To the Sound of the Guns

The Historical Marker Database is currently undergoing a “spring cleaning” maintenance cycle. For now the data is in read only mode. Since I send a lot of my links over that direction, I do apologize to anyone who has experienced any of the anomalies from the site recently.

Again, I’m a content contributor, who has some elevated responsibilities, on HMDB. In addition to my own contributions, I review other entries to verify editorial compliance before publication. Most of the editorial rules involve title declaration, text format, geographic coordinates, and address listings. As an editor I try to split hairs over things like zip codes. If the metal plaque is “on the county line,” I’ll try to determine which side of the line it’s on. Can’t have it listed in two places at the same time after all!

Most of the entry data is fairly fixed. We don’t re-interpret text, for instance. If it is misspelled, that’s actually part of the historical artifact after all. Not much wiggle room for a contributor until they are describing the marker location and offering commentary. The later often gives me the most trouble. Some times, but definitely a minority of submissions, the contributor’s commentary either doesn’t seem to flow with the marker subject, or is, bluntly speaking, poorly written. I hate to cut up some-one’s text, but then again, I don’t want a public facing entry to present less than polished appearances. Usually, if the modifications require more than corrections for spelling or grammar, I forward copies of the original text and proposed changes.

With several correspondents, the system has gotten so routine as to flow almost naturally. One individual simply writes, “I didn’t find anything about this on web searches, please provide any information you have…” Surprisingly, for a system open for content submission from the general public, very few correspondents have issue with the editorial review. The only exception I can recall came from someone with a very impressive academic resume. The last thing I’d suspect is debating “the King’s English” with someone possessing a high level college degree. But that is for another day….

One of the draws for me to HMDB is somewhat “selfish” in a way. Since the webmaster, owner, and operator has, unfortunately for him, all the systems administration and web maintenance responsibilities, I don’t have to bring my day job home as much. Working as a collaboration systems architect and information technology consultant in the D.C. metro area, I get to spend weeks on end discussing page layouts, functional relations of information, network addresses, SAN storage requirements, and other nuts and bolts. I know of some mechanics who can get home from work and spend their off time restoring old cars. Sorry, I’m just not wired that way. I’m the type who must purge “work” from “play.” Which is of course why this blog site isn’t “pimped” to the max with custom CSS or elaborate data tags.

Finally got around to a belated trip report and marker entries for Fort Foote, Maryland. I visited the fort during the first week of March, and in spite of the near freezing wind, enjoyed the walk.  The advantage to the “off season” in the DC area generally is less traffic.  Since Fort Foote is certifiably “off the beaten path” this isn’t a worry even in July.  The other advantage, for Fort Foote, is without all the summer vegetation, sections of the fort are much easier to visually trace.  The marker set for Fort Foote includes five interpretive waysides.  Several markers on site show signs of wear, weather, and neglect.  The map view is noteworthy, since the satellite image was made during the winter months, details of the fort’s works including the central traverse, are clear to see.  Also visible from space are two large black objects:

For the Civil War artillery enthusiast, one lure to the fort is to examine these two 49,000 pound monsters.   After all you don’t find 15-inch Rodman Guns laying about just anywhere.

Fort Foote was built between 1863 and 1865 primarily to defend the river approaches to Washington, D.C.  This section of the system included nearby Fort Washington, downstream on the Maryland side of the Potomac, and Fort Hunt and Battery Rogers on the Virginia side of the river.   Fort Foote, unlike most other forts defending Washington, continued to be used after the war including active service through 1878, and a brief period of administrative use during World War I.

During the Civil War, the fort’s armament consisted of the two 15-inch Rodmans, between two and four 8-inch Parrott Rifles, and six 30-pounder Parrott Rifles (facing the land side approaches to the fort).  After the war, Fort Foote became somewhat of a demonstration area, with a wider assortment of guns.  When de-activated in 1878, the armament included, in addition to the original guns,  six 12-pounder Napoleons, one 6-pounder field gun,  two 4.5-in rifles, four 3-inch rifled guns, six 10-inch siege mortars, two 8-inch siege mortars, five 24-pounder Coehorn mortars, and two different types of Gatling guns.

Due in part to its proximity to the capital, Fort Foote was often visited by the President and other distinguished guests.  Apparently the favorite activity during these “dog and pony shows” was the firing of the Rodman guns.  During the post war era, at least one of the Rodmans was mounted on a modified carriage, which was an evolutionary step towards the disappearing guns that became an important component for the American seacoast defenses until World War II.  After the fort was discontinued, the big guns remained on site, neglected and forgotten.   Only in the 1980s when the National Park Service took over the site were the guns remounted and restored.

The two guns on site are both products of Cyrus Alger & Co.   The first weapon of this type cast by Alger, from 1863 is the western most of the two.  Stamped with the initials “TJR” and a weight of 49,392 lbs., No 1 was inspected by Thomas Rodman himself.  The other, registry number 30, was inspected by Clifton Comly (C.C.) in 1864, and weighs 49,618 pounds.  Here’s the “business end” of the two showing the markings:

These large Rodmans also feature the distinctive “mushroom” knob at the breech end:

This shape replaced the traditional ball shaped knob.  With such tremendous weights involved, the traditional ball/knob and neck type cascabel was structurally a weak point.  Used mostly as a purchase for ropes associated with lifting tackle, the neck tended to break when stressed.  Rodman’s solution was simply to flatten the neck and knob, forming what we’d probably call today a more streamlined design.  The groove around the “knob” provided a strong and durable anchor point for the lifting ropes.  Also seen from this view are the sockets used for the elevating mechanism, another Rodman innovation. 

Overall a good walk in the woods to see the two iron monsters still faithfully guarding the Potomac. 

——————-

References consulted:

 Olmstead, Edwin, Wayne E. Stark, and Spencer C. Tucker. The Big Guns: Civil War Siege, Seacoast and Naval Cannon. Alexandria Bay, NY: Museum Restoration Service, 1997.

Coolin, Benjamin Franklin III and Walton H. Owen II. Mr. Lincoln’s Forts: A Guide to the Civil War Defenses of Washington. Shippensburg, PA: White Mane Publishing Co, Inc., 1988.

The Park Service has posted informative signs at both Brawner Farm and on Matthews Hill detailing the ongoing landscape restoration projects. Although some historical details are included on the signs, since these are temporary in nature, I’m not inclined to place them in the Historical Marker Database.

Each sign provides details of the project scope. Both report 140 acres of woodlands are being restored to field lots, with six acres replanted with native trees to round out the historical landscape. The most interesting portion of each sign, from my perspective, are the aerial photographs with overlays detailing the project boundaries. However, I must apologize for the poor quality of my pictures here. Note the north seeking arrow for the Brawner Farm sign is to the left, and that for Matthews Hill is to the lower left. I was unable to visit the Deep Cut area during my visit, but suspect a similar sign is posted there.

Last August a news article from the Washington Post detailed the project, with some slightly different numbers. Just my opinion, but I cannot help but see this as a positive change. This will restore a historical artifact, the land itself.  The choices regarding native grasses and trees for the project is sound.  But I must laugh at the last line of the article:  “A lot of those [reenactors] are into authenticity.”

You think?

This event must have slipped under my radar: The Battle of Buckland Mills Presentation, Monday May 5, at 7 p.m. Hard to pass up a chance to listen to Ed Bearss speak, but unfortunately I’ve got a couple of commitments that overlap.

With the majority of the markers related to Antietam now at least in the database, I turned today to my intended early summer project - The Second Manassas campaign. The trip included a quick trip to the Manassas battlefield, mostly to see what may have changed since last fall. Sad to say, while I’ve driven through the battlefield at least a dozen times in the last six months, only once have I been able to stop for any real tramping about.

After the required stop at the Visitors Center, and short walk around Henry Hill, we moved to the Brawner Farm on the western part of the battlefield. This section, site of major portions of the Second Manassas battle, has changed significantly in the last six months. The “Axmen” have been busy. The NPS’s landscape restoration plan includes removal of large tracts of timber north of U.S. 29 and between CR 705 and CR 622. The results are plain to see:

Based on the informational signs on site, this program will restore open fields, and restore the line of sight between the Confederate artillery positions near the Brawner Farm and what is known today (by the park service maps) as Battery Heights. Speaking of artillery, the display on Brawner Farm, which included three Confederate 6-pdr Iron Field Guns has been removed. Hopefully the guns were simply taken into storage while the forest clearing is ongoing.

Here’s a before and after set of photos. The one on the left from last fall showing all five guns. The one on the right shows only an interpretive marker standing at the location:

From what I gather, reading over Department of the Interior statements, the future plans for the battlefield hinge on a bypass for Lee Highway (U.S. 29). While more long term than immediate, this will serve to reduce the local and commuter traffic through the battlefield. As things are today, a visit to Manassas on a weekday during the morning or afternoon traffic “tidal surges” is miserable to say the least. As an added point, some documents state the modern bridge used by U.S. 29 is slated for removal, thus restoring the historical look in the sector near the Stone Bridge.

Even minus the five pieces at Brawner Farm, Manassas offers an interesting collection of artillery for the visitor with an eye for the old guns. The park favors “early” war period weapons. Based on visits last year and today’s run through, I’m happy to pass along this Manassas Artillery Locations.