Goose Creek Battery – Defenses of Leesburg, Part 6

As mentioned before, the purpose of Fort Evans was to cover approaches to Leesburg from the east, specifically the two most likely avenues of advance – Edwards Ferry Road and the Alexandria-Leesburg Pike.  Just as the defenders posted outer works to strengthen the defense of the former, the later received attention also.  About a mile and a half  southeast from Fort Evans, the Alexandria-Leesburg Pike (modern Virginia 7) crosses Goose Creek at a fairly tight bend.  High ground dominates the crossing from the west bank.  This was a natural choke point that any defender was apt to take advantage of.

Goose Creek on a Cold Day
Goose Creek on a Cold Day  (Looking Downstream, north, from the modern bridge)

Goose Creek can be favorably compared to Bull Run in regard to topography, except that it runs north instead of south.  (The Goose drains a much larger area however, and originates west of the Bull Run Mountains in Loudoun Valley.)  The creek was not terribly difficult to cross, with several ford and ferry points along its course.  At the outbreak of the war, a wooden bridge spanned Goose Creek at the Alexandria-Leesburg Pike.  However by late summer the bridge was destroyed.  Both sides referred to the site as “Burnt Bridge” in correspondence around the time of the Battle of Balls Bluff.

Old Truss Bridge at the Original Pike Crossing
Old Truss Bridge at the Original Pike Crossing

In the late summer or early fall, the Confederates constructed a set of gun pits on the high ground overlooking the creek at this point.  The Documentation of Eight Civil War Forts and Earthworks indicated two gun pits on top of the bluffs in the survey.  These pits were constructed about 60 to 70 feet from the creek’s west bank.   As with the other sites, I offer this diagram, based in part on the Milner Associates survey and my site notes, busy though it is:

Goose Creek Battery (Not to Scale)
Goose Creek Battery (Not to Scale)

The southern-most of these gun pits is only a few feet from the trail.  Again note the three “humps” forming embrasures for the cannon.

First Gun Pit
First Gun Pit

Here’s a closer view of the works:

The Gun Embrasures
The Gun Embrasures

The second gun pit is a bit harder to make out, due to some tree fall.

Second Gun Pit
Second Gun Pit

Not mentioned in the survey, but something I would include just for sake of discussion, is a soil disturbance to the north of the position.  The rise of ground has the same look as the other two pits, with raised earth on the creek facing side.  In this view, looking down the slope to the creek, the profile of this mound is clear.  Just beyond the mound to the left is the trail stairway.

Third Gun Pit?
Third Gun Pit?

The survey mentioned infantry entrenchments or at least rifle pits supporting the artillery positions.   On site I did notice several areas that might pass as such.  However none were “photogenic” enough to post here without a caption “picture of some woods and leaves outside Leesburg….”  However, the mound mentioned by the survey, which stands in front of the first gun position, seems more a natural feature than anything man made.  Today the mound is covered with briers.  It is seen here behind the picnic table along the trail.

The Mound
The Mound

Likely defenders would have incorporated this in their line, if for nothing else to cover the front slope in front of the gun positions.  The view to the east from this point is a bit obstructed by tree growth, but at least in the winter time one can appreciate the line of site given to the defenders.

Looking Over the Creek
Looking Over the Creek

During the 19th Century, a tavern stood on the far side.  For some reason the tavern picked up the name “Fiddler’s Green.”

Several guidebooks recommend taking the trail from the “Keep Loudoun Beautiful” Park on the south side of the highway.  Personally I found the passage from the park under the highway bridges difficult if not outright dangerous.  A better way to access the site is through the sub-division on the north side of the highway.  If one parks discreetly along Battery Point Place, an easy grade paved walking trail passes through the battery.  The works are decently well preserved.  Although the housing development is very close, the ground is set aside for within a local preserve (I cannot confirm but I believe it maintained by the home owner’s association).

The battery might be another site associated with the Battle of Balls Bluff.  But there is no documentation to tie in the works with Confederate activity around that time.  The works were never directly tested, and certainly not during the battle.  Instead the fortification was manned to block a suspected advance down the pike from Dranesville, which never developed.

HMDB Civil War Updates – Week of 23 February

Around a hundred entries and updates again this week.   Represented are Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Indiana, Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania.  Here are a few of the highlights:

Seven markers from Atlanta, Georgia discuss the Battle of Peachtree Creek.

– In Warsaw, Indiana, the Kosciusko County Civil War Memorial features a replica of a cannon.  The original gun was scrapped during the World War II scrap drives.

Fort Caswell on the coast of North Carolina was a third series masonary fortification defending the Cape Fear River.  The Confederates used the fort during the war, and abandoned it in 1865.   Well after the war the Army renovated the facilities, adding then-modern disappearing guns.  Today the fort serves as a youth camp.

– Further down the coast in Georgetown, South Carolina stands a marker honoring Confederate General Aurthur Manigault.  Manigault died due to lingering complications from a wound suffered at Franklin, Tennessee on November 30, 1864.  So would you consider that a seventh Confederate General killed or mortally wounded during the battle?  Well technically….

– The single West Virginia marker this week details a hospital used by Union forces in Wheeling.

– Among a large number of Virginia markers this week were several from the Cold Harbor Battlefield Park.  We related these into a virtual tour showing the markers along the walking trail.

– In the Valley, thanks to Cenantua, we now have a virtual tour of the Cross Keys Battlefield by way of markers.

– The Green County Civil War Memorial in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania is yet another impressive example of out-door sculpture memorializing the war’s veterans, rivaling those memorials placed on the battlefields.

– Speaking of the battlefield, my numbers were a bit down this week for Gettysburg at 31.  Those entered continiued the march down Cemetery Ridge.  With a good effort, I should complete the ridge this week and move on to other locations.

Lastly, let me mention a marker from Benicia, California, discussing the Benicia Arsenal.  The army built the post in 1849, with Capt. Charles P. Stone, future Federal General and Ball’s Bluff scapegoat, in charge.  If you scroll down to photo number five of the set, you’ll notice the guard house.  Of the many men who spent some time in the guardhouse was an army officer serving punishment for a small offense.   The Lieutenant “cleaned up” a bit and later became General of the Army and President – U.S. Grant.

Crossroads of the Conflict Review

crossroads-of-the-conflictA few weeks back I purchased yet another Gettysburg reference book for my collection.  For my “Gettysburg Project”, as discussed in earlier posts,  what I desire – a catalog of markers, monuments, tablets, and memorials from the battlefield within the HMDB system.   Toward that end, I’m casting my nets over any work that provides information about the subject.  So when my post-Christmas Amazon purchase cycle came up, I had Crossroads of the Conflict: Defining Hours for the Blue and Gray:  A Guide to the Monuments of Gettysburg, by Donald W. McLaughlin waiting in my cart.  Mr. McLaughlin was a Licensed Battlefield Guide at Gettysburg until his death, and clearly had a large volume of notes.  The work has been well reviewed on Civil War Librarian, and by Brett at TOCWOC.  Instead of plowing over the fields they have already sown, allow me to simply add how the book has worked for me in my project.

When I first opened the book, I was quite pleased.  The format is, to put it bluntly, “raw information.”  No illustrations or photos, but rather a straight listing of the tablets, monuments, and memorials on the battlefield.  Not every bit of text from these battlefield displays is reproduced, in most cases just the sections detailing activity from the battle.  For instance for the 121st Pennsylvania Monument on Cemetery Ridge, which I entered just yesterday, McLaughlin reproduced the text from the left side, with the number engaged and casualty figures from the right side.  In the case of the War Department tablets, the “headers” spelling out the unit’s parent formation and subordinate units is omitted, and only the day by day narrative is presented.  I would note also that McLaughlin was not as rigid with regard to punctuation as I am (and I appear to be the only one!).  However, I have not noticed any point where the punctuation added significantly alters the understanding of the text.

McLaughlin organized his listing in the order of the battle events for the most part.  There is no grand table of contents or groupings, but a map of the battlefield offers page number references to key the reader to specific sections.  For each section of the battlefield, strip maps orient the reader and visitor to the locations of markers, monuments and tablets.  In some cases flank markers are indicated.  One great example is the New Jersey Brigade (Torbert’s) position.  Not only is the location of the monument cited in reference to the horse trail and Sedgwick Avenue, but also the War Department tablet for the brigade and the flank marker stones.  McLaughlin included the stone walls to provide an excellent visualization of the area.  In other words, beating around the brush to find a “stone” is much easier now!   But, as detailed as the strip maps are, they suffer from the inherit flaw in that means of visually conveying information – lack of scale.  In the case of “well off the beaten path” items, the lack of scale may be frustrating to visitors in a hurry.  Personally I find it forces me to take a deep breath and really take in the battlefield instead of rushing through it.

But there are some faults I found with the book.  First off, as a raw information presentation it has several typographical errors and formatting issues.   Take it for what it’s worth.  The book comes from a self publishing outlet and likely did not receive a lot of pre-publication support.  Second off, I found several points where the text from a monument or tablet was omitted.  For instance, while the entry for the High Water Mark monument contained even the names of the Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial Association from the back, about a dozen lines of text were omitted from the other sides.  Something I would attribute to editing.  However, most annoying is the omission of entire monuments!  For example, McLaughlin noted the location of the 143rd Pennsylvania monument on Cemetery Ridge on the strip maps, but the monument is not discussed in the text.  But in his defense, the monument is weathered and worn.  Most other references only mention the regiment’s monument near the McPherson Barn, but forget about the second and third day position monument.   Lastly, at least in my copy, the index is truncated.

Separate sections at the end of the book cover the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission’s 1940s era Gettysburg Campaign markers, the War Department’s hospital tablets, the Gettysburg Foundation hospital markers, and some of the War Department itinerary tablets.

After a week of using McLaughlin’s book, and making one trip to the battlefield with it in hand, I declare it a good buy.  It isn’t the “all knowing” reference (nor is there one on this topic, in my experience).  But I use it in conjunction with several other references to confirm or supplement field notes in order to form a full entry in HMDB – title, text, date placed, organization that placed it, location, and additional details.

We should consider McLaughlin’s work in context of the delivery.  Crossroads of the Conflict is in essence a “notebook” collection from a licensed battlefield guide.  As with any rough, raw format, it will have errors and omissions.  But having it at hand on the battlefield or at home while reviewing field notes is much like having said licensed guide beside you to answer a question or two.  Personally I think the work is a diamond in the rough.  A publisher might well massage out some of the issues and present a most professional product with only a limited effort.

Infantry Trench – Defenses of Leesburg, Part 5

Just as the Masked Battery and artillery camp covered the blind spots from Fort Evans to the east and northeast, at least one other work covered the southeast approaches.  Approximately 350 yards southeast, a second rise of the same ridge Fort Evans was sited rose to 400 feet above sea level – roughly level with the fort.  This elevation not only blocked artillery field of fire to the southeast, but also hindered any support of the artillery position along the Leesburg-Alexandria Turnpike at the crossing of Goose Creek.  Should the Federals advance up the pike, as they had feinted on several occasions in 1861, this rise of ground would become pretty important real estate.

To secure this high ground, Confederate troops dug a trench across the high ground.  The  exact endpoints are not known, but when Milner and Associates surveyed the site in 2001-2, the trenches extended from Fort Evans Road north about 900 feet, or roughly a third of the distance to Edwards Ferry Road.  Troops from the 13th, 17th, and 18th Mississippi garrisoned the works during the winter of 1861-62, according to the Milner report.  Pits behind the trenches indicate several huts stood near the works to support this garrison.  Possibly this trench work was considered “picket” duty and different companies rotated the task during the winter.

Infantry Trench Diagram (Not to Scale)
Infantry Trench Diagram (Not to Scale)

Historian Earl J. Hess, in his book Field Armies and Fortifications in the Civil War:  The Eastern Campaigns, 1861-1864, makes note of Fort Beauregard described as half mile south of Fort Evans.  Hess described, while referencing the Confederate works built after the Battle of Balls Bluff (on page 44), “…a straight parapet about 300 yards long.  It has a good trench but no ditch in front of the parapet.  Interestingly, the Confederates constructed a series of short traverses, only one yard long, placed every thirty yards along the extant line.” It is this writer’s opinion that Mr. Hess is actually referring to the infantry trenches pictured here, and not to the site of Fort Beauregard about a mile to the southwest.

leesburg-18-feb-0021
Trench and Water Towers from the South
Trenches from the North End
Trenches from the North End

The trenches might be of little consequence except for the three traverses still visible to the rear of the line.   If indeed constructed in 1861, these are the earliest known use of traverses in Confederate infantry trenches.  Of course, by 1864 such amendments to a line were common place.  But in those early war days, the soldiers were somewhat shy of the spade.  Extra work to build traverses was not appreciated.   Someone with a mind to “proper” field fortifications must have held some influence in the plan.

A Tree Grows from a Traverse
A Tree Grows from a Traverse
Trenches and Traverse on South End
Trenches and Traverse on South End

Today the site is square in the middle of a new shopping center to the northeast of the Leesburg Outlet Malls.  The trenches themselves are situated below two large water tanks on the edge of that complex.  Portions of the south end of the trenches were paved over for parking lots, and if my calculations are correct, at least one traverse was lost.   When the city built the first water tank on the site, a service road was cut through the camp site and the trench berm.  Recent development cut through the north end of the trenches, with the placement of a entrance way to the shopping complex.  To the immediate east is an extension to Battlefield Parkway (mentioned in reference to the artillery camp in the previous post).  If there were any additional sections of the works beyond the 2002 survey, this new roadway cuts along them.

New Road Construction North of Trench
New Road Construction North of Trench

The good news here is those trenches that remain are set aside in a protected area.  With development all around it ongoing, and trucks still delivering building materials, the trenches are fenced off and the area marked with yellow signs.  Similar signs cover the wooded area east of the Battlefield Parkway extension.

Tree Conservation Area
Tree Conservation Area

The infantry trench, or at least what remains of it, are an interesting and easily accessed example of early Civil War field fortifications.  And as I’ve lamented on many occasion on this blog… the location is not interpreted on site –  “Where’s my marker?”

HMDB Civil War Updates – Week of 16 February

A nice batch of eighty marker entries and updates to the Civil War category this week.  The markers range down the eastern coast from New York to Georgia.  Here’s some of the highlights:

– Three additions to the Fort McAllister, Georgia set:  Naval Bombardment, Sinking of the CSS Nashville, and The Assault from the Rear.  Each relates a section of the Fort’s operational history from 1862 to 1864.

– North of Fort McAllister, another formidable Confederate defensive work placed in Isle of Hope, near the Methodist Church, protected the Skidaway River.  The battery included two 8-inch Columbiads and two 32-pounder cannon.

Four state markers entered this week from central Georgia relate details of the opening phases of Sherman’s March to the Sea, focusing on the Left Wing’s operations around Madison, Georgia.  The collective text cover the events from November 15 to 20, 1864.  The destruction included stores of cotton and corn, cordwood, and of course the railroad.

– Geary’s infantry was not the only “raid” that Madison, Georgia saw during the war.  The town was visited by Stoneman’s Raiders in the previous July.

– I wish more towns in the North had memorials like that in Pulaski, New York.  The memorial lists the soldiers from the locality killed in the Civil War, by regiment.  Not only a fitting sculpture, but a helping of history in bronze.

– From Richmond, Virginia, a National Park Service wayside indicates the site of Chimborazo Hospital.

– Two waysides and additional interpretive markers relate the story of Battery Dantzler (here and here), in the Richmond defenses. The works were named for Col.  Olin Dantzler, who’s wartime service is related on a nearby wayside.  Nearby Battery Parker was part of the same defensive line (with the walking trail illustrated on a NPS marker).  The batteries factored into the battle of Trent’s Reach in January 1865.

– In order to by-pass the formidable batteries, starting in August 1864, a canal was dug across the neck of the bend of the James River.  The Dutch Gap Canal was perhaps just another of General Benjamin Butler’s lackluster achievements.  However, in the end, the river on its own expanded the canal, completing the work started by the Federals.  Click on the link for some excellent photos of the canal site today.

– Continuing with sites related to General Butler, during the Bermuda Hundred campaign in the spring of 1864, the General made his headquarters at the Half-way House (state marker).  A state marker a half mile south discusses the end result of the campaign – Into the “Bottle.”

– For the Gettysburg project, 35 entries this week.  All on the north end of Cemetery Ridge.  The “quirk” of the week for Gettysburg – “Totopotomy.”  On many monuments listing the various battles the regiments fought in, that battle seems to have the most variation.  Too many “o”s I guess.  However the monuments for the 69th Pennsylvania, 72nd Pennsylvania, 155th Pennsylvania, and 7th Wisconsin reference “Tolopotomy.”  Then of course there is a marker at the site in Virginia referencing “Totopotomoi.”    And I was just getting fired up about monuments referencing “Spottsylvania.”

If you look at the Cemetery Ridge entries for this week, you’ll notice most of the photos were taken on a foggy, misty day in late December.  While such conditions are bad for the wide shots of the field that I am fond of.  It offers some good conditions for up close photos of the statues.  Here’s one from the 1st Pennsylvania Cavalry Monument.

gb-27-dec-150

More of Cemetery Ridge next week, and there are even MORE Richmond area markers in my queue tonight.

Artillery Camp – Leesburg Defenses, Part 4

Fitting between Fort Evans, discussed in part 2, and the Masked Battery, shown in part 3, was a camp site for the artillery supporting Evan’s Brigade at Leesburg.  During the late summer and fall of 1861, the site was occupied by the 1st Company, Richmond Howitzers.  The camp was situated on high ground along Edwards Ferry Road, overlooking Cattail Branch.   Today, the camp is on the northwest corner of the afore-mentioned Edwards Ferry Road and Battlefield Parkway, just inside the corporate limits of Leesburg.

Site of Artillery Camp (Summertime)
Site of Artillery Camp

As seen in this summer-time view, looking across Battlefield Parkway with Edwards Ferry Road on the left, the camp site is on undeveloped land, evidenced by the heavy undergrowth.  Also in this view are both Masked Battery markers mentioned in the previous post.

The Documentation of Eight Civil War Forts and Earthworks lists the camp site as covering 320 by 240 feet, with at least nine winter huts.  Local lore states a gun emplacement stood in the woods, covering the back side of the Masked Battery.  Impressions of the huts are faintly visible today.

Hut Depressions
Hut Depressions

However, what is often cited as a gun emplacement is likely an artifact of later times.

Gun Emplacement or Cellar?
Gun Emplacement or Cellar?

The Milner and Associates survey calls the disturbance a cellar, linking it to an early 20th century still.  The assumption is the cellar was used to hide the still from authorities, placing it both underground and well off the roads of the time.  (Although how authorities might miss the very distinctive smell of “mash” and distillery by-products that would carry well past Edwards Ferry Road even with a light wind is not discussed!)

View of Site from the East over Battlefield Parkway
View of Site from the East over Battlefield Parkway

Overall the site offers little to observe, but at least is within a city “set-aside” to preserve the tract.  I drew this sketch based on the Milner survey and my site notes:

Artillery Camp
Artillery Camp (Not to Scale)

Notice the distance to Fort Evans, noted at the lower left.  The masked Battery stands about 125 yards east of the hut depressions.  As with many areas in Loudoun County, infrastructure development will soon change the surrounding landscape.  To the south an extension of Battlefield Parkway will soon provide a link to Highway 7.   This development upsets the view of a creek tributary of Cattail Branch that cuts between the camp and Fort Evans.

Battlefield Parkway Extension
Battlefield Parkway Extension

Fort Evans stands out of view to the right, behind the trees.  The ravine where the construction equipment is parked offered an approach only partially covered by the Masked Battery to the east (to the left down Edwards Ferry Road).  If there were any extended gun emplacements, my speculation is they may have stood at the head of the ravine.  However, the ground on the south side of Edwards Ferry Road is on private property.  What is visible from the road shows scars of landscaping.

Logically, defenders also should have paid some attention to the north side of the Artillery Camp site.  While the “cellar” location is likely not a gun emplacement, the ground further northwest from that point offer a commanding view of Cattail Branch.

Cattail Branch
Cattail Branch

Although the Masked Battery covered approaches directly from the east, this section of the ravine would require an extension of those works.  The ground, however, has been disturbed during the building of nearby housing developments.  Even the course of the creek is greatly altered in this section.  During my walk of the ground, several points had the “look” of earthworks, but just as easily could be debris dumps or other disturbances.

And finally, just for the sake of being thorough in presentation, another “set-aside” stands to the west of the Artillery Camp, sandwitched between housing developments and a shopping plaza.  Foot-trails criss-cross the woods where local residents find short cuts to the shopping center.  As with the sites above, this is a logical place that a defender might have placed light works or gun emplacements to further deny an unguarded approach.   The north end of the set-aside overlooks the ravine created by Cattail Branch.  Any traces or remains of such speculative sites is not apparent, even after several walks through the area.

As a Civil War site, the Artillery Camp is not as impressive as Fort Evans or the Masked Battery.  No great earthworks loom over the road.  But the significance of the site lies not with the fortifications, if any, tied to it, but the use as a base for the artillerymen who manned the fortifications.

Masked Battery – Leesburg Defenses, Part 3

In part two, I mentioned the blind spots of Fort Evans.  To the east, several ravines offered an attacker a concealed route to within musket range of the fort.  While the elevation difference between Fort Evans and Edwards Ferry (the most likely landing point for any Union assault) is 200 feet, most of the drop of elevation is at the northwest bank of Goose Creek, where bluffs drop rather sharply.  In between Goose Creek and Fort Evans, Cattail Branch and associated creeks cut through small valleys and ravines, ranging between 380 and 240 feet in elevation.   The Branch itself  winds down from Leesburg to the north of Fort Evans, crossing Edwards Ferry Road about  800 yards from Fort Evans, then passing down to Goose Creek to the east.

In order to deflect any threat moving up from Edwards Ferry, the Confederates built a detached battery sometime in August or September, 1861.  This fortification sat overlooking the point Edwards Ferry Road crosses Cattail Branch.  The work was a simple linear fortification with a ditch to the front.  Overall the line ran about 300 feet, north to south.   A bastion formed on the north end of the line allowed a “refuse” to that flank, reinforced with a set of rifle pits.  The southern end curved back with the terrain.   The builders took advantage of a steep slope down to Cattail Branch, and did not build up the outer portions of the line beyond the ditch.  Most important, the position on the slope was not visible by an attacker until reaching Cattail Branch.  For this reason the name “masked battery” was later applied to describe the works.

As with Fort Evans, I offer this diagram Based on the site survey from Documentation of Eight Civil War Forts and Earthworks and my own walks of the ground:

Masked Battery (Not to Scale)
Masked Battery (Not to Scale)

As depicted on the map, Edwards Ferry Road cuts through the work then continues about 100 yards to intersect with the modern day Battlefield Parkway.  The entire portion of the works, both north and south, are on private property.  However even in the summer with heavy foliage, the form of the walls and ditch are easy to spot while driving the public road.

Profile of the north segment of the battery
Profile of the north segment of the battery
South End of the Masked Battery
South End of the Masked Battery
Bastion Angle of the Works
Bastion Angle of the Works
Interior of the North End of Battery
Interior of the North End of Battery

While the ground in front of the battery is posted and fenced, one can take in the formidable nature of the position by looking east on Edwards Ferry Road.

Looking East from the Battery
Looking East from the Battery

The photo angle here does not do proper justice to the terrain.  The road takes on the course of a “roller coaster” as it drops down and then ascends back up on the far side of the creek.

On October 21, 1861, when Federal forces under the direction of Brig. Gen. Charles Stone made a crossing at Edwards Ferry in conjunction with crossings further north at Ball’s Bluff.  As the reconnaissance at Ball’s Bluff evolved into a general engagement, the forces at Edwards Ferry were content to simply probe the Confederate defenses.  A detachment of the 3rd New York Cavalry under Major John Mix approached the masked battery location.  The battery was manned by a section of the 1st Richmond Howitzers, probably consisting of a 6-pdr Field Gun and a 12-pdr Howitzer.   No serious attempt to assault or otherwise test the Confederate position was made.

The actions around Edwards Ferry and the fighting at Balls Bluff are well described in A Little Short of Boats:  The Fights at Balls Bluff and Edwards Ferry, October 21-22, 1861, by James Morgan, III (Ft. Mitchell, Ky:  Ironclad Publishing, 2004).

Today the masked battery is the only fortification around Leesburg with any interpretation.  Virginia State marker T-51 and a Civil War Trails marker stand near the intersection of Battlefield Parkway and Edwards Ferry Road.  Expansion of Edwards Ferry Road in recent years did not directly damage the standing earthworks, but brought increased vehicle traffic.  The location of the works on private property, however, does insulate it somewhat from further disruption.

Placed in proper context, the Masked Battery is one of several sites related to the Battle of Balls Bluff which stand outside the bounds of the Regional Park.

——————————————–

UPDATE:  After some discussions with Jim Morgan, there are a few points from this entry that I’m going to refine to a finer point.  Nothing major, but really more elaboration on my thoughts as to where the artillery was actually emplaced.  To be blunt, I did not feel I should include speculations that might run directly contrary to some of the references I had consulted when writing the post.  And lacking a proper walk of the works standing on private property, that speculation needed to be tabled.  At any rate, I’ll expand on my speculations conerning the “real” Masked Battery after I’ve had the chance to examine the works up close to confirm or disprove a few things.