OLIVER OTIS HOWARD COLLECTION (Howard University) Collection 53-1 to 53-14
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Catherine Mary White Foster's Eyewitness Account of the Battle of Gettysburg, with Background on the Foster Family Union Soldiers David A
Volume 1 Article 5 1995 Catherine Mary White Foster's Eyewitness Account of the Battle of Gettysburg, with Background on the Foster Family Union Soldiers David A. Murdoch Follow this and additional works at: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/ach Part of the Military History Commons, United States History Commons, and the Women's History Commons Share feedback about the accessibility of this item. Murdoch, David A. (1995) "Catherine Mary White Foster's Eyewitness Account of the Battle of Gettysburg, with Background on the Foster Family Union Soldiers," Adams County History: Vol. 1 , Article 5. Available at: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/ach/vol1/iss1/5 This open access article is brought to you by The uC pola: Scholarship at Gettysburg College. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of The uC pola. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Catherine Mary White Foster's Eyewitness Account of the Battle of Gettysburg, with Background on the Foster Family Union Soldiers Abstract Catherine Mary White Foster lived with her elderly parents in the red brick house on the northwest corner of Washington and High Streets in Gettysburg at the time of the battle, 1-3 July 1863. She was the only child of James White Foster and Catherine (nee Swope) Foster (a former resident of Lancaster county), who married on 11 May 1817 and settled in Gettysburg, Adams county, Pennsylvania. Her father, James White Foster, had served his country as a first lieutenant in the War of 1812. Her grandparents, James Foster and Catherine (nee White) Foster, had emigrated with her father and five older children from county Donegal, Ireland, in 1790, and settled near New Alexandria, Westmoreland county, Pennsylvania. -
Andrew Johnson, the Freedmen's Bureau, and the Problem of Equal Rights, 1865-1866 Author(S): Donald G
Southern Historical Association Andrew Johnson, the Freedmen's Bureau, and the Problem of Equal Rights, 1865-1866 Author(s): Donald G. Nieman Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 44, No. 3 (Aug., 1978), pp. 399-420 Published by: Southern Historical Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2208049 . Accessed: 01/11/2012 12:11 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Southern Historical Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Southern History. http://www.jstor.org Andrew Johnson, the Freedmen's Bureau, and the Problem of Equal Rights, 1865-1866 By DONALD G. NIEMAN DURING THE SUMMER AND FALL OF 1865, AS THE NEWLY CREATED Freedmen's Bureau commenced its operations, one of the chief concerns of its officials was providing freedmen with legal pro- tection. Antebellum southern state law had discriminated harshly against free blacks, and in the Civil War's aftermath functionaries of the provisional governments created in the rebel states by Presi- dents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson stood ready to apply this law to the freedmen. State officials' willingness to enforce discriminatory law, however, was not the only reason they posed a threat to blacks. -
Historic Walking Tour
22 At 303 Baltimore St. is the James Pierce family 28 Over a hundred First and Eleventh Corps Union home. After the Civil War, Tillie Pierce Alleman wrote soldiers held much of this block in a pocket of Yankee a riveting account of their experiences, At Gettysburg: resistance on the late afternoon of July 1 as the Or What a Girl Saw and Heard at the Battle. Confederates otherwise took control of the town. Continue north on Baltimore Street to High Street… Historic Walking Tour 29 In 1863, John and Martha Scott and Martha’s sister 23 The cornerstone of the Prince of Peace Episcopal Mary McAllister lived at 43-45 Chambersburg Street. Church was laid on July 2, 1888, for the twenty-fifth John and Martha’s son, Hugh ran a telegraph office here anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg. The church is a and fled just prior to the arrival of the Confederates. battlefield memorial for inside the large tower survivors His mother’s red shawl hung from an upstairs window from both armies placed more than 130 plaques in to designate the building as a hospital. memory of their fallen comrades. Continue north on Baltimore Street to Middle Street… 30 The James Gettys Hotel in 1804 was known as the “Sign of the Buck” tavern and roadhouse. During the 24 Here at the Adams County Courthouse on June Civil War, it was known as the Union Hotel, and served 26, 1863, men of the 26th Pennsylvania Emergency as a hospital. Militia, which included local college and seminary students, were paroled by General Jubal Early after 31 Alexander Buehler’s drug and bookstore was located being captured during the Confederate’s initial advance. -
Oliver Otis Howard and Lincoln Memorial University
1 Oliver Otis Howard and Lincoln Memorial University Oliver Otis Howard was born on Nov. 8, 1830, at Leeds, Maine. He attended Bowdoin College from 1846 to 1850, where he developed the basic tenets of his character, becoming a very pious student who conspicuously refrained from drinking, swearing, and smoking. Immediately after graduating from Bowdoin, Howard entered the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, and graduated fourth in his class in 1854. Soon after, he married his childhood sweetheart, Elizabeth Ann Wait, and taught mathematics at West Point for several years. Howard considered studying for the Episcopalian ministry, but eventually decided to make the army his career. He threw himself into the Union war effort after the firing on Fort Sumter, obtaining a commission as colonel of the 3rd Maine and leading a brigade at the battle of First Bull Run on July 21, 1861. Howard was promoted to brigadier general in the fall of 1861 and was wounded at the battle of Fair Oaks on June 1, 1862. Two bullets slammed into his right arm, forcing surgeons to amputate it. Howard informed Lizzie the day after in a letter that “I am on my way with only my left arm.” He maintained his sense of humor, joking with Maj. Gen. Philip Kearney, who had lost his left arm in the Mexican War, that they would need to buy only one pair of gloves between the two of them from now on. 2 Howard recuperated for three months, the only time during the war that he was off duty, and returned to the Army of the Potomac by September, 1862. -
“OPEN WARFARE” DOCTRINE in the LIGHT of AMERICAN MILITARY HISTORY by Gene Fax
National Archives ••• PERSHING’S “OPEN WARFARE” DOCTRINE IN THE LIGHT OF AMERICAN MILITARY HISTORY By Gene Fax n May 1917, John J. Pershing became the frst American general driving the enemy out into the open and engaging him in a war of Isince the Civil War to lead a feld army of more than a few movement.”2 Americans, he believed, were inherently superior to thousand men. For most of the intervening time, the U.S. Army the soldiers of other nations in their initiative and their aptitude had had three main missions: protecting the coasts, quelling labor for marksmanship.3 In his statement of training principles he unrest, and chasing—but rarely fighting—Indians.1 Pershing declared, “Te rife and the bayonet are the principal weapons of himself operated against Indians in the west, the Spanish in Cuba, the infantry soldier. He will be trained to a high degree of skill Moros in the Philippines, and Pancho Villa in Mexico. None of as a marksman both on the target range and in feld fring. An these prepared him or the Army for the all-consuming war then aggressive spirit must be developed until the soldier feels himself, going on in France. Pershing and the Army were largely unfamiliar as a bayonet fghter, invincible in battle.”4 with modern weapons, tactics, and logistics. Pershing himself had observed the Russo-Japanese War, the frst Yet Pershing knew how he wanted his new Army to fght. Te major confict to use modern weapons. In his reports he described trench-bound stalemate of the Western Front was not for him. -
1 Styple, William B., Ed. Generals in Bronze: Interviewing the Commanders of the Civil War. Kearny, N.J.: Belle Grove Publis
Styple, William B., ed. Generals in Bronze: Interviewing the Commanders of the Civil War. Kearny, N.J.: Belle Grove Publishing, 2005. Interview of Generals by sculptor, James Kelly Boyhood memories of the war, viiff New York, alcohol, viii=ix Lincoln’s reelection, ix-xi Fall of Richmond, Lincoln assassination, xi-xii Postwar life, xiiff Sheridan’s ride, xx Philip H. Sheridan, described, 1 Sword, Cedar Creek, 2-3 George A. Forsyth, Lee and Appomattox, 3-5 Grant, Sherman, 11 Sheridan at Cedar Creek, 11 Biographical background on Sheridan, 12ff Sherman, 18 Grant and Sherman, 22 Ely Samuel Parker, Overland campaign, Wilderness, Grant, Hancock, 23-25 Ely Samuel Parker, Appomattox, 25-27 Grant described, 30 Grant, James Harrison Wilson, swearing, 30 Shiloh, Grant, Sherman, 31 Grant, Lee, Appomattox, 31 Grant’s death and funeral, 35-37 John A. Logan described, Sherman, 38 Hooker described, 40 Peninsula campaign, Williamsburg, 40 Sickles, Meade, 41 Hooker on McClellan, 41 Stanton, 41 Hooker, Chancellorsville, 42-43 Rosecrans, alcohol, 43 Abner Doubleday, Fort Sumter, 45-47 John Gibbon, 47 McClellan, 47 Judson Kilpatrick, Hooker, 48-50, Jefferson C. Davis, Pea Ridge, 51, 55-56 Jefferson C. Davis, Sheridan, Cedar Creek, George Crook, Grant, 52 Winfield Scott Hancock, Gettysburg, 58-60 Sherman, 60 Jesse Reno, 60-61 Meade, Hancock, Warren, Gettysburg, Butterfield, Baldy Smith, 64-70 Daniel Butterfield, Gettysburg council of war, John Newton, Doubleday, Birney, Gibbon, Sickles, 71-80 Henry Slocum, Council of war at Gettysburg, 80-82 1 General Martin -
Gettysburg Essay
Essential Civil War Curriculum | Garry E. Adelman Gettysburg | March 2017 The Battle of Gettysburg By Garry E. Adelman with James Taub, Civil War Trust fter his May 1863 victory at the Battle of Chancellorsville, Confederate General Robert E. Lee ordered his Army of Northern Virginia into the Blue Ridge A Mountains where his northward movement was screened by the terrain. Using what intelligence he could assemble, Union Major General Joseph Hooker, succeeded on June 28 by Major General George Gordon Meade, aimed to keep the main body of his Army of the Potomac between General Lee and the U.S. Capital at Washington. In late June, Confederate forces were spread out on a 90-mile front across south central Pennsylvania, with Union forces edging ever closer to the Southerners. Lacking most of his cavalry, which was engaged in a raid around the Federal army, General Lee was unaware of the approaching Federal forces until the end of June, whereupon he ordered his three corps to converge near Gettysburg. At that same time, the most advance Union element—Brigadier General John Buford’s cavalry division—arrived in Gettysburg on June 30, 1863. Buford saw the importance of controlling the network of ten Essential Civil War Curriculum | Copyright 2017 Virginia Center for Civil War Studies at Virginia Tech Page 1 of 9 Essential Civil War Curriculum | Garry E. Adelman Gettysburg | March 2017 roads that converged at the town square and deployed his brigades to the west and north of town. The stage was set for the bloodiest and most famous of all North American battles. -
Volume 27 , Number 2
THE HUDSON RIVER VALLEY REVIEW A Journal of Regional Studies The Hudson River Valley Institute at Marist College is supported by a major grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. Publisher Thomas S. Wermuth, Vice President for Academic Affairs, Marist College Editors Christopher Pryslopski, Program Director, Hudson River Valley Institute, Marist College Reed Sparling, Writer, Scenic Hudson Mark James Morreale, Guest Editor Editorial Board The Hudson River Valley Review Myra Young Armstead, Professor of History, (ISSN 1546-3486) is published twice Bard College a year by the Hudson River Valley Institute at Marist College. COL Lance Betros, Professor and Head, Department of History, U.S. Military James M. Johnson, Executive Director Academy at West Point Research Assistants Kim Bridgford, Professor of English, Gabrielle Albino West Chester University Poetry Center Gail Goldsmith and Conference Amy Jacaruso Michael Groth, Professor of History, Wells College Brian Rees Susan Ingalls Lewis, Associate Professor of History, State University of New York at New Paltz Hudson River Valley Institute Advisory Board Sarah Olson, Superintendent, Roosevelt- Peter Bienstock, Chair Vanderbilt National Historic Sites Margaret R. Brinckerhoff Roger Panetta, Professor of History, Dr. Frank Bumpus Fordham University Frank J. Doherty H. Daniel Peck, Professor of English, BG (Ret) Patrick J. Garvey Vassar College Shirley M. Handel Robyn L. Rosen, Associate Professor of History, Marjorie Hart Marist College Maureen Kangas Barnabas McHenry David Schuyler, -
Adelbert Ames in the Civil War.” by Michael Megelsh Master’S Thesis: Liberty University Thesis Director: Dr
“A Mainer From Rockland: Adelbert Ames in the Civil War.” By Michael Megelsh Master’s Thesis: Liberty University Thesis Director: Dr. Brian Melton Second Reader: Dr. Steven Woodworth Table of Contents Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………1 Chapter 1………………………………………………………………………………………10 Chapter 2………………………………………………………………………………………31 Chapter 3………………………………………………………………………………………61 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………...87 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………95 Introduction Surrounded by rough seas and located along the Cape Fear River, Fort Fisher was considered by the destitute Confederacy to be of vital importance to their survival. By early 1865, the salient fortification remained the last gateway between the Confederate States of America and the Atlantic Ocean. Located 18 miles south of the prized city of Wilmington, North Carolina, the formidable fortress had evaded capture while Federal forces held Charleston, Mobile, and every meaningful fortification along the Mississippi River. 1 Its capture would most certainly deliver a severe moral and logistical blow to the weakening Southern armies. Robert E. Lee declared that the fort must remain in Confederate hands at all costs or else he and the Army of Northern Virginia could not endure. 2 The United States War Department and its senior commanders were well aware of the strategic importance of Fort Fisher and the morale which it provided to the weakened Confederacy. In December 1864, 7,000 troops from the Army of the James, under the eccentric Major General Benjamin F. Butler set sail from the Virginia coast eventually joining forces with Rear Admiral David D. Porter and a massive flotilla of 60 warships. 3 Prior to the arrival of the infantry, Porter’s naval command sailed within striking distance of the southern stronghold but failed to force the fort’s defenders to surrender. -
The Dispatch General Meade Society of Philadelphia, Inc
The Dispatch General Meade Society of Philadelphia, Inc. Newsletter – Fall 2015 “Forget Not His Deeds” ***************************************************************************************** General Meade Spring Trip, May 2nd, 2015 The day dawned bright and warm, with nary a cloud in the sky. Forty plus Meade Society members as well as others interested in the Civil War, gathered at Laurel Hill Cemetery. The topic: Meade Sites in Philadelphia. After our itinerary and some background by Andy Waskie, off we went on a full day of activities, visits to churches, graveyards, monuments and … well, things that aren’t there anymore. First stop, the Federal Navy Yard on Federal Avenue, the Old Navy Yard and “refreshment saloons” of that area near Front and Water Street. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The General Meade Society of Philadelphia is an educational non-profit 501c3 organization chartered by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The mission of the Society is to promote and preserve the life and service of Major General George Gordon Meade (USA), Commander of the Army of the Potomac. The Society’s Board of Directors meets at the Cannstatter Volksfest-Verein, 9130 Academy Road, Philadelphia, PA 19114, on the 2nd Thursday of designated months starting at 7:00 P.M. All Society members are welcome. Board of Directors Officers Directors Andy Waskie, PhD, President Ginny Benner Tom Kearney Mike Peter, Vice-president Tom Benner Jeanne O’Toole Jerry McCormick, Treasurer Albert El Joe Perry Michael Wunsch, Corresponding Secretary Ken Garson Joseph Pugh Joe Hauptmann, Recording Secretary Carol Ingald Blair Thron Jack Ward www.generalmeadesociety.org [email protected] 215-204-5452 http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-General-Meade-Society-of-Philadelphia/175046292538630 1 This section of the city was a staging area and encampment for many thousands of troops. -
“Almost Too Terrible to Believe”: the Camilla, Georgia, Race Riot and Massacre, September 1868
“Almost Too Terrible to Believe”: The Camilla, Georgia, Race Riot and Massacre, September 1868 A Thesis submitted to the Graduate School Valdosta State University in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in History in the Department of History of the College of Arts and Sciences May 2012 Joshua William Butler BA, Valdosta State University, 2009 © Copyright 2012 Joshua William Butler All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT Camilla, Georgia, became the site of a racially motivated political riot on Saturday, September 19, 1868. Determined to promote political and social reform with an organized rally, at least 150 freedmen, along with Republican political candidates, advanced toward the town’s courthouse square. Local citizens warned the black and white activists of the impending violence and demanded that they forfeit their guns, even though carrying weapons was customary at the time. The marchers refused to give up their guns and continued to the courthouse square, where local whites fired upon them. This assault forced the Republicans and freedmen to retreat as locals gave chase, killing an estimated fifteen protestors and wounding forty others. The Camilla Massacre was the culmination of smaller acts of violence committed by white inhabitants that had plagued southwest Georgia since the end of the Civil War. Local whites had individually attacked freedmen and white Republicans for three years without repercussion. That lack of punishment assured the perpetrators that violence was a legitimate way to oppose black activism. At the same time, Camilla was part of a broader attempt across the South to keep former slaves and their Republican leaders in line. -
“If Ever Men Stayed by Their Guns”
“If Ever Men Stayed By Their Guns” Leadership in the 1st and 11th Corps Artillery on the First Day of the Battle of Gettysburg Bert Barnett During the Battle of Gettysburg, the roar of cannon mingled with the rattle of small arms during each phase of the engagement. Prominent among the Union forces desperately holding ground on July 1 were the artillery batteries of the 1st and 11th corps of the Army of the Potomac. In the face of heavy enemy fire from both Confederate infantry and artillery, these units repeatedly demonstrated their effectiveness, when well led, against the pressures of mounting numbers. Although ultimately unsuccessful in their defensive stand outside the town, these batteries provided valuable covering fire for their retreating infantry elements, helping to delay the Confederates. What follows is a close-up look at the differing levels of leadership ability within the 1st and 11th corps artillery, and how it shaped the outcome of the first day of battle, July 1, 1863. After the debacle of the Union disaster at Chancellorsville in May 1863, the Army of the Potomac was reorganized, and the artillery command structure was streamlined. Henceforth, all batteries in each corps were placed directly under the control of a single corps artillery chief and no longer attached to divisional commanders. These corps artillery chiefs reported directly to their respective corps commanders, but were also responsive to the overall chief of artillery, Brigadier General Henry Jackson Hunt.1 Hunt, an 1839 graduate of the United States Military Academy, had served in the artillery during the Mexican War and was twice brevetted, gaining the rank of major.