Have you seen this marker?

For any readers around the Atlanta area, I have a “marker hunting” request.  Promise it won’t hurt, and it may give an excuse to take a visit to a battlefield.

As noted yesterday, one of our contributors at HMDB submitted the first of several old photos of markers from Kennesaw Mountain.  The first was an “overview” of the Atlanta Campaign.  Others cover aspects of the battle in more detail.  These are 1950s era markers, placed by the Park Service.  While these resemble the Georgia state markers, in size and silhouette, the form and text layout are different.  

At any rate, the request – if anyone is up on Kennesaw to visit, if you see anything like this marker from the entry linked above, can you shoot a comment?  I’d like to know if these are still standing, or have been removed. 

Photo soon to appear on a milk carton near you!

My contacts with the Georgia Marker Hunting Mafia (you know who you are, and I know you are smiling!) has come up with NO info on these markers.  Hard to believe, but the Chief Marker Hunter of the Oglethorpe-Gordon Chapter of the Georgia Marker Hunters, who has by my estimate 30 years experience locating obscure Georgia markers, has no details on these!

HMDB Civil War Updates – Week of 19 January

Another 100 plus week for the Civil War category.  The number this week is 105, spread across   seven states – Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New York.   (Only two of which you can see from Rock City, by the way.)  Here are the highlights:

- In late 1861, New River County, Florida was changed to Bradford County in honor of Captain Richard C. Bradford.  Bradford was the first Confederate officer from Florida to die in the war.  He fell in October that year in fighting around Fort Pickens, Pensacola, Florida.

- Several interesting entries from Georgia this week.  A simple bronze plaque for the McKelvey House in Cassville, Georgia begs for more background.  Most of the historical facts are related on a nearby state marker, but the plaque is several feet off the road-way in the underbrush, on private property.  Perhaps the plaque was an effort by the Patriots of Bartow to denote the location for future generations when the house was removed.

- Helping with my quest for Happel Panels  from Fredericksburg-Spotsylvania, one of our contributors also retrieved photos of an old marker from Kennesaw Mountain, Georgia.  Certainly a “vintage” marker dating to the 1950s.  However several other contributors have indicated the marker was replaced in recent years. 

- Another Georgia marker caused me a bit of a fuss.  In Habersham County, a marker states the Habersham Iron Works made cannon for the Confederacy, and that some of those guns are on display at the Chickamauga battlefield.  Thinking it would make a good topic photo addition, I scanned through my field notes and secondary sources for Habersham guns.  Evidence seems to be lacking.  I’m at a loss.  Not wanting to call the marker wrong without my ducks in a row, I’ll just say I’m skeptical.

- There is more supporting evidence for the Confederate Gun Shop in Robinson, Georgia, which armed the Taliaferro County Stephen Home Guard (Company D, 15th Georgia Infantry).

- The lone Civil War marker this week from New York relates that newly raised regiments marched off to war from the Clarksville Inn, West Nyack, New York.

- From Pocotaligo, South Carolina, a marker points out a section of earthworks from the Frampton Line used to defend the nearby Charleston and Savannah Railroad.  The works were built under the direction of Robert E. Lee early in the war.

- Another South Carolina marker, from Kelton, in Union County, indicates the landing site of Professor Thaddeus Lowes’ balloon.  The episode was the feature of a Washington Times article last fall.  Instead of recounting all the details here, lets just say Lowe dropped into South Carolina to a hostile reception in April 1861.

- For the Gettysburg project this week, fifty-eight additions.  These entries complete the first day battlefield from Reynolds Avenue to the Peace Memorial.  Later this week I’ll add the geographic groupings to the Gettysburg page.

- Anyone who has ventured around Northern Virginia knows space comes at a premium and many historic sites (Civil War and other) have been lost to development.  However, one of our seasoned “marker hunters” at HMDB has a knack for locating traces of Civil War fortifications in the area.  This week we have some views of fortifications built around Centreville during the stalemate after First Manassas.   If only we could plant a few Quaker guns….

- Lastly, we have a set of over fifty entries this week covering Pamplin Park, Petersburg, Virginia.  So while the park is on a limited schedule, at least one can browse the on site interpretation, in the on-line mode.  Not as fun as a battlefield walk, but enough to wet the palate.

Looking forward to next week for marker entries, I see my editor’s queue already has several interesting markers awaiting review.  Hopefully another 100 plus entries next week!

A Few Spectators for the Inauguration

With all the news blitz about the inauguration, one cannot help but reflect a bit on history.   I say I can’t help it mostly as now down to the placeware and desert everything that incoming President Obama will do leading up to and on the 20th of January seems to be connected to Lincoln – either by intention or by some interpretation in the media.

Lincoln gets a lot of attention in our history books.  Rightfully so, as he did lead the country at a time of what I consider our greatest national emergency.  And Lincoln had many attributes that we as Americans can admire, emulate, and respect.  (and a few that popular history perhaps has skipped over, but that’s a discussion for someone’s Lincoln blog….)

Great men, however, don’t accomplish great deeds without some degree of help.  And Lincoln had quite a team helping him, some of which are memorialized in Washington, D.C. blocks away from the 16th President’s own memorial.  And like a supporting cast of a great epic, some are forgotten to the average passer-by.

Winfield Scott Hancock

George Thomas

John Logan

John Rawlins

William T. Sherman

James McPherson

David Farragut

And of course silently guarding the proceedings, as he has been for some time the figure of U.S. Grant:

U.S. Grant

U.S. Grant

Just a short collection of the Civil War heroes who are memorialized around our nation’s capital.  I cannot help but wonder what these men would tell us were they alive to today.  But as I reflect on the history unfolding, I’m drawn to think about these men, and other men like them, who served their country at a time of great conflict.  Not all were ardent abolitionists or even all northerners.  But they were all ardent patriots, supporting Lincoln, who felt the United States were (or as we say today “was”)  worth preserving and improving.   And improve they did.

Could there be a January 20, 2009 without men such as those depicted in bronze in these statues?

It is indeed proper that each of these men, figuratively at least, have a front row seat to watch an African-American take the oath of office as President.

A Tale of Two Parrotts

One of the easiest types of Civil War artillery to identify is certainly the Parrott Rifle.  There were Army and Navy models.  Calibers ranged from 2.9-inch field guns to 10-inch siege, seacoast, and naval types.  Did not matter, as all had a distinctive reinforcing band on the breech.  While there were slight variances between year models and calibers, by and large the Parrotts were one of the few uniform “series” of gun tubes produced during the war.

The caliber most often encountered today is the “10-pounder” class field gun.  I say 10-pounder, but it came in two different calibers – 2.9-inch and 3-inch.  These  two calibers actually represent two different versions of the Parrott rifle, with the later being an evolutionary improvement of the design.  Some references describe the former as “10-pdr, 2.9-inch, Parrott Rifle, Model 1861,” and the later as “3-inch Parrott Rifle, Model 1863.”  As I’ve yet to see any official documents with the year mark, and the Ordnance manuals don’t indicate a pattern specific to the years, the “model” year seems more arbitrary than actual.  I prefer to call the first model  “10-pounder Parrott” and the second “3-inch Parrott.”  Mostly as those are the designations actually stamped on the guns.

What’s the deal about a single tenth of an inch?  It has to do with logistics, the heat of battle, and the chance someone would stuff a 3-inch shell where a 2.9-inch shell was needed.  That single tenth of an inch means the difference between a functioning cannon and half ton of scrap metal! The reason for the difference in caliber lies with the story of the gun’s history.

Robert Parker Parrott, superintendent of the West Point Foundry,  first experimented with rifled cannon in the 1850s.  Parrott, like everyone else, knew rifled guns produced more pressure in the gun bore.  The problem was how to counter that pressure, yet keep the gun light enough for field use.  Several designers had already determined placing a band on the breech would help.  The real genius of the Parrott design lay with how the band was attached to the gun tube.   Parrott guns were cast iron tubes with a wrought iron band.  Other designs called for a heated band to be slipped onto a stationary gun tube.   Parrott’s design used a wrought iron band (formed around a mandrel) to be slipped onto a turning gun tube, which was cooled by water injected to the bore.  Simply put, the strength of the band lay with the even cooling where the hot band was not allowed to sag over one spot.

By 1860, the design was perfected enough to sell a handful to the State of Virginia.  Of course business really took off in 1861.  The Parrott rifle was easy to produce and unlike other early rifles, stood up well in the field.  Only later did the Parrotts fall into disfavor due to a tendency to burst.  Otherwise, the Parrotts served well.

Apparently Robert Parrott chose the bore diameter of 2.9 inches between the lands in the rifling based on the old artillery system.  Under the standard smoothbore calibers, a “3-pounder” bore was 2.913 inches (see the well worn “A Treatise of Artillery” by John Muller).  Since Parrott developed a special set of projectiles for his guns, this all seemed fine.  However, other inventors were not so constrained by traditions when determining gun calibers.  The rounded 3 inch dimension was selected by most other gun and projectile manufacturers, notably for the 3-inch Ordnance Rifle.  In the day of modern (or semi-modern) machining, it just made sense to use a round number I guess.

At any rate, this issue came to a head about the middle of 1863.  The Ordnance department opted to simplify supply of the field armies, and ordered all 2.9-inch Parrott field guns to be replaced by either new production 3-inch rifles (either Ordnance or Parrott types) or by re-machined 2.9-inch Parrotts.  As discussed in a previous post, the first batch of these new 3-inch Parrotts rolled out in late 1863.  Full production deliveries were made in early 1864.

Besides the change in caliber, the “new” Parrotts had some subtle design changes, basically improvements or refinements of the base design.  Those refinements are best seen when compared side by side.   One good spot for just that is just in front of the Pennsylvania Memorial at Gettysburg where two Parrotts flank the Battery A, 1st New Jersey Monument.

Battery A, 1st New Jersey at Gettysburg

On the left in this photo is a 3-inch Parrott, registry number 149.  On the right is the older 10-pounder (2.9-inch), registry number 241.  (Yes, the older weapon has a higher registry number.  The Ordnance Department and West Point ‘reset’ the registry number sequence with the new model.)

The easiest difference to pick out right off the bat is the muzzle swell:

10-pounder Parrott Muzzle Swell

3-inch Parrott with Straight Muzzle

Another difference quickly picked out is the exterior of the gun tube around the trunnions:

The "Step" on 10-Pounder

Even Lines of the 3-inch Rifle

The earlier Parrotts had a “step” in front of the trunnions.  This is somewhat in line with traditional gun designs of the time, which called the step the beginning of the “reinforce”.  However, this sharp change in diameter probably offered a weak spot in the casting.  The later 3-inch gun tube conforms with the “ordnance shape” used by nearly all Federal artillery – Nice, even lines.  Except the rimbases that is.  Speaking of rimbases,  on the lower photo take note of the small numbers just behind the threaded socket for the sight post – “149″.  For some reason, West Point Foundry placed a duplicate registry number on the rimbases.   Sort of a hidden clue for those of us who like to identify the guns today.

The other notable differences are largely with the markings.   Take a look at the breech:

10-pounder Breech

"3-inch Bore"

The stamping on the breech was actually specified in the production order.  Clearly we don’t want the gunner getting confused about what projectile is right for his gun.  Must be why it’s in big bold letters, near the rear sight socket.  Note the small stamping at the upper back part of the band for the 10-pounder in the upper photo -  “Patented 1861″.  This is supposed to appear on nearly all Parrotts.   Often the wrought iron has corroded with time, but this example’s stampings are rather clear.

Looking at the front end, again the stampings are different:

2.9inch Muzzle

3-inch Muzzle

Once again the caliber is clearly indicated – 2.9 on the older type is replaced by 3 IN on the new version.  I have seen some early 10-pounders marked “2.9 inch / 10-pounder” on the muzzle.  But it appears once the Ordnance Department specified standardization to the stampings, the “pounder” was left off.

Additionally, the left trunnion of the 10-pounder is marked clearly as a “10-Pdr”:

10-pounder on Left Trunnion

The left trunnion of the 3-inch rifle appears unmarked (or at least the marks have disappeared over time).

Plain Left Trunion on 3-inch

So enough variations to make the two “models” easily differentiated to a modern day observer.  While the change in caliber certainly had some impact on field use, the markings, muzzle swell, and straight lines probably did not.   I could speculate and wonder if the smooth lines were somewhat a reaction to criticism about bursting of Parrotts.  However, most of the complaints were heard about the “big brother” Parrotts.  Those guns did not have the pronounced “step” of the 10-pdr or 20-pdr field guns.

Regardless, the “new” lines became the established pattern.  Compare the photos of the 3-inch Parrott above from Gettysburg with an example that guards the doors of the Antietam Visitor Center:

First Production Batch 3-inch Parrott, Reg. No. 10

West Point Foundry produced 279 3-inch rifles just like these seen here.  The last was delivered in September 1865.  With budget constraints in the post-war Army, these examples would serve for many years on both the frontier and in eastern garrisons.

———————————————————————————-

Aside from on site notes, sources consulted for this post were:

Hazlett, James C., Edwin Olmstead, and M. Hume Parks. Field Artillery Weapons of the Civil War, Revised Edition. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2004.

Ripley, Warren. Artillery and Ammunition of the Civil War, 4th Edition. Charleston, S.C.: The Battery Press, 1984.

HMDB Civil War Updates – Week of 12 January

Another big week in the Civil War category at Historical Marker Database.  Just over one hundred marker entries (and a few updates) this week.  But diversity is down – Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia this week.  But we’ll take what we can get.  Here’s the highlights:

- We have a marker from Hinesville, Georgia describing a skirmish between the 7th Illinois Cavalry and Confederate Cavalry under Brig. Gen. Alfred Iverson.  This occurred as Kilpatrick and Mower were raiding south of Savannah, having stopped in nearby Midway, and sent forces out as far west as the Altamaha River.

- Uncle Billy didn’t burn Mrs. Beall’s Mill.  According to the marker, “Natural forces brought about its physical destruction.”

- The Tuscarawas County Civil War memorial in New Philadelphia, Ohio rivals those placed at Gettysburg, Chickamauga, Vicksburg or Shiloh.  At the monument base are a couple of 8-inch Rodman Guns.  Someone certainly had some pull to first get those from the War Department, then later to keep them safe from the scrap drives.

- Speaking of Gettysburg, this week forty markers, tablets, and monuments from the battlefield.  The Devil’s Den area is completed, including the Sharpshooter monuments near the Slyder Farm.  A couple of entries detail the June 26 activities of the 26th Pennsylvania Emergency Infantry.  And the First Shot Marker is now tallied.  Because I like to trace the flow of the battle in a regiment by regiment format, I found a set of position markers for the 95th New York interesting – four in addition to the main monument.

- Nine new interpretive markers help explain the Chantilly (or if you prefer Ox Hill) Battlefield, which was lost to development.  Now I would not say one can have staff rides over the battlefield with meaningful results, but interpretation is better than nothing.

- Not all the markers on the Hanging Rock Battlefield Trail are “Civil War”.  The June 21, 1864 battle was fought as General Hunter fell back from Lynchburg, opening up the Shenandoah for General Jubal Early to mount his raid on Washington.

- Many of the markers this week for Virginia were from around Richmond.  Those from Mechanicsville detail three different battles – Mechanicsville, Gaines Mill, and Cold Harbor – and Sheridan’s May 1864 raid toward Richmond.  Another eight markers were added to those already in the system for Malvern Hill.

- From the Shenandoah Valley, the death of Lt. John Meigs and the burning of Dayton, Virginia is interpreted by four different markers.  Robert Moore (Cenantua) covered the monument to Lt. Col. Wildes, who according to accounts, convinced General Sheridan to spare the town of Dayton, on one of his many blogs (!).  As Robert and I discussed the accounts further, I mentioned a marker further down the valley (that’s north to those unfamiliar with the Shenandoah) at Stephens City detailing a very similar event.  That of course feed into a good blog entry from Robert.  Sort of a good example of how these blog thingys just feed themselves over time.

- Lastly, yet another “retro” marker from Chancellorsville.  One of the now “replaced” Happel Panels stepped out of the old photo albums to allow documentation.  Look at the nearby markers to see the changes in interpretation over time.    At the bivouac site, interpretation started with a simple “stone” marker; then expanded to include a panel, campaign map, and painting;  Presently a couple of full color waysides with maps, photos and illustrations orient visitors.

All in all another heavy work week at HMDB.