astonished at the vision they showed.
    [Show full text]
  • "Rebels to the Core": Memphians Under William T. Sherman
    "Rebels to the Core": Memphians under William T. Sherman By John Bordelon Tis idle to talk about Union men here. Many want Peace, and fear war & its results but all prefer a Southern Independent Government, and are fighting or working for it. Major General William T. Sherman 1 Memphis, Tennessee, August 11, 1862 Citizens representing various segments of Memphis society, from a southern judge to daring "lady smugglers," engaged in unconventional warfare against the occupying Union presence under Major General William Tecumseh Sherman. White Memphians resisted Federal occupation and aided the Confederacy by smuggling goods, harboring spies, manipulating trade, burning cotton, attacking steamers, and expressing ideological opposition through the judicial system. In occupied Memphis, Sherman never confronted a conventional army. Instead, he faced relentless opposition from civilians sympathetic to the Confederacy. Previous scholarship on Memphis during the Civil War treats examines the city's experience from numerous angles.2 However, the extent of civilian devotion to the Confederacy and willingness to actively pursue their cause deserves further exploration. Focusing on the actions of pro-Confederate Memphians during one officers tenure in the occupied city allows for a more intimate understanding of the character of the city during wartime. Because of a shortage of extant writings of Memphians during the war, the correspondence of W T. Sherman provides valuable insight into the experience of the city in 1862. 1 W T. Sherman to Salmon P. Chase, August 11, 1862, as published in Brooks D. Simpson and Jean V. Berlin, eds., Sherman's Civil Wftr: Selected Correspondence ofWilliam T Sherman, 1860-1865 (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1999), 270.
    [Show full text]
  • Military Challenges in the Union Army and Lincoln's Call for a Militia
    Armstrong Undergraduate Journal of History Volume 10 Issue 1 Article 2 4-2020 An Unguaranteed Victory: Military Challenges in the Union Army and Lincoln’s Call for a Militia Madelaine Setiawan Lee University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/aujh Part of the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Setiawan, Madelaine (2020) "An Unguaranteed Victory: Military Challenges in the Union Army and Lincoln’s Call for a Militia," Armstrong Undergraduate Journal of History: Vol. 10 : Iss. 1 , Article 2. DOI: 10.20429/aujh.2020.100102 Available at: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/aujh/vol10/iss1/2 This article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. It has been accepted for inclusion in Armstrong Undergraduate Journal of History by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Setiawan: An Unguaranteed Victory An Unguaranteed Victory: Military Challenges in the Union Army and Lincoln’s Call for a Militia Madelaine Setiawan Lee University (Cleveland, Tennessee) At the outbreak of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) called for 75,000 volunteers to suppress the Confederacy. The secession of eleven southern states and the bombardment of Fort Sumter officially began the Civil War. Because of the United States’ reliance on an expandable army during wartime, Lincoln was mandated to release a proclamation calling for volunteers. Most men who called southern states home had withdrawn from the Union to fight against it, and while each Confederate soldier had different motives for their enlistment, their withdrawal meant that the Union lacked men to fight for their army.
    [Show full text]
  • Background: Appomattox
    Unit 3: Appomattox Classroom Resources Background: Appomattox During the Civil War, the Confederacy had its own constitution, its own president, and its own capital city in Richmond, Virginia. The Confederate government met there, and President Jefferson Davis lived in a mansion called the White House of the Confederacy. Three years into the war, Ulysses S. Grant led a massive campaign to capture this city, believing it would defeat the South for good. Grant chose not to attack the well-defended capital directly. Instead, he focused on Petersburg, about 20 miles to the south. Most of Richmond’s supplies came through this city. Beginning in the summer of 1864, Union forces lay siege to Petersburg, destroying highways, railroads, and bridges. Confederate forces under General Robert E. Lee defended Petersburg from a line of trenches, but they were badly outnumbered. The Confederate Congress debated whether to arm slaves to fight as soldiers, which would have increased the size of the Army dramatically, but the decision to do so came too late to affect the outcome of the war. In March 1865, General Lee proposed to Jefferson Davis that the Army abandon Petersburg, sacrifice Richmond, and escape to merge with General Joe Johnston’s 20,000 troops in North Carolina. Free of the need to defend the cities, the combined force could continue the war for as long as it took to win. This is just what Grant feared might happen as he continued the siege of Petersburg. On March 30 and 31, 1865, Federal forces tried repeatedly to destroy the last rail link from Petersburg to Richmond.
    [Show full text]
  • Finding Aid (704.4 Kb )
    Ulysses S. Grant Presidential Library Finding Aid for Series III: Unpublished Materials The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant Collection January 4, 1868 – March 9, 1869 Finding Aid Created: October 8, 2020 Searching Instructions for Series III: Unpublished Materials, of the Papers of Ulysses S. Grant Collection When searching for names in Series III: Unpublished Materials of the Papers of Ulysses S. Grant Collection, the researcher must take note of the manner in which the Papers of Ulysses Grant editorial project maintained its files. Names of individuals who often corresponded with, for, or about General Grant were shortened to their initials for the sake of brevity. In most instances, these individuals will be found by searching for their initials (however, this may not always be the case; searching the individual’s last name may yield additional results). The following is a list of individuals who appear often in the files, and, as such, will be found by searching their initials: Arthur, Chester Alan CAA Jones, Joseph Russell JRJ Babcock, Orville Elias (Aide) OEB Lagow, Clark B. CBL Badeau, Adam AB Lee, Robert Edward REL Banks, Nathaniel Prentiss NPB Lincoln, Abraham AL Bowers, Theodore S. (Aide) TSB McClernand, John Alexander JAM Buell, Don Carlos DCB McPherson, James Birdseye JBM Burnside, Ambrose Everett AEB Meade, George Gordon GGM Butler, Benjamin Franklin BFB Meigs, Montgomery Cunningham MCM Childs, George W. GWC Ord, Edward Ortho Cresap ORD Colfax, Schuyler SC Parke, John Grubb JGP Comstock, Cyrus B. CBC Parker, Ely Samuel ESP Conkling, Roscoe RC Porter, David Dixon DDP Corbin, Abel Rathbone ARC Porter, Horace (Aide) HP Corbin, Virginia Grant VGC Rawlins, John Aaron JAR Cramer, Mary Grant MGC Rosecrans, William Starke WSR Cramer, Michael J.
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Fillmore
    New Mexico Historical Review Volume 6 Number 4 Article 2 10-1-1931 Fort Fillmore M. L. Crimmins Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmhr Recommended Citation Crimmins, M. L.. "Fort Fillmore." New Mexico Historical Review 6, 4 (1931). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmhr/vol6/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in New Mexico Historical Review by an authorized editor of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. NEW MEXICO HISTORICAL REVIEW -'.~'-""----""'-'-'.'~ ... --- _.--'- . .--.~_._ ..._.._----., ...._---_._-_._--- --~----_.__ ..- ... _._._... Vol. VI. OCTOBER, 1931 No.4. --_. -'- ."- ---_._---_._- _._---_._---..--. .. .-, ..- .__.. __ .. _---------- - ------_.__._-_.-_... --- - - .._.....- .. - FORT FILLMORE By COLONEL M. L. CRIMMINS ABOUT thirty-eight miles from El Paso, on the road to Las I"l.. Cruces on Highway No. 80, we pass a sign on the rail­ road marked "Fort Fillmore." About a mile east of this point are the ruins of old Fort Fillmore, which at one time was an important strategical point on the Mexican border. In 1851, the troops were moved from Camp Concordia, now I El Paso, and established at this point, and the fort was named after President Millard Fillmore. Fdrt Fillmore was about three miles southeast of Mesilla, which at that time was the largest town in the neighborhood, El Paso hav~ng only about thirty Americans and some two hundred Mexicans.
    [Show full text]
  • John Chapman's Early Life John Chapman Was Apparently Born in Belfast, Ireland in 1845
    A CIVIL WAR SOLDIER'S MARK AT ARLINGTON HOUSE By George Dodge* On May 24, 1861 , Union forces crossed the Long Bridge into Virginia and occupied Arlington Heights and the city of Alexandria. The advance met no resistance as Union soldiers marched through the forests of oak and elm of Arlington Heights. After climbing the rolling hills of the estate of Mary Custis Lee and Robert E. Lee, a Union regiment, the Eighth New York Militia, bivouacked at Arlington House. 1 Arlington House was well known to Union soldiers as the home of General Robert E. Lee, Commanding General of all Confederate forces in the eastern theater of the Civil War after June 1, 1862. Since Lee had refused an offer to command the Union army, and resigned his commission with the U.S Army and had become, instead, a general in the Confederate Army he was considered, by many, a traitor. Nevertheless, Union Generals Irvin McDowell and Charles W. Sandford, in an effort to protect the Lees' prop­ erty, stationed officers inside Arlington House. In addition, guards were positioned outside the mansion. 2 In spite of that security, a Union soldier by the name of John Chapman managed to enter Arlington House and ascend two stairwells to the attic. In the Arlington House attic, John Chapman left his mark for future generations. John Chapman's Early Life John Chapman was apparently born in Belfast, Ireland in 1845. He arrived in Philadelphia from Liverpool, England, on June 18, 1852, nearing the age of seven. He had accompanied his twenty-eight year-old mother, Henrietta Chapman, on the ship "City of Glasgow." Their possessions consisted of three pieces of luggage.
    [Show full text]