Private Solomon Crist of Bedford, PA: Missing no more.

The Bedford Gazette reported that a monument to 16 Bedford County soldiers, killed or missing in action during the Civil War, would be placed in Pavia’s Mount Zion Cemetery on May 25, 1909. One of those soldiers, Private Solomon Crist, was still listed as missing. He’d been on guard duty at Foster’s Farm on the morning of August 25, 1864, when General Pickett attacked and captured part of the Union line near Richmond. The attack was a feint to divert the Union command’s attention from a surprise attack that General Lee was going to spring on the Union Second Corps at Ream’s Station on another Pennsylvania native, General Winfield Scott Hancock. The man who received and repulsed the same General Pickett’s charge at Gettysburg.

Solomon Crist enlisted and served for a month in the Pennsylvania militia at the time of the Gettysburg battle. Six months later, at the recorded age of 42 (he lied, he was 50), the six-foot-tall farm laborer enlisted again this time in Company K, 55th Pennsylvania Infantry at Bedford, along with his 22-year-old nephew Francis T. Crist. The unit did duty in South Carolina, and then at the fight at Foster’s Farm, Solomon went missing. His nephew and family back home never knew what happened to him. He became a mystery of the War. Today, thanks to the electronic archives on the internet, we understand what happened to Solomon. In the fight at Foster’s Farm, the Confederates captured him and then marched him to Libby Prison in Richmond. On August 27, 1864, Solomon stood in line with 1800 other Union prisoners, most captured at Ream’s Station. Lee’s surprise attack was successful.

Less than a month after his capture, Solomon met the fate of many a Union prisoner. On September 20, 1864, he died of diarrhea, probably dysentery, in Richmond’s General Hospital No. 21. The Confederates buried him nearby, and after the War his remains were probably moved to the Richmond National Cemetery, where he rests as an unknown.

Working Names

I am working on identifying the 365 names that are in the 113 extant letters that Ned Brownson wrote to his sister between 1862 and 1864. The significant names are the ones that are mentioned more than once. The approach I am taking is to get through the list once. Then concentrate on identifying the ones that were mentioned frequently. As of today, I am about two-thirds of the way through the first pass.

Battle of Ream’s Station – 25 August 1864

Part 1: Strategic and Operational Context

The Second Battle of Ream’s Station occurred about eight miles south of Petersburg, Virginia on a watering station of the Weldon and Petersburg railroad, and where the Halifax Road into Petersburg which paralleled the railroad intersected the Dinwiddie Stage Road. The battle occurred here because there were pre-existing fortifications for the Union Second Corps to use that were leftover from the First Battle of Ream’s Station as an interior defense against a Confederate exterior maneuver assault from a larger force. (See Figure 1) The action was a part of the Union Army’s attempt to capture Petersburg, Virginia. The Union Army was attempting to capture Petersburg as the transportation and supply key to the capture of the Confederate capital, Richmond. In June of 1864, after continuous flanking operations against the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia in its Overland Campaign, the Union Army was stalemated at Cold Harbor, Virginia. In a joint operation, Grant began an unexpected flanking action to capture Petersburg, Virginia. Petersburg was Grant’s objective because its rail lines supplied the Confederate capital and the Army of Northern Virginia. (Bowery 17-22)

The Union’s Overland spring campaign started in May 1864 and featured for the first time a coordinated simultaneous assault in all the theaters of the war. (See Figure 3) Grant’s strategy was to prevent the Confederates from being able to use their interior lines to reinforce one another. Accordingly, as Grant surrounded the Richmond/Petersburg perimeter, Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia was trapped in a defense of the Richmond/Petersburg area and only able to shift some forces to and from the Valley of Virginia but no longer to any other parts of the Confederacy. Southern forces in other parts of the Confederacy were similarly constrained due to Union offensives in their theaters. (Bowery 2-17)

Although trapped in a defense of Petersburg, Lee was still attempting to weaken the northern will to conduct the war by inflicting as many casualties upon the Union Army as possible, to thereby influence the upcoming Union Presidential election in November 1864, by creating the conditions for the election of a Union Peace candidate. The strategic objective to weaken the Union’s will to fight and obtain a negotiated peace had been both Jefferson Davis and Lee’s objective from early in the War. (Bowery 40-41)

The Union’s strategic objectives were to destroy the Confederacy’s capability to wage war and to capture its capital at Richmond. Grant’s operational objectives on the Petersburg/Richmond perimeter, were to cut Lee’s food and ammunition supply lines and to stretch the Confederate’s interior lines to the point where somewhere they must break and enable Grant to bring the overwhelming mass of the Union Army to bear on and defeat Lee’s shrinking forces. After it became clear in June of 1864 that Grant could not capture Petersburg and/or Richmond by a direct assault on Lee’s fortifications, Grant began near-continuous operations of maneuver to cut Lee’s supply lines and stretch Lee’s defensive lines. Historians have categorized these operations and the Confederates operations into a number of offensives of the Petersburg Campaign, although they do not fully agree on the definitions. (Hess xvii) The Union and Confederate commands did not so conceive them. It appears that Grant conceived continuous operations with maximum pressure on all fronts to achieve a victory before the fall of 1864 elections.  Both Grant and Lee understood that the Union’s center of gravity rested with the political will of the North to continue the war that had a strategic objective, post-emancipation proclamation, of a reunification of the United States with slavery eliminated.

Following Hess’s categorization, the Union offensives and raids of the Petersburg Campaign were: First, 15-18 June 1864, attempt to capture Petersburg; Second, 22-23 June 1864, attempt to extend the line to the west; Wilson-Kautz cavalry raid, 22-29 June 1864, disrupt railroads; Third, 26-30 July 1864, complex attempt to attack Richmond, cavalry raid a railroad, and direct assault the Petersburg fortification with a mine; Fourth, 14-25 August 1864, attack on both flanks, at Richmond and at the Weldon Railroad, the battle that is the subject of this paper, the Second Battle of Ream’s Station ends the Fourth offensive; Fifth, 29 September – 2 October 1864, both flanks to extend lines; Sixth, 27 Oct 1864, simultaneous attacks on the Richmond and Petersburg’s left to cut supply lines; Seventh, 5-7 February 1865, cut rail and road lines and extend to the west; Eighth, 29 March – 1 April 1865, flanked Lee’s right; and, Ninth, 2 April 1865, a direct assault that broke Confederate lines and caused the Confederate Army’s evacuation of Petersburg and Richmond. During this period the Confederates were mainly in a defensive posture operating on interior lines to defend the Richmond-Petersburg perimeter. Lee, however, did undertake three offensives, these were per Hess: First, 24 June 1864, an attempt to collapse the Union right near Petersburg; Second, 7 October 1864, an attempt to collapse the Army of the James right flank near Richmond; and, Third, 25 March 1865, an attack on the Union’s Ft Steadman to cover the Confederate withdrawal from Richmond/Petersburg. (Hess xvi-xxi)

At the end of the Fourth Union Petersburg Offensive, the Second Battle of Ream’s Station occurred after the Union’s Fifth Corps in a flanking maneuver had successfully captured and defended from counter-attack a portion of the Weldon Railroad at Globe Tavern near Petersburg. (See Figure 2) Grant directed two divisions of the Army of the Potomac’s Second Corps to conduct a shaping operation by tearing up the track of the Weldon railroad south from Globe Tavern to Stoney Creek where the Confederates were in force. Grant hoped to use the shaping operation as a lure to get Lee’s forces to come out from behind their entrenchments to do battle with the larger Union forces. The battle of Ream’s Station, Virginia occurred on the 25th of August 1864 between 2 divisions of the Union’s Army of the Potomac’s Second Corps commanded by Major General Winfield Scott Hancock and the Confederate Third Corps commanded by Lieutenant General A.P. Hill. The battle was the final event in Union General Ulysses S. Grant’s Fourth Offensive in his Petersburg Campaign, 14-25 August 1864. The Fourth Petersburg offensive started with Grant directed simultaneous attacks on both Confederate flanks. The attacks ended with a Union repulse at Deep Bottom on the Confederate left, and the Union’s successful capture of the Weldon Railroad at Globe Tavern on the Confederate right. (Hess 124-141)

By August 1864, the Confederate situation was dire. The Confederates had lost significant territory to the Union, the Union had split the Confederacy in two, and controlled the Mississippi River. The Confederacy’s finances were in a state of collapse, and it had only one remaining port open, Wilmington, the one that supplied Lee using the Weldon railroad. Confederate logistics were unable to keep its Army’s supplied. The loss of Kentucky and its horse farms meant that the Confederate Cavalry would shortly be unhorsed. Manpower losses had the Confederate government considering using slaves as soldiers in exchange for manumission. Yet, despite this Confederate Army morale remained high, and the population banked their hopes on the election of a Union Peace candidate in the 1864 elections with the end of the war in a negotiated peace. (Koistinen 197-281)

On the Union side, by late August 1864, Lee had inflicted massive casualties on Grant during the overland campaign and Lincoln was receiving political threats from within his own party in addition to the continuing threats from the Peace Democrats. In fact, at this point, Lincoln doubted whether he could be re-elected. On August 23rd, 1864, Lincoln had his cabinet sign the back of an envelope.  In it was a plan that assumed that a Democratic Peace candidate would win the 1864 Presidential election, and the now lame-duck Lincoln administration would have to win the war before the inauguration of the new administration could take place. (Waugh 360) The gold price and the dollar price which were objective indicators supported Lincoln’s conclusion. In July of 1864, as Confederate General Jubal Early’s forces attacked the outskirts of Washington, Gold reached its highest price in the war, and the dollar fell to its lowest value. Grant’s Overland Campaign had incurred over 84,000 Union casualties. Grant was stalemated around Richmond/Petersburg, Sherman was blocked in front of Atlanta, and none of the other Union initiatives had been successful. (Horn, 1991 1-2) The war had required the Union to institute a direct income tax, and a draft although one could get out of the draft by paying a bounty for a substitute.  The consequence of the draft and bounty was that Union forces were being replenished with mercenaries in units that had little training or incentive to risk their lives in the war effort. Canadians, German and Irish immigrants made up a significant portion of those being paid to serve in the Union Army. In this depressing context, with Lee attempting to further negatively impact Union morale, the Second Battle of Ream’s Station battle was fought in a fortified area around Ream’s Station, Virginia on the line of the Petersburg and Weldon Railroad parallel to the Halifax road. The battle was fought from late morning on 25 August 1864 to 9 PM when the Union withdrew back to its main fortifications around Petersburg. (Horn 1991 122-176)

For the Union, the battle was a defensive engagement along interior lines. The Union Second Corps was in the process of conducting a shaping exercise and extending the Union interior line by destroying the Confederate Petersburg and Weldon Railroad from the area where the railroad was captured by the Union Fifth Corps at Globe Tavern, Virginia on 21 August 1864 to Stony Creek Station, Virginia approximately 20 miles below Globe Tavern. While in the vicinity of Ream’s Station, 8 miles below Globe Tavern, the Union Second Corps received a surprise attack from the Confederates. (Horn 1991 122-176) For General Lee, the battle was a battle of maneuver on exterior lines. Lee ordered the Confederate Third Corps to leave the Petersburg defensive perimeter to attack and destroy the smaller Union force. General Lee attempted to inflict maximum casualties on Union forces to weaken Union political will and influence the upcoming Presidential election and to disrupt the Union shaping operation and preserve the Confederate supply offload point at Stoney Creek Station. In this engagement, he was successful in both aims—the Confederates inflicted massive casualties, and preserved Stoney Creek as their railroad terminus for supplies. The Union was not successful in its strategic aims. Meade did not follow through with providing the massive reinforcements to the Second Corps that would have enabled the Union to catch Lee’s forces out in the open from behind the Petersburg trenches and destroy them. Meade had such forces available but was afraid of the Confederates getting in his rear and used the available forces to protect his lines of communication from penetration as a primary objective and the reinforcement of Hancock as a secondary objective with the consequence of insuring Hancock’s rather than A.P. Hills’s defeat.

The extent of the Confederate and Union fortifications and the need to man them at least minimally were geographical considerations that limited the forces that could be applied to the Second Battle of Ream’s Station. Grant had the Army of the James on the perimeter of Richmond, part of the Army of Potomac had been sent to pursue Early in the Shenandoah Valley with the mission to eliminate that threat to Washington DC, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. The remaining forces were allocated to maintaining pressure on the Petersburg perimeter. Meade and Grant believed that they could only afford to use 1 or 2 divisions to allocate to the secondary objective of tearing up the Weldon railroad to Rowanty Creek.

Similarly, Lee’s need to maintain at least a single line of troops in the Petersburg trenches meant that he could only afford to send a reinforced Army Corps slightly larger than Union’s Second Corps to the attack. (See Figure 2)

The rain that had turned the Virginia roads to mud limited the artillery that Union Second Corps brought on its mission, and the availability of the poorly sited and constructed fortifications at Ream’s Station meant that the Union would use them for defense with little thought as to their suitability.

The lines of operation for the Union forces were the Halifax Road coming down from Globe Tavern on the Second Corps line of march, and the Jerusalem Plank Road to its east also leading back to the Petersburg lines. The Confederate lines of operation stretched from the Petersburg trenches to the Dinwiddie Stage Road, and from the Halifax Road as it came north from Rowanty Creek where the Confederates had a significant infantry and cavalry presence to protect railhead there.

On the day of the battle at Ream’s Station, the Union Second Corps consisted of two divisions of infantry, approximately 6000 men, three brigades of cavalry at approximately 2,000 cavalrymen, and 16 pieces of artillery. The Confederates had a reinforced infantry Corps but with straggling it probably numbered at best 5,000 effective at the battle. Hampton had about 3,000 cavalrymen who mostly fought dismounted, and 25 pieces of artillery. A significant factor in Confederate combat effectiveness in addition to their advantage in artillery was the presence of Confederate sharpshooter battalions. (Horn 2015 Location 5309)

The lines of operation for the Union forces were the Halifax Road coming down from Globe Tavern on the Second Corps line of march, and the Jerusalem Plank Road to its east also leading back to the Petersburg lines. The Confederate lines of operation stretched from the Petersburg trenches to the Dinwiddie Stage Road, and from the Halifax Road as it came north from Rowanty Creek where the Confederates had a significant infantry and cavalry presence to protect railhead there.

On the day of the battle at Ream’s Station, the Union Second Corps consisted of two divisions of infantry, approximately 6000 men, three brigades of cavalry at approximately 2,000 cavalrymen, and 16 pieces of artillery. The Confederates had a reinforced infantry Corps but with straggling it probably numbered at best 5,000 effective soldiers at the battle. Hampton had about 3,000 cavalrymen who mostly fought dismounted, and 25 pieces of artillery. A significant factor in Confederate combat effectiveness in addition to their advantage in artillery was the presence of Confederate sharpshooter battalions. (Horn 2015 Location 5309)

Table 1: Events Leading up to the Battle

Date Event
June 29First Battle of Ream’s Station. Confederates tried to trap
Union Cavalry under Wilson and Kautz who were returning
from a raid to disrupt Confederate rail lines. The initial
fortification next to Reams was put there by the
Confederates.
July 11Lee used Early’s Corps to threaten Washington to get
Grant’s troops recalled from the Petersburg/Richmond
area. Early attacked the suburbs of Washington, DC, and
although repulsed, badly shook Union confidence.
July 18Lincoln called for a draft of an additional 500,000 men
and received threats of forcible resistance in the Northern
States.
July 30Confederate General Early burned Chambersburg,
Pennsylvania which negatively impacted the Union’s
political will. The Battle of the Crater was a Union fiasco
which further depressed Union Army morale.
July 31In a conference at Fort Monroe, Virginia, despite the Union
public’s crisis of confidence and political threats to the
Administration, Lincoln, and Grant decided to maintain the
strategy to press the Confederacy in all Theaters of War.
August 4Given all the bad war news, Congress requested and
Lincoln declared in the Union a national day of fasting,
humiliation, and prayer.
August 9Grant narrowly escaped death from the Confederate
Secret Service sabotage of an ammunition barge at
City Point, Virginia.
August
14-20
The Union Second Corps is engaged in the Second Battle
of Deep Bottom, Virginia.
August
18 – 21
The Union Fifth Corps seized and held a position on the
Weldon Railroad. The Confederate counterattack failed to
dislodge the Fifth Corps. The withdrawal of the Second
Corps from Deep Bottom through rain and mud to a
position on the Fifth Corps’ right to support against further
Confederate counter attacks. (See Figure 2)
August
22
Two Divisions of the Union Second Corps and three cavalry
brigades are ordered tear up the Weldon Railroad from
Globe Tavern to Rowanty Creek.
August
23
Confederate Wade Hampton’s Cavalry observed the Union
Second Corps movement south from Petersburg lines, and
skirmished with Union Cavalry west of Ream’s Station.
Hampton determined that the Union Second Corps was
vulnerable and recommended an attack. Lee concurred
and ordered A.P. Hill’s reinforced infantry Corps and Hampton’s
Cavalry to attack. Back in Washington, DC, Lincoln predicted his
own defeat in the November elections.
August
24
Union Second Corps infantry reached Ream’s Station, occupied
the existing fortification, and destroyed the railroad facilities.
The Confederate forces under A.P. Hill left the Petersburg
trenches to attack the Union Second Corps. Confederate
movements were observed by a Union signal tower and Meade
warned Hancock of the movement.
August
25
The Second Battle of Ream’s Station.

Figure 1: Existing Confederate built fortifications on the Weldon Railroad at Ream’s Station[1] (Bearss modified by Kelly)

The yellow lines depict the unoccupied fortifications that were in place and were used by the Union’s Second Army Corps as it worked its way down the Weldon Railroad from Globe Tavern on 23-24 August 1864 toward the railroad’s intersection with Rowanty Creek. Note that the left (west) of the railroad blocks the east-west Dinwiddie Stage Road, and the position to the north is oriented to block the southern movement on the Halifax Road.

[1] After the war, General Francis A. Walker wrote about the Second Battle of Ream’s Station in his history of the Union’s Second Corps and in other articles. He speculated that the Union Cavalry or the Union Sixth Corps built the initial Ream’s Station fortification during the First Battle of Ream’s Station on 29 June 1864. However, the Official Records, though, contains a map of the First Battle of Ream’s Station. The map shows that the fort was a Confederate position. Put there by Rebel infantry to block the escape of the Union cavalry to the west, and to block a Union Sixth Corps infantry rescue effort from the north. (Walker; 582; Official Records, 1864_06_29_XL, Part1,633, Map1)


Figure 2: Union and Confederate forces at the end of the Battle for Globe Tavern. (USMA 1962)

Figure 3: Grant’s Strategic All Theater 1864 Plan (Krasnoborski and Martini)

References:

Bearss, Edwin C. Petersburg Troop Movement Map, Manuscript on file at Petersburg National Battlefield, National Park Service: Second Battle of Reams Station, August 25, 1864, Topo Map.

Bearss, Edwin C., and Bryce A. Suderow. The Petersburg Campaign. 2 vols. El Dorado Hills, CA: Savas Beatie, 2012.

Bowery, Charles R. The Richmond-Petersburg Campaign, 1864-65. Battles and Leaders of the American Civil War. 2014. text.

Hess, Earl J. In the Trenches at Petersburg: Field Fortifications & Confederate Defeat. Civil War America. 2009. text.

Horn, John. The Destruction of the Weldon Railroad, Deep Bottom, Globe Tavern, and Reams Station, August 14-25, 1864. The Virginia Civil War Battles and Leaders Series the Petersburg Campaign. 1st ed. Lynchburg, Va.: H.E. Howard, Inc., 1991.

———. The Siege of Petersburg: The Battles for the Weldon Railroad, August 1864. First edition. ed. El Dorado Hills, CA: Savas Beatie, 2015.

Koistinen, Paul A. C. Beating Plowshares into Swords. Modern War Studies. Lawrence, Kan.: University Press of Kansas, 1996.

Krasnoborski, Edward J. and Martini, Frank. The History Department at the United States Military Academy, Department Maps. West Point, NY: On-line. Available from internet, http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/american_civil_war/index.htm, accessed 22 Dec 07 by https://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/civilwar/articles/suntzuoverland.aspx#.

United States Military Academy. Department of Military Art and Engineering, Vincent J Esposito, and Inc Frederick A. Praeger. The West Point atlas of the Civil War. [New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1962] Map. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, <www.loc.gov/item/map62000023/>.

United States. War Department., and Robert N. Scott. The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. 69 vols. Gettysburg, National Historical Society, 1971. Digital version of the original edition (Washington: G.P.O., 1880-1901) http://resolver.library.cornell.edu/moap/anu4519.

End of the Semester

How do I feel about the Digital History class at the end? Simultaneously exhausted, relieved, and sad it’s over. Packing 16 weeks of material and absorption into 5 weeks was a challenge, for the teacher as well as the students.

I imagine many of the improvements I would suggest are mostly addressed by just having more time available to try out the software applications, and work on the projects. It would have been nice to have had time in a class working session to practice with WordPress blog posts and media uploads. The projects we did and looked at required some time for reflection. In the five-week format, there just wasn’t much if there was any time for that.

Nonetheless, the class ended with a bang! Our last assignment was to listen to the podcast(s) that interested us from the Tattooed Historian and then write a blog post about our opinion of the efficacy of the digital humanities. I listened to his introductory podcast, and then one he did with Professor Walters, both very informative and worth a listen. See http://thetattooedhistorian.libsyn.com/

Since he lives nearby in Pennsylvania and as a favor to his friend Professor Walters, the Tattooed Historian came down and engaged the class in 2 hours of an interesting dialogue on how one goes about being a cutting-edge digital historian without a Ph.D. Yes. The Tattooed Historian really is tattooed. He has a lot of them, 35 I think, and all of them related to some aspect of his interest in history. One fascinating tidbit was the revelation that he had traveled to St. Louis to find the descendent tattoo shop of the tattoo artist that had tattooed approximately ten thousand soldiers during World War II and then had himself decorated with one of that artist classic designs. The shop still had World War II tattoo patterns even though they didn’t get many requests.

On a side note, I was surprised that many soldiers got tattoos in World war II. During my Vietnam service in the Marine Corps, we were threatened with court-martials if we got a tattoo. So, most didn’t. The Marine Corps logic was that too many tattoo recipients got hepatitis along with the tattoo from the needles and with a resultant weakening in unit end strength.

But I digress. The Tattooed Historian told us that his mission and business model lies in providing an outlet and legitimacy to those who want to pursue history, or research and write history without having to get a Ph.D. or necessarily have history as their primary focus or educational background. He is not suggesting that the History Ph.D. is not of value, just that history can be successfully made without one. And this is where my opinion on the digital humanities comes in. The information revolution, the internet, networked applications, the fall in the cost and the expansion of the availability of digital storage and network access, all have enabled the democratization of history and the broader humanities. Digital archives, laptop and handheld computers, audio, video production, and language translation capabilities have given research and production tools to the masses.

In my own experience, I took a lot of graduate history courses at Catholic University, but I only heard of Christopher Dawson, the first historian who held the Catholic History Chair at Harvard University, and a historian of the western civilization who rivals Toynbee and Quigley, because of Twitter. Another aside, Harvard had to pay to move Dawson’s book and manuscripts collection to Massachusetts from England, Dawson was a Brit, because Dawson’s personal collection of ancient sources was so superior or unique that Harvard’s collection didn’t measure up. Similarly, my American Government Masters was heavy in political philosophy, but again it was Twitter, Facebook, and new translation capabilities that exposed me to the Italian political philosopher, Augusto Del Noce, and the French political philosopher, Simone Weil. Their arguments on the post-World War II course of the humanities make the culture wars of the current day make sense. My own experience has given me an example of the democratization of the humanities and history.

The StoryMap, the Omeka exhibit, the Palladio network analysis that we did as projects in this class were all enabled by the internet, and by my picture taking capability in my cell phone. Many of the images I used or the Palladio dataset I put together were first taken by the camera in my cell phone. I found it interesting that the only items the Tattooed Historian has beyond what I have in digital capability with my laptop and cell phone and installed applications is a small investment in an audio device, microphones, an Adobe audio manager, and a tripod. Technology has enabled the democratization of history, and the humanities we can all access items that were only available to an elite before the internet, and we can all write and publish to a global audience our various histories. The price, though, as with all democratizations will be the need to assess authenticity, a point of the Tattooed Historian, and as one ABD historian once told me, accuracy, the mark of the historian is accuracy.

Second Reams Station: Did the German troops really lose it?

For Thursday, Professor Walters has us using open source network analysis tools and using one, Palladio, a Stanford University product, on a project of ours. The project I’m using is an aspect of the book I’ve been working on and addressing a question therein.

For a good part of my adult life, I’ve been slowly working on a biography and publication of the letters of Captain Edward Patrick Brownson (1843-1864) At 20 years of age, Captain Brownson was mortally wounded while leading a counterattack of the 12th New Jersey at the Second Battle of Ream’s Station, Virginia. That battle was a defeat for the Union and came at the nadir of Union fortunes in the Civil War. Since May 1864, Grant had taken massive casualties in the Overland Campaign and was stalemated outside Petersburg. Sherman had so far failed to take Atlanta. Lincoln planned on not being re-elected.

In reviewing the loss at Reams Station, one is struck by the blame placed in the official reports and unit histories on bounty men and foreign conscripts, mostly Germans for the loss. At the culminating point in the final mass attack by the Confederates, Union units that contained bounty and foreign troops broke which led to 140 killed, 529 wounded, and 2073 captured or missing Union soldiers (See Official Records XLII, Part1, Pg129-133, Table1). When I doing research in the National Archives as part of was studying the battle in a military geography course recently, I came across the Confederate list of Union enlisted prisoners captured at Reams Station. The Confederates recorded name, rank, unit, and significantly for this discussion, the place of birth of the Union enlisted prisoners. The list contains xxx names. So far, I’ve transcribed about 310 of them. Even though not complete, I’ve used the list to see how the place of birth related to the units captured. Does the network analysis support the official reports that the Germans were basically responsible for the loss?

To be able to use the Confederate list of Union prisoners in Palladio, I’ve used the Excel spreadsheet that has the 310 transcribed so far and added to the list the geographic coordinates at the country level of where the prisoner was born, and where the regiment the prisoner was part of was formed. To the record, I added the brigade and division membership of the regiment. The Division and brigade are significant because although the 1st Division troops broke and enabled the Confederates to break into the Union fortification, it was the lackluster performance of 2nd Division troops that is blamed for allowing the Confederate to exploit the breakthrough.

After putting the data into Palladio, I first mapped the prisoners by where they were born. See Figure 1. At 203, there are far more prisoners born in the USA than anywhere else. There are only 25 Germans (25), and the Irish at 49 are the next largest group after those born in the USA. A caveat, this is still a partial data set, and the randomness of it is unknown. It may be a skewed sample and not representative of the full list of prisoners. But if it is at all representative, then it doesn’t begin to support the idea that the loss was due to the Germans. The size of the rest of the Foreign-born soldiers, although interesting as to location, Chile, Russia, etc., is not large enough even in aggregate to impact the course of the battle.


Figure 1: Birthplace of Union Prisoners

Another visualization from Palladio maps the number of captured soldiers by the State Regiment they were from. I added the Regiment’s Brigade and Division assignment. See Figure 2. In Figure 2, the 36th Wisconsin from the 1st Division has the largest number captured by a factor of 2. The next largest in order are all from the 2nd Division, the 164th NY, 8th NY, and 20th MA (the Harvard Regiment. This leads one to ask what was the composition of the Foreign-born by Division.

Figure 2: Union Regiments Captured at Reams Station

Figure 3 shows the contribution of the Foreign-born to Division in a network graph. What immediately stands out is the smaller number of 1st Division soldiers captured. The graph also shows that some countries are unique to Division, for example, Chile and Switzerland are only found in the 1st Division while Norway and others are found only in the 2nd Division. The 2nd Division has more Foreign-born than the 1st Division. However, the largest number of Foreign-born, the Irish and the Germans contribute to both Divisions. The birthplace contribution and uniqueness by Division is perhaps more easily seen in a table distribution, which is shown in Table 1 below.

Figure 3: Birthplace contribution by Division of captured Union Prisoners
Table 1: Foreign-Born Contribution by Division

In summary, the preceding visualizations from Palladio assuming the representativeness of the sample shows that the contribution of the Foreign-born to the Union loss at Reams Station in 1864 was not significant. In other words, the Foreign-born were probably used as scapegoats for the failure. An easy explanation. Other factors, heat exhaustion, poor placement of units within an inadequate fortification, a limited number of artillery units along due to muddy roads, and ultimately poor decision-making on the part of the Commanders who got to write the report. This type of analysis can be used to create views that are harder to see when just crunching numbers or reading tables. If one could geocode the placement of the units within the Reams Station fortification, and add that to the existing table a more complete insight could be drawn on the Foreign-born contribution or lack thereof, to the Union debacle at Reams Station.

Working StoryMap and Digital Analysis

The exercise this week is to answer a few questions on the experience of doing the StoryMap project and then comment on the readings about using digital networking techniques.

Doing the Storymap in the time frame with a retreat and Father’s Day in the middle of it made it.  An intense experience from a schedule perspective. In other words, I was crunched to get everything done in the StoryMap, and that’s why I am late with getting the Blog in. It came down to time on the StoryMap or the Blog, and the StoryMap won, although I did cut out time to read the articles.

I put together the text portion and the design of what I was going to do from a visual perspective using Scrivener. It was easier to see what I was doing that way. Once I had it about right in Scrivener, I put it in StoryMap and ran it through Grammarly while in StoryMap. My issue with Grammarly interface was sometimes the changes took and sometimes it didn’t. Although it could’ve been me not saving the edited result in StoryMap.

On the visual side, I planned the visuals for each slide and recorded some visual options in Scrivener, Once I had collected a range of visuals, I did a trial and error with them in StoryMap. I attempted to pick the visuals that were most closely aligned to the main point of the slide I was working on. I did try to use both a background and a foreground visual that were related. If I could work photoshop better and had more time, I would put some images together into one composite image to enhance the visual experience, and overcome some of the constraints that StoryMap imposes.

My biggest issue with the StoryMap exercise was staying in the 200-300-word limit. Edward’s text alone on arrival in Louisville started at over 300 words. So, I pretty much violated the 200-300-word guideline.

Overall, I was happy with the project. I didn’t need to spend much time in learning the tool. It’s pretty straight forward. The application has enabled me to undertake and complete a project I wanted to do for my family ever since Edward’s letter surfaced. I still have a few minor edits including the need to get the bibliography correct, and to provide a link to Edward’s original letter and my transcription. But once those are done, the story of Edward’s journey and the ability of anyone to access it will be complete and I can get on to other projects.

The readings this week are on the application of data analysis and visualization techniques to networks in history projects. Graham et al. in The Historian’s Macroscope Big Digital History, give a short history of the evolution of digital technologies to analyze networks and summarize some of their applications. The point they made that really resonated with me was, “Network approaches can be particularly useful at disentangling the balance of power, either in a single period or over time. A network, however, is only as useful as its data are relevant or complete. We need to be extremely careful when analyzing networks not to read power relationships into data that may simply be imbalanced.”

Network visualizations can look make people look more interrelated and intentional than was really the case. People are complicated and the data to adequately describe those complexities is seldom there in real time let alone in archival remnants available to the historian. The digital visualizations can make our analysis using incomplete data look more explanatory and precise than is the case and lead us to draw incorrect conclusions.

Lauren F.Klein addressed the incomplete data problem directly in The Image of Absence: Archival Silence, Data Visualization, and James Hemings. She acknowledged that the gaps in the archival record are difficult to address. She reviewed Trouillot’s description that gaps in the archival records can occur in four ways: the making of sources, the making of archives, the making of narratives and the making of history defined as significance. Klein uses the case of James Hemmings, a former slave of Thomas Jefferson to illustrate that gaps concerning James came as much from the making of Jefferson’s archives, and earlier historians making of narratives and significance as from any loss of primary source material.

Klein shows that digital network analysis techniques can be used to show the significance of James role as a cook in the diplomatic household of Jefferson, and his importance to Jefferson. Yet even though the techniques can overcome gaps caused by the was the sources were stored, archived, retold and made significant, the digital methods still can’t help explain why James committed suicide, and never became the cook for Jeffersonian White House.

StoryMap a Journey

Today Professor Walters asked us to review and comment on these StoryMap examples:
Game of Thrones: Arya’s Journey
; Hieronymus Bosch: Garden of Earthly Delights

Before I get into my comments, a quick word on StoryMap. The website is an online capability mostly developed in Java by Northwestern University’s Knight Lab. The Knight Lab is a team of technologists and journalists who support innovation in the news media.  For an overview, see https://storymap.knightlab.com/#overview

StoryMap gives one a free capability to make maps of journeys, broadly defined. The web site enables identification of a place and the sequential linking of places. One can input a text description about each location, and provide background and foreground images, or in the foreground case, linked videos. If one can code with Java, then one can add some capabilities and custom views.

On the two Storymaps reviewed, as one of the few people in the Universe who hasn’t followed the Game of Thrones, the StoryMap on Arya’s Journey was all new to me. The good part of the map was that as an outline of the story for the uninitiated, I could follow it. I really liked the attempt to link videos although except for one video, the video links didn’t work for me on panels one and three. Perhaps one needs an HBO account.  The content creator of the Arya’s Journey changed the background colors of most the panels to provide a visual that aligned with the tone and content of the text. I got the visual point as an impression, but it made the images less clear, or the background image made the text difficult to read. Nonetheless, a great attempt and the matching of visual to the storyline helped my understanding of the feeling tone of the plot. Arya’s Journey showed me what one could do with videos (make sure the link works) and background and foreground images in combination.

With the Hieronymus Bosch Journey through the Garden of Earthly Delights, I am on the more familiar ground than with the Game of Thrones, but I must admit I never delved into its symbolism the way the content creator of this StoryMap did. The content creator used the Bosch painting as a background map, and then used subsections of the picture as a place. Then the text box was used to explain and interpret Bosch’s allegory. Just awesome! The best item in the journey and one written up by the Guardian (see https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/feb/13/hidden-sheet-music-hieronymus-bosch-triptych-recorded) was the description of Bosch’s painted musical score on the backside of a defendant being judged. Of course, someone on the internet decided to create a choral chant rendition we could hear.(See https://wellmanicuredman.tumblr.com/post/76381088917)

I found the links took some doing to make them work but to listen to 600-year-old music scribed by Bosch was worth it. The chanted lyrics used are modern! The drawback I found was in the way StoryMap presents a map and background image. The image of a Bosch panel was clear on the left-hand portion of the screen and faded to support the text on the right. This StoryMap visual feature made it difficult to find and see all of the image that the content creator referred to in the text. Despite the limitation of the visual, I gained a much better understanding of what Bosch was saying in allegory form by having walked through the StoryMap rendition. I just wish Storymap had a more flexible visual display ability so that more of the image referred to could be easily seen.

Both of these StoryMap Journeys and the innovative attempts of the content creators to use StoryMap to tell a story got me thinking about how to apply some of these techniques to the StoryMap I am working on. What I think I am trying to understand and relate in the story of Edward Hurley’s Journey from Montgomery County Maryland to Louisville, Kentucky in April 1836 is the nature of the United States at that time and the nature of the places. The five visual channels available for that communication are map image, map icon image and placement, text background image, text foreground image, and the text itself.

In April of 1836, the Texas war for independence was happening. The fight at the Alamo just concluded. The long Seminole War was still underway. Andrew Jackson was in the last year of his Presidency. The political parties were gearing up for the election in November. Travel, particularly riverboat travel, was risky. There were 24 states in the Union. Edward’s trip started in Maryland, a slave state on a working plantation with slaves. He journeyed through Pennsylvania, a Free state, though Virginia, a slave state, through Ohio, a Free state, to Kentucky a slave state. He traveled the borderline between slavery and freedom. Abolition had become a powerful movement, and violence was already occurring twenty years before the Civil war began. Each place Edward went through was different with a range of possible themes to emphasize. To bring some of the preceding into Edward’s story, I am going to try using the combination images technique, and links to videos.

css.php