This Week in the Civil War: Aug 27-Sep 2, 1862

Wednesday, August 27:  In Virginia, the Federals under General John Pope withdrew from the Rappahannock River after being outflanked by advancing Confederates. Pope shifted his troops north toward the railroad junction at Manassas, where General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson’s Confederates were destroying Federal supplies. Pope was confused about Jackson’s purpose, and at the same time General Robert E. Lee was moving north with the rest of his Confederate Army of Northern Virginia to join Jackson. President Abraham Lincoln had no communication with Pope because all telegraph lines to Washington had been cut, and half of Lee’s army was between Pope and the Federal capital. Meanwhile, General George McClellan’s Federal Army of the Potomac began trickling into Washington from the Virginia Peninsula. In Tennessee, skirmishing intensified as Confederate General Braxton Bragg began an excursion to recover eastern Tennessee and Kentucky, as well as to counter the Federal threat to Chattanooga.

Thursday, August 28:  In Virginia, Confederates under “Stonewall” Jackson withdrew to positions west of the old Bull Run battlefield, while John Pope’s Federals arrived at Manassas to find Jackson gone. Pope received conflicting reports about Jackson’s whereabouts, so he decided to concentrate at Centreville, erroneously thinking Jackson was there. When a Federal division accidentally clashed with Jackson at Groveton, Pope believed Jackson was retreating and redirected his forces against him. In Tennessee, Braxton Bragg’s Confederates advanced into central Tennessee.

Friday, August 29:  In Virginia, John Pope’s Federals attacked “Stonewall” Jackson’s Confederates concentrated in a railroad cut north of Groveton and the Warrenton Turnpike. The Federals were dispersed and tired from hard marching in the heat, and their piecemeal attack was ineffective. Pope blamed General Fitz John Porter, whose corps failed to attack because Porter claimed that the Confederate corps under General James Longstreet had arrived and outnumbered him. Meanwhile, Federal General-in-Chief Henry W. Halleck continued urging George McClellan to hurry his troops to reinforce Pope. President Lincoln telegraphed his commanders three times, “What news?” with no response. In the Confederacy, P.G.T. Beauregard succeeded John C. Pemberton as commander of the Department of South Carolina and Georgia. In the Union, Frederick Steele assumed command of the Army of the Southwest.

Saturday, August 30:  In Virginia, John Pope attacked “Stonewall” Jackson’s left flank, erroneously thinking Jackson was retreating. However, James Longstreet counterattacked on Pope’s right with 25,000 troops in the largest mass assault of the war. Combined attacks by Jackson and Longstreet compelled Pope to withdraw by nightfall, and the major fighting in the Battle of Second Bull Run was over. Pope’s Federals established defenses at Centreville; they were defeated but not routed. George McClellan’s feeble efforts to reinforce Pope had failed. Robert E. Lee was victorious, he had relieved Federal pressure on Richmond, but he had not destroyed Pope as hoped. In Kentucky, Confederates under General Edmund Kirby Smith attacked at Richmond, compelling the Federals to retreat toward Louisville. This small but impressive Confederate victory began the invasion of Kentucky. In Washington, President Lincoln anxiously awaited news from both Virginia and Kentucky.

Sunday, August 31:  In Virginia, John Pope concentrated his defeated Army of Virginia on the heights of Centreville. Two corps from the Army of the Potomac finally arrived to reinforce Pope, but they were too late to reverse the defeat. The Confederates moved to turn the Federal right, with “Stonewall” Jackson moving west of Chantilly and James Longstreet following the next day. The Federals abandoned Fredericksburg, leaving behind many supplies. On the Tennessee River, the Federal transport W.B. Terry was captured by Confederates after being grounded on the Duck River Sucks. In the Union, many were alarmed by the recent Confederate successes. The Army Surgeon General called for women and children to scrape lint for bandages.

Monday, September 1:  In Virginia, the last major fighting in the Second Bull Run campaign took place at Chantilly or Ox Hill. Robert E. Lee sent “Stonewall” Jackson’s corps around the Federal right. After severe fighting in heavy rain, the Federals withdrew. Federal General Philip Kearny was killed in the fight, and his death was mourned in both North and South. John Pope’s troops held off the Confederate advance, then withdrew closer to Washington during the night. In Washington, President Lincoln conferred with Henry Halleck and George McClellan about the military situation in Virginia. In the Union, General Ormsby M. Mitchel, famed astronomer and lecturer, was assigned to command the Department of the South. In the Confederacy, General J.P. McCown assumed command of the Department of East Tennessee.

Tuesday, September 2:  In Virginia, John Pope pulled his defeated Army of Virginia back to the Washington area, ending the Second Bull Run campaign. In the fighting of 27 Aug-2 Sep, the Federals lost 1,724 killed, 8,372 wounded, and 5,958 missing (16,054 total casualties) from about 75,000 engaged. The Confederates lost 1,481 killed, 7,627 wounded, and 89 missing (9,197 total casualties) from about 48,500. President Lincoln restored George McClellan to full command in Virginia and around Washington, a decision opposed by cabinet members Edwin Stanton and Salmon Chase. The Confederates gathered near Chantilly to prepare for their next campaign. In Minnesota, the Dakota Sioux uprising continued as the Indians besieged a Federal detachment at Birch Coulee. In Kentucky, Edmund Kirby Smith’s Confederates occupied Lexington. Business was suspended and citizens began drilling in Cincinnati, fearing that Smith would invade Ohio. Meanwhile, Confederates under Braxton Bragg continued moving north from Chattanooga. In the Union, Flag Officer Louis M. Goldsborough was relieved of command of the North Atlantic Blockading Squadron. President Lincoln wrote “Meditation on the Divine Will,” in which he stated, “In great contests each party claims to act in accordance wit the will of God. Both may be, but one must be wrong. God can not be for, and against the same thing at the same time.”

Primary Source: The Civil War Day by Day by E.B. Long and Barbara Long (New York, NY: Da Capo Press, 1971)

Civil War Events Feature Minstrel Song Revival – ABC News

Civil War Events Feature Minstrel Song Revival – ABC News.

Pretty interesting article on a revival of Civil War era music via reenacting. I had the opportunity to listen to the 97th Regimental String Band while at Pipestone, MN a few weeks ago and they were a great group.

While I understand some of the discomfort over some of the lyrics used in the songs, we must remember that society was different 150 years ago and did not subscribe to the same values and attitudes that we might. Such events must be understood in their proper historical context and they can serve a purpose for reflecting upon the past to hopefully open a civil and honest debate about the issues of slavery and race in America’s past.

150th anniversary of the siege of Fort Abercrombie

From the Grand Forks Herald:

Fort Abercrombie: On 150th anniversary, a look back at a bloody clash

By: Patrick Springer, Grand Forks Herald

FARGO – The first hint of trouble came to Fort Abercrombie on a tranquil summer day when word arrived that the Dakota Sioux in Minnesota were ripe for an uprising.

It was unwelcome news for a military post whose new commander had recently discovered was stocked with ammunition that was the wrong caliber for the soldiers’ muskets.

Also, since the fort wasn’t yet protected by a stockade or blockhouses, the soldiers scrambled to build defensive breastworks of earth and timber to surround the key buildings comprising the post.

Help was 227 miles away, at Fort Snelling, and the nearest community of any size was more than 150 miles away, in St. Cloud.

Click here to read the rest of the article

Author’s Note:  I will be taking part in the commemoration this Saturday, portraying a soldier, so if you are in the area, come on down to the fort and check out the program, as it looks to be pretty good. I will also share my thoughts on the event and the actual siege over the weekend.

Victorian Festival canceled as weather looms – The Telegraph: Local News

Victorian Festival canceled as weather looms – The Telegraph: Local News.

Had to share this story with you all, as it involves my home town. I have been to this event several times before I relocated to North Dakota, and this is the first time it’s been cancelled, but what can you do about the weather, especially when it’s the remnants of Hurricane Isaac.

As a reenactor, I know I would not plan to go to the event with that kind of weather in the forecast, even if I had committed to it before, as damp weather is not good for weapons, or powder. Also, camping would be a pain in the rear with heavy rain, as the tents are only so waterproof. While a tough decision, it was the right one in light of the situation.

I wish the Nolan’s the best of luck as they deal with this sad turn of events and to all my friends in Jersey County, please be safe this weekend.

Recent adventures in reenacting

The past two weekends have been quite fun for me, as I participated in Pipestone Civil War Days 2012 from August 10-12, (we didn’t get back to Grand Forks until Monday evening due to a car problem, but made the best of it) and then set up a Civil War living history display as part of East Grand Forks Heritage Days on August 18-19. I also did a display at the Hubbard County Museum in Park Rapids, Minnesota on July 29, which was fun.

For Pipestone, I fell in with the 1st South Carolina, Company H, which was my one time this season doing a Confederate impression. It was a good time seeing old friends and we took in a concert with the 97th Regimental String Band, who played period music.  The battles were good, though we surrendered on the second day. I also experienced the fun of firing my musket in damp conditions, resulting in two incidences of unintentionally firing a double charge, as the first charge did not discharge, making the kick and flash quite noticeable. Here are some pictures from Pipestone. The best part of the weekend was the chance to have a tintype made of me using a period photograph by Dave Rambow, who I have met at several other events.

Heritage Days was good this year, as we had a bigger display and had Den Bolda and Mike Larson from Fargo join us on Sunday. Saturday, Joe, Stuart, Ethan Brazee (who was trying out reenacting for the first time), and I met several people and we figured almost 150 stopped by our display that day. We may have gained some new recruits. It was a great time and thanks to Drs. Doug and Laura Munski for providing some of the pictures on both days.

Here are the photos from all the events.

Book Review of Blue and Gray Diplomacy: A History of Union and Confederate Foreign Relations

Howard Jones. Blue and Gray Diplomacy: A History of Union and Confederate Foreign Relations. The Littlefield History of the Civil War Era series. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2010. ISBN 978-0-8078-3349-0. Illustrations. Notes. Historiographical Note. Bibliography. Index. Pp. xiv, 416. $32.00.

Originally posted in International History (22 August 2012)

Most studies of the American Civil War (1861-1865) focus on political and military leaders, military campaigns, and battles. Dr Howard Jones, University Research Professor at the University of Alabama, provides a diplomatic history of the American conflict that considers the foreign relations of the United States and Confederacy with the European Powers. Previous works by Jones include To the Webster-Ashburton Treaty: A Study in Anglo-American Relations, 1783-1843 (1977), Union in Peril: The Crisis over British Intervention in the Civil War (1992), Abraham Lincoln and a New Birth of Freedom: The Union and Slavery in the Diplomacy of the Civil War (1999), and Crucible of Power: A History of American Foreign Relations to 1913 (2002).

In this study, Jones recounts the diplomatic events of the Civil War focusing on the issue of foreign intervention. He first looks at foreign relations from the outbreak of the war in April 1861 through the autumn of 1862. This was a period when the Palmerston Cabinet in London took the lead in declaring neutrality and recognizing the belligerent status of the South, and then considered mediation and possible diplomatic recognition of the Confederate States. He clearly shows the danger of British intervention in the Trent Affair (1861) and the Intervention Debates of 1862. Throughout this time the United States, using the threat of war, pursued its main goal of deterring Britain from diplomatically recognizing the South. The author shows that, despite pressure from certain circles, especially over the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Britain opted to avoid a war against the United States in support of the Confederacy. London had to consider the Union threat to Canada and British commerce. By the end of 1862 the Confederacy was losing hope of British diplomatic recognition of the South, as well as hope for an alliance with Britain against the North.

Confederate diplomacy slowly began to focus on Napoleon III and France. Napoleon sympathized with the Southern cause. He entertained the ideas of diplomatic recognition and an armistice. The Emperor was open to Confederate proposals for an alliance, so long as it benefited French involvement in Mexican affairs and the pursuit of his dream to reestablish a French Empire in the New World. “Napoleon,” writes Jones, “considered Confederate independence crucial to the military and commercial bastion he envisioned in the Western Hemisphere” (p.310). The Lincoln administration was strongly against French interference in Mexican affairs. Jones shows that French support for the Confederacy became shaky after the Union victories at Vicksburg and Gettysburg in July 1863. Napoleon quickly abandoned the South after the United States threatened a war in Mexico in March 1864.

Blue and Gray Diplomacy is an outstanding study covering foreign relations between the Union, Confederacy, Britain, and France. It replaces David P. Crook’s The North, the South, and the Powers, 1861-1865 (1974) as the best study of foreign relations regarding the Civil War. Even so, the study can be supplemented by the recent publication of Wayne H. Bowen’s Spain and the American Civil War (2011). This reviewer highly recommends Blue and Gray Diplomacy to students and scholars of the Civil War to gain an understanding of the diplomatic events that touched the course and outcome of the conflict, especially the fact that Britain and France highly considered intervention in favor of the South, and in the end, backed away from such action.

Dr William Young
University of North Dakota
Grand Forks, North Dakota

Book Review of Caution and Cooperation: The American Civil War in British-American Relations

Phillip E. Myers. Caution and Cooperation: The American Civil War in British-American Relations. New Studies in U.S. Foreign Relations series. Kent: The Kent State University Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-87338-945-7. Illustrations. Notes. Bibliography. Index. Pp. xi, 332. $55.00.

Dr Phillip E. Myers, Director of Administration at the Western Kentucky University Research Foundation, examines Anglo-American relations after the War of 1812 to the Treaty of Washington (1871).  The author focuses on Anglo-American relations during the American Civil War and puts it into the larger context of overall relations between the two states during the nineteenth century.

Myers argues against the traditional view that Britain and the United States had tense relations that could have easily resulted in foreign intervention or an Anglo-Union war during the American Civil War.  Instead, the author stresses that Britain and the United States employed caution and cooperation, rather than conflict, in their wartime relations.  Myers shows that both states had used caution and cooperation in their relations before the conflict that resolved border issues in the Rush-Bagot Agreement (1817), Convention of 1818, Webster-Ashburton Treaty (1842), and Oregon Treaty of 1846.  He writes: “The four treaties showed that caution and cooperation were the leading British-American aims” (p.23).

After the outbreak of the American Civil War, Myers stresses that Britain and United States worked to avoid an Anglo-American conflict, and that neither side seriously wanted war against the other.  The North had its hands full with the war against the South.  Britain was more worried about Napoleon III and the French threat to the British Isles and the European Balance of Power.  Britain declared neutrality in the American conflict, resulting in British recognition of belligerent status for the South.  Tension was evident over British trade with the South and the Union blockade.  Myers stresses that the Trent Affair (1861), traditionally thought to be a crisis moment when Britain and the United States might to go war against one another, was less serious than previously believed.  Neither power wanted war.  Private diplomacy quickly brought the two states back to cooperative relations that avoided a crisis for the rest of the American conflict.  He points out that the Palmerston Cabinet opted for cooperation with the Union in the Intervention Debate of 1862, and relations continually improved for the duration of the war.  The author states that, “by the end of 1862 the British-American peace was stronger than at any time since the beginning of the Civiil War . . .” (p.139).

Myer’s argument contrasts sharply with previous historians, such as Howard Jones’ Union in Peril: The Crisis over British Intervention in the Civil War (1992), that stress tense Anglo-American relations and crisis moments between Britain and the United States that could have led to foreign intervention in the American Civil War.  Myers’ work is based on archival research in Britain, the United States, and Canada.  The study is valuable for depicting Anglo-American relations in a different light.  Is his thesis of Anglo-American caution and cooperation overstated?  This reviewer recommends this study for students and scholars to read and make up their own minds.

Dr William Young
University of North Dakota
Grand Forks, North Dakota