DOCSLIB.ORG

A Comparison of Field Methods at Camp Lawton (9JS1)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Comparison of Field Methods at Camp Lawton (9JS1) Georgia Southern University Digital Commons@Georgia Southern Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies, Jack N. Averitt College of Spring 2016 A Comparison of Field Methods at Camp Lawton (9JS1) William C. Brant Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Brant, William C. 2016 A Comparison of Field Methods at Camp Lawton (9JS1). M.A. Thesis, Jack N. Averitt College of Graduate Studies, Georgia Southern University. This thesis (open access) is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies, Jack N. Averitt College of at Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 A COMPARISON OF FIELD METHODS AT CAMP LAWTON (9JS1) by WILLIAM C. BRANT (Under the Direction of Sue M. Moore) Camp Lawton was a Confederate POW Camp located in Jenkins County, Georgia during the latter part of the Civil War. This research uses shovel testing, metal detection, magnetometry, soil phosphate analysis, and terrestrial LiDAR scanning to attempt to ascertain which method, or combination of methods, is more effective on mid-19th century components in the Georgia Coastal Plain. Findings were inconclusive, but indicate that shovel testing and metal detection are the more effective methods. Data also suggest that areas of Confederate occupation at Camp Lawton probably covered a much larger area than previously anticipated. INDEX WORDS:Index Term: Camp Lawton, 9JS1, Jenkins County, Magnolia Springs State Park, Bo Ginn National Fish Hatchery, Civil War, Shovel Testing, Metal Detection, Magnetometry, Phosphate Analysis, Terrestrial LiDAR, Archaeology 2 A COMPARISON OF FIELD METHODS AT CAMP LAWTON (9JS1) by WILLIAM C. BRANT B.A., Georgia Southern University, 2011 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Georgia Southern University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS STATESBORO, GEORGIA 3 © 2016 WILLIAM C. BRANT All Rights Reserved 4 A COMPARISON OF FIELD METHODS AT CAMP LAWTON (9JS1) by WILLIAM C. BRANT Major Professor: Sue M. Moore Committee: Lance K. Greene M. Jared Wood Electronic Version Approved: May 2016 5 Table of Contents Chapter 1 - Introduction ......................................................................................................... 12 Chapter 2 - Civil War Prisoner of War Camps ...................................................................... 14 Chapter 3 - The Archaeology of Civil War Military Prisons ................................................ 18 Camp Lawton (9JS1) ......................................................................................................... 19 Florence Stockade (38FL2) ............................................................................................... 29 Camp Sumter ..................................................................................................................... 36 Chapter 4 - Test Areas ........................................................................................................... 40 Area 4 ................................................................................................................................. 41 Area 5 ................................................................................................................................. 43 Area 6 ................................................................................................................................. 47 Area 7 ................................................................................................................................. 48 Chapter 5 - Field Methods ..................................................................................................... 51 Shovel Testing ................................................................................................................... 53 Metal Detection ................................................................................................................. 54 Magnetometry .................................................................................................................... 56 Phosphate Analysis ............................................................................................................ 60 LiDAR ............................................................................................................................... 63 Excavation Units ................................................................................................................ 66 Chapter 6 - Results ................................................................................................................. 68 6 Shovel Testing ................................................................................................................... 68 Metal Detection ................................................................................................................. 68 Magnetometry .................................................................................................................... 69 Phosphate Analysis ............................................................................................................ 69 LiDAR ............................................................................................................................... 70 Excavation Units ................................................................................................................ 70 Area 4 ................................................................................................................................. 70 Area 5 ................................................................................................................................. 94 Area 6 ............................................................................................................................... 110 Area 7 ............................................................................................................................... 121 Chapter 7 - Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 136 References Cited .................................................................................................................. 140 APPENDIX A – Soil Phosphate Analyses ....................................................................... cxlvii APPENDIX B – Artifact List ............................................................................................... clv APPENDIX C – Mehlich-3 Process .................................................................................. clviii APPENDIX D – Structural Feature Artifact List from Florence Stockade (38FL2) ........... clx APPENDIX E – Magnetometer Survey Report ............................................................... clxxiv 7 List of Tables Table 1: Methods applied to test areas .................................................................................. 51 Table 2: Metal detection artifact recovery by area ................................................................ 68 Table 3: Average soil phosphate values by area .................................................................... 69 Table 4: List of positive shovel-test pits in Area 4 ................................................................ 73 Table 5: Artifacts recovered from Area 4 metal detection survey ......................................... 75 Table 6: Area 4 soil phosphate values over 2 mg/kg ............................................................. 80 Table 7: List of positive shovel-tests pits in Area 5 .............................................................. 98 Table 8: Artifacts from test Unit 18 ..................................................................................... 110 Table 9: Artifacts from Area 6 metal detection survey ....................................................... 115 Table 10: Area 6 soil phosphate values over 2 mg/kg ......................................................... 117 Table 11: List of artifact from Area 7 metal detection survey ............................................ 126 Table 12: Soil phosphate values for Area 4 ........................................................................... cli Table 13: Soil phosphate values for Area 5 .......................................................................... clii Table 14: Soil phosphate values for Area 6 ......................................................................... cliii Table 15: Soil phosphate values for Area 7 ......................................................................... cliv Table 16: FS List ................................................................................................................ clvii Table 17: List of artifacts from Florence Stockade feature 85 ............................................ clxi Table 18: List of artifacts from Florence Stockade feature 93 ........................................... clxii Table 19: List of artifacts from Florence Stockade feature 95 .......................................... clxiii Table 20: List of artifacts from Florence Stockade feature 212 ........................................ clxiv Table 21: List of artifacts from Florence Stockade feature 216 ........................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Civil War to Civil Rights Commemoration
    National Park Service U.S Department of the Interior Washington Support Office: Cultural Resources, Partnerships and Science Interpretation, Education and Volunteers Civil War to Civil Rights Commemoration Summary Report DEDICATION This report honors all those who suffered and died in this nation’s struggles for freedom and equality. It is also dedicated to our colleague, Tim Sinclair, who was taken from us too soon. Timothy D. Sinclair, Sr. (1974-2016) Chief of Interpretation Selma to Montgomery NHT Tuskegee Airmen NHS and Tuskegee Institute NHS You took us on a walk from Selma to Montgomery. To keep your vision and memory alive, “We’re still marching!” Silent sentinels stood watch for 22 hours to commemorate the 22 hours of combat that took place at Spotsylvania’s Bloody Angle. FREDERICKSBURG AND SPOTSYLVANIA NMP Cover Graphic: Courtesy of Chris Barr FOREWORD The Civil War to Civil Rights Commemoration has been quite a journey. Thanks to all of you who helped make it a meaningful and memorable one for our country. We hope our efforts have helped Americans understand the connection between these two epic periods of time as a continuous march toward freedom and equality for all–a march that continues still today. Along the way, perhaps the National Park Service learned something about itself, as well. When we first began planning for this commemorative journey, there were several Civil War parks that had difficultly acknowledging slavery as the cause of the war. Both Civil War sites and civil rights sites questioned whether a combined “Civil War to Civil Rights” Commemoration would water down and weaken each.
    [Show full text]
  • CSRA Regionally Important Resources Plan
    CENTRAL SAVANNAH RIVER AREA REGIONAL COMMISSION Regionally Important Resources Plan Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................4 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................4 Natural Resources ..............................................................................................................................7 Natural Resources: Parks & Forested Areas .............................................................................9 Magnolia Springs State Park ................................................................................................. 11 Elijah Clark State Park ............................................................................................................ 12 A.H. Stephens Memorial State Park ..................................................................................... 13 Hamburg State Park ................................................................................................................ 14 Mistletoe State Park ................................................................................................................ 15 Natural Resources: Wildlife Management Areas .................................................................. 17 Clarks Hill Wildlife Management Area ............................................................................... 18 Di-Lane
    [Show full text]
  • Integrating Innovation with Preservation
    Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021: INTEGRATING www.georgiashpo.org INNOVATION WITH Historic Preservation Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 2017 PRESERVATION Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021: INTEGRATING INNOVATION WITH PRESERVATION Historic Preservation Division JEWETT CENTER FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION 2610 GA HWY 155, SW Georgia Department of Natural Resources STOCKBRIDGE, GEORGIA 30281 www.georgiashpo.org 2017 770.389.7844 Credits Editor: Jennifer Dixon Principal Authors: With Contributions From: Jennifer Dixon Allison Asbrock William Hover Rachel Black Stephanie Cherry-Farmer Layout and Design: New South Associates, Inc. David Crass Barbara Fisher Photography: Jeff Harrison HPD staff unless otherwise noted Melissa Jest Rachel Rice Historic Preservation Planning Team: Lynn Speno David Crass Jennifer Dixon Bryan Tucker William Hover Bryan Tucker Note: The quotations throughout were taken from responses to the 2017-2021 Georgia State Historic Preservation Plan public input survey conducted in 2015. Department of Natural Resources Mark Williams, Commissioner Historic Preservation Division David Crass, Director Allison Asbrock, Jennifer Bedell, Rachel Black, Aimee Bouzigard, Stephanie Cherry-Farmer, Jennifer Dixon, Kim Feagler, Raluca Filimon, Barbara Fisher, Jeff Harrison, Josh Headlee, William Hover, Laura Beth Ingle, Melissa Jest, Sarah Love, Dona McKenzie, Molly McLamb, Susan Pursell, Rachel Rice, Meg Richardson, Leslie Spencer, Lynn Speno, Bryan Tucker, Katie Twomey, Debbie Wallsmith,
    [Show full text]
  • The Sensory Environments of Civil War Prisons
    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Theses and Dissertations 2015 The eS nsory Environments of Civil War Prisons Evan A. Kutzler University of South Carolina Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Kutzler, E. A.(2015). The Sensory Environments of Civil War Prisons. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/3572 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you by Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE SENSORY ENVIRONMENTS OF CIVIL WAR PRISONS by Evan A. Kutzler Bachelor of Arts Centre College, 2010 Master of Arts University of South Carolina, 2012 _____________________________________________ Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History College of Arts and Sciences University of South Carolina 2015 Accepted by: Mark M. Smith, Major Professor Don Doyle, Committee Member Lacy K. Ford, Committee Member Stephen Berry, Committee Member Lacy K. Ford, Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies © Copyright by Evan A. Kutzler, 2015 All Rights Reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Neither the sound of bells, nor the smell of privies, nor the feeling of lice factored into my imagined dissertation when I matriculated at the University of South Carolina in 2010. The Civil War, however, had always loomed large. As a child, my mother often took me metal detecting in the woods, fields, and streams of middle Tennessee in what became our shared hobby. An early lesson in sensory history occurred one summer in a cow pasture (with owner’s permission) along the Nashville and Decatur Railroad.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Statements
    Michelle Delaney Director, Smithsonian Consortium for Understanding the American Experience Office of the Under Secretary for History, Art, and Culture Smithsonian Institution [email protected] 202-633-3810 Civil War Sesquicentennial Working Group, NCPH--April 19, 2012 Case Study: Smithsonian Civil War 150 The Smithsonian Civil War 150 project is a collaborative, interdisciplinary, pan-Institutional initiative coordinating the Civil War commemorative exhibitions, educational programs and tours, symposia, publications, documentaries, podcasts, digitization initiatives, web and social media projects, and app being produced by scholars and educators at Smithsonian museums and research centers 2011-2015. The Smithsonian Civil War 150 steering committee was formed to encourage open and active collaboration between the Smithsonian units currently planning Sesquicentennial projects, including the Consortium for Understanding the American Experience, National Museum of American History, National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian American Art Museum, National Museum of African American History and Culture, National Museum of the American Indian, National Museum of Natural History, National Air and Space Museum, Anacostia Community Museum, Smithsonian Institution Archives, Smithsonian Libraries, Smithsonian Folkways, Smithsonian Networks, Smithsonian Books, Smithsonian Magazine, Smithsonian Journeys, and The Smithsonian Associates and Resident Associate Program. Smithsonian Civil War 150 projects explore the unique Civil War collections held at the Institution, the social, cultural, and technological impact of the war, and the history of the Institution during the war. Smithsonian historians and educators are interested in building new partnerships with national and international organizations, and developing innovative ways to present and interpret collections, and archive projects during the Sesquicentennial. During the American Civil War 1861-1865, the Smithsonian Castle stood as the only building representing the young Institution, and where history unfolded.
    [Show full text]
  • Comfortable Camps: Archaeology of the Confederate Guard Camp at the Florence Stockade
    Comfortable Camps: Archaeology of the Confederate Guard Camp at the Florence Stockade This teaching lesson is modeled after those associated with the NPS Teaching with Historic Places program. It was developed as part of mitigation associated with NCA’s expansion of Florence National Cemetery in 2008. It was prepared by MACTEC Engineering and Consulting of Knoxville, TN, in consultation with NCA staff. Comfortable Camps: Archaeology of the Confederate Guard Camp at the Florence Stockade The Florence Stockade was constructed in September 1864 in a large field surrounded by dense pine forest and forbidding swamps near Florence, South Carolina. Built on a similar pattern to the prison at Camp Sumter in Andersonville, Georgia, the stockade consisted of a large rectangular opening surrounded by walls built with vertical logs. The prison population peaked at approximately 15,000, and of these, nearly 2,800 died in captivity. The dead were buried in long trenches that formed the nucleus of what is now the Florence National Cemetery. The prisoners were guarded by a mix of regular Confederate Army troops and South Carolina State Reservists. One of these was Thomas J. Eccles of the 3rd Battalion, South Carolina State Reserves. Eccles wrote a column for a local newspaper during his service as a guard at the Florence Stockade and described many of the aspects of life at a rear- echelon post, including available shelter and rations. On November 11, 1864, Eccles described their camp as follows: The police regulations are ample, and the men have constructed for themselves as comfortable camps as circumstances allow, being without plank or nails.
    [Show full text]
  • National Park Service Cultural Landscapes Inventory Andersonville Memorial Landscape Andersonville National Historic Site 2010
    National Park Service Cultural Landscapes Inventory 2010 Andersonville Memorial Landscape Andersonville National Historic Site Table of Contents Inventory Unit Summary & Site Plan Concurrence Status Geographic Information and Location Map Management Information National Register Information Chronology & Physical History Analysis & Evaluation of Integrity Condition Treatment Bibliography & Supplemental Information Andersonville Memorial Landscape Andersonville National Historic Site Inventory Unit Summary & Site Plan Inventory Summary The Cultural Landscapes Inventory Overview: CLI General Information: Purpose and Goals of the CLI The Cultural Landscapes Inventory (CLI) is an evaluated inventory of all significant landscapes in units of the national park system in which the National Park Service has, or plans to acquire any enforceable legal interest. Landscapes documented through the CLI are those that individually meet criteria set forth in the National Register of Historic Places such as historic sites, historic designed landscapes, and historic vernacular landscapes or those that are contributing elements of properties that meet the criteria. In addition, landscapes that are managed as cultural resources because of law, policy, or decisions reached through the park planning process even though they do not meet the National Register criteria, are also included in the CLI. The CLI serves three major purposes. First, it provides the means to describe cultural landscapes on an individual or collective basis at the park, regional, or service-wide level. Secondly, it provides a platform to share information about cultural landscapes across programmatic areas and concerns and to integrate related data about these resources into park management. Thirdly, it provides an analytical tool to judge accomplishment and accountability. The legislative, regulatory, and policy direction for conducting the CLI include: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470h-2(a)(1)).
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
    NPS Form 10-900 0MB No. 10244018 (Rev. W6) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK NOMINATION This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations of eligibility for individual properties or districts. See instructions in Guidelines for Completing National Register Forms (National Register Bulletin 16). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the requested information. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, styles, materials, and areas of significance, enter only the categories and subcategories listed in the instructions. For additional space use continuation sheets (Form 10-900a). Type all entries. 1. Name of Property historic name Johnson's Island Civil War Prison_________________________________ other names/site number N/A___________________________________________________ 2. Location street & number N/A I I not for publication N/A city, town Johnson T s Island, Danbury Township I I vicinity N/A state Ohio code OH county Ottawa code 123 zip code 43440 (mailing address; Lakeside-Marblehead) 3. Classification Ownership of Property Category of Property Number of Resources within Property UTI private I I building(s) Contributing Noncontributing rn public-local HX] district 249 buildings I I public-State [Usite ___1_ sites fx1 public-Federal I I structure ____ structures I I object _ _ objects __21Q_ Total Name of related multiple property listing: Number of contributing resources previously N/A 1 4. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this I I nomination I I request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60.
    [Show full text]
  • Tennesseearchaeology
    TTEENNNNEESSSSEEEE AARRCCHHAAEEOOLLOOGGYY Volume 4 Summu er 2009 Numbers 1-2 EDITORIAL COORDINATORS Michael C. Moore TTEENNNNEESSSSEEEE AARRCCHHAAEEOOLLOOGGYY Tennessee Division of Archaeology Kevin E. Smith VOLUME 4 Summer 2009 NUMBERS 1-2 Middle Tennessee State University 1 EDITORS CORNER EDITORIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2 Colleague, Mentor, and Friend: Essays in Honor David Anderson of Charles H. Faulkner University of Tennessee TIMOTHY E. BAUMANN AND MARK D. GROOVER 13 Sifting through the Backdirt: An Interview with Patrick Cummins Charles H. Faulkner Alliance for Native American Indian Rights TIMOTHY E. BAUMANN AND CHARLES H. FAULKNER Aaron Deter-Wolf ARTICLES Tennessee Division of Archaeology 25 Understanding Historic Farmstead Continuity and Change Using Human Behavioral Ecology Jay Franklin TODD M. AHLMAN East Tennessee State University 48 Camps Tolerably Well Policed: Artifact Patterns Phillip Hodge and Feature Function at the Florence Stockade Tennessee Department of Transportation PAUL G. AVERY 66 The Web of Cultural Identity: A Case Study of Zada Law African-American Identity and "Soul Food" Ashland City, Tennessee TIMOTHY E. BAUMANN 94 Early Archaic Raw Material Use Patterns in Larry McKee Tennessee TRC, Inc. ANDREW P. BRADBURY AND PHILIP J. CARR 117 Social Change and Neighborhood Katherine Mickelson Transformations in the Late Nineteenth and Early Rhodes College Twentieth Centuries: The Urban Archaeology of Sarah Sherwood Three Communities in the Ohio Valley Dickinson College TANYA A. FABERSON AND JENNIFER L. BARBER 145 Archaeological Explorations of the Workshop Lynne Sullivan Rock Shelter, Upper Cumberland Plateau, Frank H. McClung Museum Tennessee JAY FRANKLIN AND SIERRA BOW Guy Weaver 162 Exploring Hoosier Material Culture: Landscape Weaver and Associates LLC and Architectural Archaeology at the Moore- Youse House and Huddleston Farmstead Tennessee Archaeology is published MARK D.
    [Show full text]
  • History of the Georgia State Parks and Historic Sites Division
    History of the Georgia State Parks and Historic Sites Division The formal development of state parks in the United States began in the early 20th Century and grew out of the National Parks movement. Yellowstone became the first national park in 1872, and the National Park System was established 1916. The concept of natural and scenic public recreation areas became immensely popular and Yosemite, Glacier and the Grand Canyon were soon developed. In 1921, six states met to discuss the concept of state parks at the call of then National Park Service Director Stephen Mather. The first National Conference of State Parks decided that the immediate objectives were to provide conservation of natural and scenic resources and to provide recreational outlets and alleviate excessive pressure on the first national parks. The automobile had opened new opportunities for touring Americans and outstanding natural areas and quiet contemplative spots were suddenly accessible. Auto touring rapidly increased and people sought places to visit, recreate and camp. State forest lands became an immediate target for this type activity and in 1927, Georgia Senate Resolution #21 stated that, "...the Indian Springs Reserve in the County of Butts ... containing ten (10) acres of land with the spring and improvements thereon, is hereby placed under the jurisdiction and control of the State Board of Forestry, the same to be converted and used for a State Park." Georgia, and the U.S. government, view their forests as agricultural areas where trees are crops to be harvested and renewed. The concept of permanent aesthetic natural areas did not fit into this scheme and Georgia soon established a parks system separate from the Georgia Forestry Division.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeology of a Civil War Prison in Blackshear, Georgia
    Georgia Southern University Digital Commons@Georgia Southern Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies, Jack N. Averitt College of Fall 2019 Preserving the Memory of those Perilous Times: Archaeology of a Civil War Prison in Blackshear, Georgia Colin H. Partridge Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons, and the Military History Commons Recommended Citation Partridge, Colin H., "Preserving the Memory of those Perilous Times: Archaeology of a Civil War Prison in Blackshear, Georgia" (2019). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 2027. https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd/2027 This thesis (open access) is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies, Jack N. Averitt College of at Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRESERVING THE MEMORY OF THOSE PERILOUS TIMES: ARCHAEOLOGY OF A CIVIL WAR PRISON IN BLACKSHEAR, GEORGIA by COLIN PARTRIDGE (Under the Direction of Ryan McNutt) ABSTRACT In the closing months of 1864 Confederate prison authorities were forced to evacuate the large stockade prisoner of war (POW) camps at Millen and Andersonville, Georgia in the face of General Sherman’s ‘March to the Sea.’ While attempting to evade Union forces, approximately 5,000 POWs were sent along the Atlantic and Gulf railroad in southeast Georgia, stopping just outside of the town of Blackshear. For three weeks prisoners and guards camped along a small tributary of the Alabaha River with only a few stakes to mark a deadline between them.
    [Show full text]
  • Legacy Ofan Andersonville Survivor
    Legacy ofan Andersonville Survivor: The Life of George Washington Steenrod A Thesis Presented to The Division of Social Sciences EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY In Partial Fulfillment ofthe Requirements for the Degree Master ofArts by Amy Louise Waters August 2000 The~ i OS' c9..DOO Vy' - > £1i;) IV AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Amy Louise Waters for the, "",-,M"",as=te=r=s-",o",,-f~Art=s,----- _ m Social Science May2i.2000 Title: L.I"" U'" '" 'f'f ~.l.I.J..l..l LV.l.l UL"''''.l.u.VU. Abstract Approved:--''''''tLp'---~t...L-~~LLJ<","",,----''-''''-'---=-~----<----''''''''''= _ The American Civil War has left a legacy that compares to no other in the history ofthe United States. This conflict between the northern and southern states still influences America, even 135 years after Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox. It has , . become popular to look at one's own history for ancestors who fought for the Union or the Confederacy in the war. My own family history has led me to a Great-Great-Great­ Grandfather who not only fought for the Union, but who was also one ofthe 45,000 Union soldiers who spent time in the most infamous Civil War prison, Andersonville. George Washington Steenrod was one ofmany men who recorded their experiences while fighting in the Civil War. The diary he kept throughout the year 1864, including his time in Andersonville, is not extensive, but is instead a simple timeline of his life and notes about the people who were closest to him. However, George Steenrod's life is not completely defmed by his time in Andersonville, his story includes what he accomplished after the war was over.
    [Show full text]