The Bulletin of the Loudoun County Historical Society, Volume IV, 1965

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The Bulletin of the Loudoun County Historical Society, Volume IV, 1965
Author: Various
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Bulletin of the Loudoun County Historical Society, Volume IV, 1965" ***

The Bulletin
of the
Loudoun County Historical Society

Volume IV 1965

Officers of the
Loudoun County Historical Society

President Emeritus Mr. Joseph V. Nichols
President Mr. Lawson Allen
First Vice-President Mr. Henry Crabites
Second Vice-President Col. A. B. Johnson
Executive Vice-President Mrs. Thomas N. DeLashmutt
Treasurer Mr. Emory Plaster
Recording Secretary Mr. John Divine
Corresponding Secretaries Mrs. Contee Adams
Mrs. Fairfield Whitley

DIRECTORS

Miss Maria Copeland (Emeritus) Maj. Gen. Leo. L. Eberle
Allen S. Clarke Huntington Harris
John Dillon Miss Freida Johnson
George J. Durfey Mrs. T. Frank Osburn

The Loudoun County Historical Society supplies The Bulletin to its Life
Members, and it is available to all other members and to the public at
two dollars per copy. Checks should be made payable to The Loudoun
County Historical Society and should be mailed to the Society at
Leesburg, Virginia.

Upon payment of twenty-five dollars any person may become a Life Member.
The annual dues for individuals are one dollar per annum. Sustaining
memberships are five dollars per annum.

Correspondence (other than orders for The Bulletin) should be addressed
to the Secretary, Mrs. Contee Adams, Hamilton. Virginia.

The Bulletin
of the
Loudoun County Historical Society

Volume IV
1965

THE LOUDOUN COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY
Leesburg, Virginia

Contents

History of The Battle of Ball’s Bluff 7
The Comanches 21
_By John Divine_
Confederate Monument in Leesburg 25
Short History of The Society of Friends in Loudoun County 29
_By Asa Moore Janney_
The Uses of History 43
_By Col. Trevor N. Dupuy_
The Skirmish at Mile Hill 53
_By Col. A. B. Johnson, U.S. Army_ (_Ret._)
Members of The Loudoun County Historical Society 57

Printed in Leesburg, Loudoun
County, Commonwealth of Virginia
BY
POTOMAC PRESS

History
Of The Battle Of
Ball’s Bluff

Fought on the 21st of October, 1861

Personal Memories of
Col. E. V. White

Dedicated By Him
To the Loudoun Chapter of U. D. C., Leesburg, Va.

For Benefit of
Monument to be erected in Leesburg to the
Confederate Soldiers of
Loudoun

“THE WASHINGTONIAN” PRINT
Leesburg, Va.

History of The Battle of Ball’s Bluff

The popular idea at the time, and which has continued until now, is that
the battle of Ball’s Bluff was a blunder, brought about by the Federal
commander without proper (although easily to be obtained) information as
to the force and position of the Confederates in the vicinity of
Leesburg, and almost without purpose, or prospect of advantage, worth
the venture, resulting from success should he win, and that the
Confederate commander permitted his troops to engage, in a rather
haphazard way, by companies and regiments, pretty much as they pleased.

But in the light of subsequent events, and by aid of the Official
Records of the so-called “War of the Rebellion,” we learn that both
commanders, Gen. Charles P. Stone, of the Federals and[1] Gen. N. G.
Evans, of the Confederates, had really well-defined purposes and plans,
and played the game with skill and intelligence on both sides.

It was General Stone’s purpose to cross the Potomac at two points,
making a heavy display of force at Edwards’ Ferry, holding General
Evans’ attention at that point in his front while making his real attack
on the extreme left of the Confederate position, rolling back the small
contingent of scouts and pickets about Smart’s Mill and turning the
flank of Evans, which would compel a retreat, with Gorman’s brigade to
cut him off, and at the same time General McCall’s force about
Dranesville, on the Alexandria pike, only a short march away, making a
possible combination of at least eighteen thousand men against Evans’
two thousand, with no support nearer than Manassas and Centreville; and
moreover, General Stone had further aid in close call on the Maryland
side of the river, under Generals Banks and Hamilton, so that when his
main attack at the Bluff, with a force more than equal to Evans’ whole
command, was made as a surprise, the game was his own, by all the rules
of tactics and strategy.

General Evans had the evident advantage of his adversary in generalship,
and had proven his claim to the pastmaster’s degree in the same
situation at the first Manassas, just three months before, where he held
the extreme left of Beauregard’s line at the Stone Bridge, and where
McDowell applied the same tactics as did Stone on the Potomac.

There, as here, the Federals in heavy force demonstrated on Evans’ front
at the bridge while moving for the main attack by way of Sudley, far
beyond his left, and there their busy delay at the bridge, as here at
Edward’s Ferry, caused him to look elsewhere for work, which he soon
found to the left.

So, leaving a few companies to amuse General Tyler on the turnpike, just
as he held the artillery and nine companies of the Thirteenth
Mississippi in front of Fort Evans, he hurried his main force to meet
the attack on his left.

We learned later that our general knew his business, and why he made his
battle by detail, as it seemed to us then, and General Beauregard’s
instructions give us the reason why he fought here at all.

General Evans’ judgement was against giving battle at Leesburg, where
all the chances seemed against him, and a few days before he had
withdrawn his troops to a strong position at Carter’s Mills,[2] seven
miles off on the road towards his only support at Manassas.

Upon reporting his movement to Beauregard, that officer gave him further
light on the situation, in the following interesting document:

“HD. QRS. FIRST CORPS, ARMY OF THE POTOMAC,
NEAR CENTREVILLE, October 17, 1861”

“COLONEL: Your note of this date has been laid before the General, who
wishes to be informed of the reason that influenced you to take up your
present position, as you omit to inform him. The point you occupy is
understood to be very strong, and the General hopes you may be able to
maintain it against odds should the enemy press across the river and
move in this direction.

“To prevent such a movement, and junction of Banks’ forces with
McClellan’s, is of the utmost military importance, and you will be
expected to make a desperate stand, falling back only in the face of an
overwhelming enemy.

“In case, unfortunately, you should be obliged to retire, march on this
point and effect a junction with this corps.

“If you still deem it best to remain at Carter’s Mill the General
desires you to maintain possession of Leesburg, as an outpost, by a
regiment without baggage or tents, and to be relieved every three or
four days. As you may be aware, this army has taken up a line of
triangular shape, with Centreville as the salient, one side running to
Union Mills, the other to Stone Bridge, with outposts of regiments three
or four miles in advance in all directions, and cavalry pickets yet in
advance as far as Fairfax Court House.

“Respectfully, your obedient servant,
THOMAS JORDAN,
Assistant Adjutant General.

“Col. N. G. Evans,
“Commanding at Leesburg, Va.”

We can now understand something of the importance of General Evans
holding on hard at Leesburg, keeping the left flank of the army protect
while it confronted General McClellan’s people before Washington; and
there is nothing which has a more demoralizing military effect than that
one fatal word—“flanked.”

General Evans had now under his command the Eighth Virginia Regiment
under Col. Eppa Hunton, who had occupied Leesburg shortly after the
battle of July 21st, joined later by three Mississippi regiments, viz.,
the Thirteenth, Col. Wm. Barksdale; Seventeenth, Col. W. S.
Featherstone; Eighteenth, Col. E. R. Burt, which, together with six guns
of the Richmond Howitzer Battalion and four companies of cavalry
commanded by Lieut. Col. W. H. Jenifer, made up the Seventh Brigade of
General Beauregard’s corps.

Immediately on receipt of the above order General Evans prepared to
march, and on the night of the 19th moved his brigade to the burnt
bridge[3] on the Alexandria pike, four miles east of Leesburg, and only
eight miles from General McCall’s position at Dranesville.

The next morning, Sunday, a courier of McCall’s bearing orders to
General Meade to examine the roads leading to Leesburg was captured, and
from this prisoner General Evans learned the position and purpose of the
enemy at Dranesville. Heavy cannonading had been going on during the
night from batteries on the Maryland hills, which continued throughout
the day, Sunday, and General Stone developed his purpose to make the
very movement indicated in Beauregard’s dispatch, in doing which he sent
Gen. W. A. Gorman’s brigade of infantry, having cavalry and artillery in
support, over the river at Edward’s Ferry, making reconnaissance toward
Leesburg.

That night he sent a scouting party under Captain Phiebrick,[4] of
twenty men of the Fifteenth Massachusetts Infantry, to cross at
Harrison’s Island[5] and explore towards the town from that direction.

This party did not long delay in Virginia, but returned to Headquarters
by 10 o’clock p.m., reporting that they had proceeded unmolested to
within one mile of Leesburg, discovering a camp of about thirty tents in
the edge of a woods, approaching it within 25 rods unchallenged.

General Stone now had all necessary information on which to base his
brilliant strategy of holding Evans quiet in front of Edward’s Ferry
with Gorman’s threatening force, while Colonel Baker made his brigade
crossing at the island above, turning the Confederate left, forcing
Evans to quick retreat to save his communications, while Gorman by a
rapid advance would cut him off. Well planned, certainly, but Evans had
been taking lessons.

Upon receipt of the report of his scouts General Stone ordered Colonel
Devens, with four companies of his regiment, Fifteenth Massachusetts, to
cross at the island and destroy the camp found by Captain Phiebrick,
which order he proceeded to execute, but found the supposed tents an
illusion, the scouts having been deceived by a line of trees, the
opening through which presenting, in an uncertain light, somewhat the
appearance of tents.

At 7 o’clock in the morning—the 21st—these enterprising gentlemen
discovered Capt. W. L. Duff’s company (K, Seventeenth Mississippi) of
forty men, who had been picketing the river about Smart’s Mill,[6] and
arranged for their capture by putting Captain Phiebrick’s company at
them in front, while two other companies were sent to outflank them and
cut them off, but Duff and his men disregarded the “cut off.” They
simply dropped on one knee, and when the enemy came, near enough (all
the time answering Captain Duff’s challenge, “Who are you?” with the
reply, “Friends”), fired a staggering volley into Deven’s three hundred,
causing them also to disregard the “cut off” and retire to a better
position, which they maintained for about twenty minutes, when they
retreated to the thicket of woods on the right of the Jackson house.

Colonel Devens in his report says Captain Duff’s men at his first
advance retreated to a corn-field and got into a ditch or trench—another
illusion caused by their kneeling to take aim. Captain Duff reported his
loss as one man seriously and two slightly wounded, capturing three
wounded prisoners and fourteen or fifteen stands of arms, while Colonel
Devens says he lost one killed, nine wounded, and two missing.

General Evans now sent Lieutenant-Colonel Jenifer with four companies of
infantry, two from the Eighteenth and one each from the Seventeenth and
Thirteenth Mississippi Regiments, and three companies of cavalry,
Captain W. B. Ball, W. W. Mead, and Lieutenant Morehead, to support
Captain Duff, making in all a force of 320 men on the battleground,
while Colonel Devens reports his force strengthened to 753; and about 11
o’clock he again advanced, but was met in strong contention by Jenifer’s
people for about an hour, when the Federals retired; and now was their
best time to recross the river, for Hunton with his Eighth Virginia
(except Wampler’s company, left at the burnt bridge to look out for
McCall) was coming at a double-quick with 375 more people in bad temper.

But General Stone had not completed the development of his plan, and he
again reinforced to 1,700—by the Twentieth Massachusetts, 340;
Forty-second New York (Tammany), 360; First California (Colonel Baker’s
own) 600, with two howitzers and one 6-pounder rifle gun. This looks by
the figures given in official records like more than two thousand, but
all other estimates put it at 1,700, about.

General Edward D. Baker[7] had now arrived and taken command of the
Federal troops, making ready for a renewal of the conflict, and at 12:30
p.m. Colonel Hunton moved forward into the heavy timber, where Colonel
Jenifer’s fight had left the Federals.

The battle opened again severely, the Virginians fighting straight
ahead, with Jenifer’s force covering their left, which gave them
opportunity for aggressive battle, although but one to three, with no
artillery to answer the salutes of Baker’s guns.

The firing was rapid and the fighting stubborn, the Federals standing up
to their work well, giving and receiving bloody blows with high courage;
but, notwithstanding their superiority of force, amply sufficient to
have swept the Confederates from the field at one rushing charge, they
failed for lack of a proper leader, the result proving that Baker was as
inferior to Hunton in skill and promptness on the battle line as was
Stone to Evans in general conduct of the field operations.

The regimental and company officers did their duty well, but General
Baker gave up almost without an effort the only strong military position
on the field, and then so placed his reserves on rising ground
immediately in view of his main line that Confederate lead, flying high,
could find victims there.

It was well for Hunton, perhaps, that Devens[8] was not his antagonist,
in view of the skillful, steady and hard fighting record subsequently
made, when, as a cavalry commander, he gave Hampton, Fitz, Lee and
Rosser a great deal of trouble; and withal he was a gallant gentleman,
who, by considerate kindness, won the respect of Loudoun’s citizens
while he camped his brigade among them the last winter of the war.

Colonel Baker was a chivalrous, high-toned gentleman, of fine
attainments in politics and statesmanship, but, as was said of another,
“God Almighty did not make him a general,” a lack which could not be
supplied by a commission. Colonel Hunton saw and appreciated the
advantage of the position which Baker had neglected, and steadying his
line for the work, threw it in splendid aggressive battle—still one to
three—against the volleying rifles and blazing cannon before him,
sweeping infantry and artillery back to the bluff overhanging the river,
where they staid, and the Confederates withdrew to the edge of the woods
to rest and replenish cartridges for the final effort.

About 2:30 p.m. Colonel Hunton had sent me to General Evans to ask for
reinforcements, but all I got was, “Tell Hunton to fight on.” Evans had
now about taken Gorman’s measure and decided that the Edward’s Ferry
force would not be dangerous so long as Fort Evans was held and his left
at the Bluff hung on, and when, at 3:30, Hunton again sent me to the
General to say that his ammunition was exhausted and unless reinforced
he would be compelled to retire before superior numbers, Evans,
evidently mindful of Beauregard’s instruction to make a “desperate
stand,” said to me: “Tell Hunton to hold his ground till every d—m man
falls. I HAVE sent him the Eighteenth and WILL send him the
Seventeenth.”

On my return from the General I met a part of the Eighth Virginia,
Lieutenant-Colonel Tebbs among them, retreating, and I asked what it
meant, if Hunton was defeated, to which Colonel Tebbs replied: “I do not
know, but Colonel Hunton ordered me to fall back.” They were about a
quarter of a mile from where I had left Hunton’s line, and riding
forward I gave the Colonel the General’s message, and asked him why he
had ordered Tebbs and his men to fall back, informing him I had met them
in retreat. He exclaimed: “Go tell Colonel Tebbs I only meant for him to
fall back to the line; I did not intend him to retreat.”

I soon found Tebbs, told him what the General had said, and as soon as I
could convince him of the intent of Hunton’s order, he went to work with
all his fiery energy to rally and reform the men, in which I assisted as
best I could, and we succeeded in getting most of them back, but some
were running too fast to bother with, and Colonel Tebbs returned to the
line and with the rallied men was in the last grand charge.

No reflection can be cast upon Colonel Tebbs’ reputation as a soldier
for this error, because he honestly thought Colonel Hunton had ordered a
retreat, and that he was strictly in the line of duty.

When I again joined Colonel Hunton the Eighteenth Mississippi had come
up and taken position two hundred yards to the right and in line with
the Eighth Virginia at the edge of the woods.

This was about 5 o’clock, and Colonel Hunton ordered me to go to Colonel
Burt, tell him the Eighth Virginia would charge the enemy in front, and
ask him to attack with his regiment at the same time to cover his right.

Colonel Burt delayed his movement a short time in order that I might
bring in one of his companies which had been sent off to the right, and
when this was done he moved his line forward, but we had already heard
the battle yell of the glorious old Eighth as it dashed forward on the
enemy.

The gallant Mississippians were no laggards, when the dauntless Burt
gave the command “Forward!” All during the day they had been in front of
Edward’s Ferry, watching the enemy there and listening to the guns of
their comrades at the Bluff, until delay had chafed them, but now their
time had come, and with the steady tread of veterans they marched over
the field to the woods.

When in less than one hundred yards of the timber, the enemy concealed
behind the ridge of earth thrown up by long-ago plowing around the
field, and also favored by the descent of the ground, let loose upon
them one of the most deadly fires of musketry it was my fortune to
witness during the war.

In visions now I sometimes see those brave fellows falling like leaves
of autumn before the northern blast, but no man faltered except the
stricken ones, before that fearful fire.

Colonel Burt was riding close up to his regiment in rear of the line and
I rode beside him on his right, giving us good view of our own men as
well as the position of the enemy as marked by the flaming line of the
deadly volley.

The gallant Burt was mortally wounded[9] and as two of his men were
taking him from his horse he turned to me, and in a tone as calm as if
in ordinary talk, said, “Go tell Colonel Jenifer I am wounded and shall
have to leave the field.” Starting to obey, I found myself in that most
trying situation for a soldier—having to turn my back to the foe while
my comrades were facing him. We were all “green” then, and had a horrid
dread of being shot in the back, much more particular than later, when
experience had done its perfect work, and the “ear became more Irish and
less nice.”

Turning in my saddle, face to the enemy, I rode rapidly and found
Colonel Jenifer in a small cleared spot, half way through the woods,
along the path to the island.

Quickly delivering my message I hurried back to the Eighteenth, finding
it had driven the enemy from his position and been joined by the
Seventeenth under Colonel Featherstone and moved further to the left,
nearly connecting with Hunton’s right, about the edge of the woods.

Colonel Hunton’s people, including Captain Upshaus’ company of the
Seventeenth and Captains Kearney and Welborn’s companies of the
Eighteenth, had made their attack practically without ammunition—in
fact, just prior to the charge the Colonel had ordered “Cease firing!”
for a moment, and had the remaining cartridges equally distributed among
the men, so that all could have a round, and then, relying almost solely
upon the bayonet, they dashed forward, driving back a heavy column of
the enemy just landed, and captured the two howitzers. After having
driven them thus far into the woods, at which point General Baker was
killed (pierced with four balls, no one knowing really who did it,
although there was much romancing at the time), Colonel Hunton halted
his men, who were completely broken down—nature and ammunition both
exhausted—and rode over to Colonel Featherstone, saying, “Colonel,
charge the enemy on the Bluff.” Featherstone replied, “I do not know the
ground,” and Hunton exclaimed, “Come on, I will lead you.” But the
Colonel demurred, saying: “No, sir; I will lead my own men, but want a
guide who knows the ground,” when Hunton turned to me and said, “Lige,
my boy, won’t you go with them?”

I was thoroughly acquainted with the country, having fox-hunted over it
many times, and now, at sunset of a busy day, I rode to the front,
shouting, “Follow me; I’ll show you the way.” The two regiments moved
promptly a short distance, when they were met with a galling fire to
which they heartily responded, and in a rushing charge drove the enemy
headlong over the steep, rugged bluff, capturing three hundred
prisoners, among them Colonel Coggswell of the Tammany Regiment,[10] but
now acting brigadier general in place of the gallant Baker, and Col. U.
R. Lee, Twentieth Massachusetts,[11] together with the rifle cannon; and
now we had plenty of artillery of our own right on the ground.

During this part of the engagement an incident, not to be omitted, but a
little out of the regular order of military science, occurred. Lieut.
Chas. B. Wildman of Evans’ staff came on the field, and mistaking a part
of the Federal line for our people, galloped to the front of the Tammany
Regiment, and in the most peremptory and commanding manner ordered them
to “Charge the enemy,” which they promptly did, supported by the
Fifteenth Massachusetts, with disastrous results to themselves, losing
about 25 men, killed and wounded. Among the latter was a captain to whom
Captain Jones, Seventeenth Mississippi, shouted, “Who are you, and what
do you mean?” whereupon the Federal officer rushed up to Jones and,
grasping him by his long beard, exclaimed, “Who in the h—l are you?”
when instantly one of Jones’ men struck the Federal captain on the head
with his clubbed gun, killing him on the spot. By way of reminiscence
for a bit, I will relate a little story. Thirty-two years after these
things a party of Twentieth Massachusetts people came to Leesburg and
requested me to guide them over the battleground where they and their
comrades had fought so gallantly a generation before, and upon reaching
the point of Featherstone’s attack, one of them called attention to an
oak and said, “I was behind that tree when an officer on a white horse
rode out there, leading a line of troops upon us, waving his hat and
shouting, ‘Come on, follow me.’ I took aim and fired at him and then
threw down my gun and ran for the river, for they were close on us. I
don’t know whether I killed him or not.” I said to him, “No, thank God,
you did not.” When he asked, “Are you the man?” and I replied, “I surely
am,” he threw his arms around me and exclaimed, “I thank God, too.”

After the Federals had been driven over the Bluff and darkness had
spread its pall over the bloody scene Colonel Hunton instructed me to
ascertain if there was any organized force up river to our left,
directing Captain R. H. Carter[12] to support me with his company; and
now my intimate knowledge of the country stood us in good stead. As we
moved to execute the order I requested Captain Carter to hold his
command about a hundred yards in my rear so that I could use my ears to
better advantage, and I was to whistle if I needed help.

I had proceeded but a short distance in the woods when I was halted with
the demand, “Who comes there?” I knew from the tone and accent it was
none of our people. I said, “Come here.” Walking close up to me I asked,
“Who are you?” to which he replied, “New York Tammany regiment.” I said
to him, “You are my prisoner, surrender,” but he was made of better
metal, and stepping back a pace, with leveled rifle and bayonet
presented, he exclaimed, “Never to any man,” and almost before the words
were pronounced I pulled my trigger, but the pistol failed to fire, and
then, but for the fact that I had captured from one of Lincoln’s
bodyguards this very pistol, which could be fired almost as rapidly as
counting, I would not now be telling this story, because that brave,
cool Tammany man would have killed me, for he was in the act of doing so
when I pulled off my pistol again and he fell to the ground a corpse.

His comrade fired, but missed, and lying down by the dead man I eagerly
listened for further demonstration, but hearing none I crept back to
Captain Carter.

We consulted for some time, finally reaching two conclusions—FIRST, that
there was no organized force in the woods, else they would have
manifested their presence; and SECOND, that this particular body of
woods was at that time a most excellent place in which to get killed by
the scattered Federals in hiding, assuming that this gallant Tammany man
was a sample of them, and we reported promptly to Colonel Hunton, who
ordered me to remain with Lieutenant Charles Berkeley, who, with a
detail of seventeen men, had been instructed to picket the ground during
the night.

The ladies of Leesburg sent us a most bountiful supper, which was most
highly appreciated by our hungry soldiers, who for thirteen hours had
been resisting and defending greatly superior numbers of brave but badly
handled Federal troops, beginning at 7 o’clock in the morning and ending
after dark.

Except Lieutenant Berkeley’s little party all our forces had retired to
the vicinity of the Fort for rest and rations, and we took up our solemn
vigil over the “dark and bloody ground.” It was presently suggested that
we go to the river, for although our battle had rolled to the very edge
of the Bluff, none of our people had been quite there. We moved quietly
along in the dark, soon coming on two men sitting beside a woods, and we
crossed over, where we left one man as guard and passed on, finding next
a handsomely caparisoned horse entangled in the thicket, which we
concluded to be the one ridden by General Baker, and this we sent back
by another of our men.

Reaching the bank we sat down to listen, and heard a man struggling out
in the river, crying, “Help, help, or I shall drown.” The agonized voice
of the despairing wretch, as it rang out over the broad water, amid the
stillness and darkness of inevitable death, conveyed to the mind an
image of the horror which must weigh upon the heart of one doomed
knowingly to eternal death. We could hear his strangling effort as he
spouted the gurgling water from his mouth, and then another cry for
help, answered this time by a voice calling from the gloom beyond, “Hold
up a little longer, we are coming.” The first impulse, dictated by the
desperate and savage experiences of the day, was to open fire and drive
off his rescuers, but a more humane feeling prevailed, and we quietly
listened, soon dimly discerning the boat rapidly approaching the
Virginia shore, and landing two or three hundred yards above us, where
the Federals had been crossing all day.

The space of beach or shore from the foot of the bluff to the water’s
edge is about sixty yards wide, and after crossing from the island, the
Federals had to go down the river the two hundred or more yards to reach
the road leading up on the bluff.

This space was still strewn with dead and wounded men waiting removal or
burial, so that when we moved up towards the landing place we found it
difficult, in the deep darkness prevailing under the bluff, to avoid
stepping on the bodies—in fact we did this frequently—those with life
still in them always giving us notice of it.

Approaching the landing I suggested to Lieutenant Berkeley that he hold
his men while I went forward alone to reconnoiter, which he did, and I
walked up to the mass of people gathered about the landing. It was so
dark they could not distinguish me from their own men, and making the
best investigation I could, I reported to Berkeley that there were 1,500
of them.

Lieutenant Charley Berkeley had as brave a heart in him as any of the
name, and when I say that, it means he was among the “bravest of the
brave,” for no men ever did more gallant service, were more
patriotically devoted to Old Virginia, or were more loyal to the
Southern cause, and few there be in all our glorious Southland who
suffered more to promote the success of that cause than those who bore
the name of Berkeley.

On hearing my report the lieutenant said, “Don’t you think we can
capture them?” Here was no “taking counsel of fear”—fifteen against
fifteen hundred. I said I thought we could if we all would swear to go
through or die, but there was some murmured objection with a few of our
men, and one, a gallant fellow, afterwards killed in Pickett’s charge at
Gettysburg, said the scheme was too utterly rash for consideration and
he would not agree to it. It was then agreed that I should mount the
captured horse, ride to the Eighth Virginia and ask them to come over
and help us. Reaching their bivouac I found that Colonel Hunton, who had
gotten up from his sickbed to be with his men in the battle, had retired
to a house in town, leaving Lieutenant-Colonel Tebbs in command, and
upon stating the situation to him and asking for the regiment, he said
the men were so worn out with the exertions of the day that he would not
order them for the expedition, but that if any chose to volunteer for it
they might go.

Upon hearing this Captains Wm. N. and Edmund Berkeley; Lieutenants R. H.
Tyler, L. B. Stephenson, and Robt. Cue; Sergeants F. Wilson, J. O.
Adams, and ........ Gochenauer; Corporals B. Hurst, W. Fletcher, B.
Hutchinson, Wm. Thomas; Privates A. S. Adams, J. W. Adams, F. A. Boyer,
L. Chinn, G. Crell, R. S. Downs, W. Donnelly, G. Insor, C. R. Griffin,
John George, D. L. Hixon, T. W. Hutchinson, J. F. Ish, R. I. Smith, W.
C. Thomas, J. W. Tavenner, J. M. McVeigh, L. W. Luckett, M. H. Luckett,
A. M. O’Baunon, Rev. Chas. F. Linthecuin, R. O. Carter, Geo. Roach, E.
Nalls, Howard Trussell, D. Rouke, T. E. Tavenner, P. Gochenauer, F.
Tinsman, T. H. Denton, T. Kdwiell, C. Fox, V. R. Costello, Will Moore,
J. Ellis, Wm. McCarty, J. M. McClannehan, F. Herrington, R. Julian, and
C. D. Luckett—in all fifty-two—came forward promptly, saying, “We will
follow you.”

Moving back rapidly to Berkeley, we found he had come up on the Bluff,
and as not a man among us except myself knew a foot of the ground, they
unanimously made me their leader, and I placed Lieutenant Berkeley, with
his original squad of a dozen, ON the bluff, to wait until the balance
opened fire UNDER it, when he was to open rapidly, making all the noise
possible and shouting every order and command he could think of.

The remainder of the party descended the bluff to the beach or shore,
and when near the landing we heard the boat returning from the island.
How many trips it had made in my absence I do not know, but the number
of men on shore had very perceptibly diminished. Here I halted my little
army, and having witnessed the confusion among the Federals at a
previous landing, I instructed my men to wait until the boat reached the
shore. As it came to land we moved forward, and when nearly up with them
I called for a surrender, but receiving no reply I ordered “Fire!” and
our guns blazed into them. There was a general stampede of those who
were able, a large number of them jumping into the river, while some ran
along the shore above.

All their officers who could do so had left these poor fellows to their
fate some time before, except one, a gallant Irish captain of the
California regiment, who had swum over to the island to try for some way
to get his men over, but failing in that had swum the river back again
to share the fate of his company. I think his name was O’Meara,[13] and
he deserves the Medal of Honor. This brave gentleman called out, as a
last resort in the wreck and confusion, “We surrender, who is in
command?” Captain W. N. Berkeley replied, “General White,” and the
Captain asked, “General White, what terms will you give us?”

My unofficial promotions this day had been much too rapid for my scant
military knowledge, and for want of a more professional answer I
replied, “The terms of war, sir;” which seemed to suit the captain, for
his clear voice called, “Men, General White gives us the terms of war;
come out of the river and surrender,” which they did, and then the brave
fellow went up the river and brought back a number who had been in
hiding there. When gathering them all together, he marched them up the
bluff to the plateau where he formed them in line, and handed over to
our charge three hundred and twenty-five prisoners, with many arms,
ammunition, etc.

My untutored form of expressing terms granted may have seemed awkward to
the better technically informed soldiers present, but I still think my
proposition was as much to the point as that of “Stonewall” Jackson at
Harpers Ferry or General Grant’s at Fort Donelson, to wit,
“Unconditional surrender, sir.”

In regard to this night capture, the official reports of some officers,
as published, are so misleading and inaccurate that I feel obliged to
call attention to them, and especially that of Lieutenant-Colonel John
McGuirk, Seventeenth Mississippi, found in Vol. V., Series 1, page 362,
Official Records, which I would be glad for all who may see this little
story, to read it, it being too voluminous to incorporate in this.

However, some allowance should be made for him, as we learn from his
report that he was suffering under excessive fatigue, having been
fifty-three hours in the saddle, breaking down one horse, having
immediate supervision of all operations from Smart’s Mill to Edward’s
Ferry during both days, taking many prisoners, guarding the battlefield
all night, ending up on the night of 22d by having his last horse fall
with and upon him, in Leesburg, producing a shock so serious that he was
unable to remount without help, and finally having to be assisted from
his horse and put to bed, with the heavy duty of having to prepare his
report, so that General Evans might know just WHAT had been done and WHO
did it, coming upon him before he had fully recovered. In view of all
these things, we must admit that he made quite an interesting report, in
which he says that “Mr. E. White, of Ashby’s Cavalry, entered the field
with two companies of the Eighth Virginia and I joined my forces to
his,” etc.

To vindicate the truth of history I here emphatically declare that there
were no soldiers engaged in that capture—the greatest of the day—but
those of the Eighth Virginia, except myself, who, at that time, belonged
to Captain Mason’s company of Ashby’s Legion. I say this because it is
the truth and that Lieut. Charles Berkeley, with the gallant band of the
Eighth Virginia, who joined him in the enterprise, shall have the credit
that belonged to them, Colonel Featherstone and Lieutenant Colonel
McGuirk to the contrary notwithstanding, but I am well assured that
Featherstone’s report is based upon McGuirk.

The story of Ball’s Bluff would be sadly incomplete if the operations of
the game old Colonel Barksdale[14] and his noble regiment, the
Thirteenth Mississippi, were omitted, because only by their splendid
work in holding Gorman’s brigade quiet at Edward’s Ferry was Confederate
victory made possible at the Bluff, and at one time he had begun his
march to aid the boys at that point. But for Evans’ recall order the
Thirteenth would have been among the Federals on the left, and at that
time only a thin skirmish line with a few vedettes was all there was in
front of Fort Evans and four thousand Federal troops. In the early days
of the war there was one peculiar terror which often prevented Federal
commanders from performing brilliant deeds, easy enough with their
superiority in “men and metal,” and that was the astonishing crop of
“masked batteries” planted in Southern forests and corn fields, which
imaginary spectre was very potent here with Gorman’s men, holding them
to the river bank for two days until Barksdale’s boys showed them their
rearward crossing on the 22d in an attack conducted with great skill and
daring, under the artillery fire from both sides of the river, killing
and wounding about forty men. Had Evans supported this battle of
Barksdale with his whole force, we have every reason to believe that
Gorman would have been forced to surrender. Another instance of
battlefield literature after the fact, is General McClellan’s order of
thanks to his troops engaged in this battle; which leads us to wonder if
the writer of “official reports” could have foreseen how they would read
after the “clouds rolled by,” would they not have been more careful as
to what they wrote? There is no harm, however, in this particular order
except the General’s estimate of the Confederate strength.

GENERAL ORDER NO. 32.)
HD. ORS. ARMY OF THE POTOMAC
“WASHINGTON, Oct. 25, 1861.

“The Major General commanding the Army of the Potomac desires to offer
his thanks, and to express his admiration of their conduct, to the
officers and men of the detachments of the Fifteenth and Twentieth
Massachusetts, First California, and Tammany regiments, First U. S.
Artillery, and Rhode Island Battery, engaged in the affair of Monday
last near Harrison’s Island. The gallantry and discipline displayed
deserved a more fortunate result; but situated as those troops were,
cut off alike from retreat and reinforcements, and attacked by an
overwhelming force, 5,000 against 1,700, it was not possible that the
issue could have been successful. Under happier auspices such devotion
will insure victory. The general commanding feels increased confidence
in General Stone’s division, and is sure that when they next meet the
enemy they will retrieve this check, for which they are not
accountable.

“By command of Major General McClellan.

“S. Williams,
“Asst. Adjt. General.”

The Confederate losses in the battle are accurately and easily verified:

18th Mississippi, 500 engaged; 22 killed; 63 wounded.
17th Mississippi, 600 engaged; 2 killed; 9 wounded.
13th Mississippi, ... engaged; 4 killed; 3 wounded.
8th Virginia, 375 engaged; 8 killed; 43 wounded.

Numbers engaged are taken from Lieutenant Colonel Jenifer’s report, and
he makes none for the Thirteenth Mississippi, which was not engaged at
the Bluff. He gives the number under his command in the morning as 20,
including 70 cavalry, most of the latter being engaged in vedette and
scout duty.

The Federal losses as officially reported were:

15th Mass. 14 killed; 61 wounded; 227 missing.
20th Mass. 15 killed; 44 wounded; 135 missing.
42d N. Y.
(Tammany) 7 killed; 6 wounded; 120 missing.
1st Cal. 13 killed; 40 wounded; 228 missing.
1st R. I. Art. (Batt’y B.) 5 wounded; 4 missing.
1st U. S. Art. 7 wounded.

The Confederates captured and sent to Manassas 710 prisoners, which
accounts for only four otherwise missing, and it is well known that a
considerable number were drowned, as was shown by a later investigation
by Congress, when General Stone was arrested. The great portion of the
heavy loss to the Eighteenth Mississippi was caused by the one terrible
volley poured into it at the time Colonel Burt was wounded, while the
comparatively small loss to the Eighth Virginia was due to the skillful
handling of it by Colonel Hunton, during the long time it was engaged;
and it is also true that Colonel Hunton was in command of the field from
the moment of his arrival at about 12 M., and so as I know, ordered all
the dispositions and movements of troops engaged in the battle.

General Evans maintained his position at the fort 2½ miles from Edward’s
Ferry, where Gorman’s 4,000 were posted, and 1½ miles from Ball’s Bluff,
where Baker’s 1,700 were fighting, during the whole day, and with the
genius of intuition managed the business with superb generalship and
daring, withdrawing nearly all his force from Gorman’s front at the
critical moment to brace Hunton’s battle on the left; and the result
proved his superior skill and generalship.

The officers making reports of the battle, which have been preserved,
speak in terms of high praise of the excellent conduct of all the troops
engaged, and especially mention for distinguishing gallantry Lieutenant
Geo. Baxter, of the Loudoun Cavalry, who, with ten men, charged two
companies of the enemy; Captain W. B. Ball and Sergeant Major Baugh, of
the Chesterfield Cavalry; Sergeant Strostier, Madison Cavalry; Private
Toler, Loudoun Cavalry; Captains Duff, Seventeenth Mississippi; Campbell
and Welborn, Eighteenth Mississippi; Fletcher, Thirteenth; all of whom
were in the reinforcing party sent to Duff’s support in the morning.
Colonels Jenifer, Hunton and others make particular mention of “Mr. E.
White, of Ashby’s Cavalry,” who, they say, assisted Captain Duff in the
morning, and later “rode in front of the Seventeenth Mississippi,
cheering and leading them on.”

Explanatory Notes to Col. White’s History of Ball’s Bluff

[1]Nathan G. (Shanks) Evans was a Colonel on the day of the battle; he
was promoted to Brigadier General a few days later, the commission
to date from October 21st, the day of the battle.

[2]Oatlands.

[3]Burnt Bridge was at the point where present day Rt. 7 crosses Goose
Creek at the Country Club.

[4]Should be Philbrick.

[5]Harrison’s Island is directly across from the bluffs at the
battlefield.

[6]Smart’s Mill about ¾ mile north of the battlefield was on the Potomac
River near the mouth of Big Spring Branch—now the property of Mr.
Ellis Mills.

[7]Baker was a Colonel.

[8]Col. White here confuses Col. Charles Devens with Col. Thomas Devin.
Col. (later Bvt. Maj. Gen.) Charles Devens was the first Colonel of
the 15th Mass. Inf., later served as brigade and then division
commander with infantry. Col. Thomas Devin was Colonel of the 6th N.
Y. Cavalry, and during the winter of 1864-65 commanded a brigade of
cavalry encamped at Lovettsville.

[9]Col. E. R. Burt was carried into Leesburg and despite the best of
care died on the night of October 26.

[10]Col. Milton Cogswell, 42nd N. Y. (Tammany) Regiment.

[11]Col. William Raymond Lee, 20th Mass. Inf.

[12]Captain Carter and all of the succeeding names listed in connection
with the capture of prisoners that night were members of the 8th
Virginia Infantry, Loudoun’s own regiment.

[13]Captain Timothy O’Meara, Company E, 42nd N. Y.

[14]Colonel William Barksdale—killed July 2, 1863, at Gettysburg, while
commanding a brigade of these same Mississippi Regiments.

The Comanches

By John Divine

The aura built around Colonel John S. Mosby has caused the exploits of
another “Border Partisan” to be almost entirely ignored. Lt. Col. E. V.
White, dashing leader of the 35th Battalion, Virginia Cavalry, rendered
service to the Confederacy on a scale greater than that of the more
renowned Mosby. Too often White’s Battalion was called from its warfare
to fight with other segments of the army, thus he was not afforded the
opportunity to be identified solely as a partisan. The hard bloody
fighting, while filling pages of the Official Records, does not appeal
to the romantic writer.

Elijah Viers White was born near Poolesville, Maryland, but at the
outbreak of war was farming in Loudoun County, Virginia. For
distinguished service as a volunteer aide to Colonel Eppa Hunton at
Ball’s Bluff, White was commissioned captain in the Provisional Army of
the Confederacy with permission to organize an independent company for
service along the border. The original company was organized at Leesburg
in December, 1861. This company became the nucleus of the 35th
Battalion, better known as White’s Battalion or “The Comanches.” This
hardy band, under the daring leadership of White, possibly saw as much
action as any unit in the Confederate Army. Excellent riders, well
mounted, armed with two revolvers and a sabre, their attacks created
terror in the unsuspecting enemy.

Their first service with the regular army was as scouts and couriers for
General Ewell in the Valley. A strange attachment sprang up between “Old
Bald Head” and this little band of “Comanches.” Ewell relied on their
information and they in turn idolized this eccentric dyspeptic.

White suffered the first of several wounds during the Valley Campaign,
but returned to duty in time to lead his men in the battles around
Richmond. They followed Ewell’s Division on to Cedar Mountain where they
preyed on scattered parties from Pope’s Army. As the armies moved on
toward Second Manassas, White returned to Loudoun where he surrounded
Captain Means’ Loudoun Rangers in the Waterford Baptist Church. After a
two hour battle in which both sides suffered heavily the Rangers
surrendered and were paroled. He then joined the main Confederate Army
as it invaded Maryland. At Frederick, White fell under the displeasure
of General Stuart who ordered him back to the south side of the river.
(This was probably a renewal of the old argument that White had
organized only for border service.) Finally General Lee resolved their
differences by ordering White on a scouting expedition to Harpers Ferry
and to report only to him (Lee). The “Comanches” returned to Loudoun and
were engaged with Union Cavalry under Kilpatrick at Leesburg. In
charging 400 Blue cavalrymen the Confederates were repulsed and their
commander suffered a shoulder wound.

A Maryland company under Captain George W. Chiswell joined White, and
shortly thereafter three more companies were organized. His daring was
attracting young men in search of action. On October 28, 1862, Colonel
Bradley T. Johnson formally mustered these five companies into the
Confederate service; a sixth company was later added.

The battalion was quite active during McClellan’s return from Maryland.
Striking quickly at loosely guarded wagon trains, White captured about
1000 prisoners and 200 wagons while the Federals were crossing Loudoun.
Christmas eve, 1862, saw the battalion ford the Potomac into Maryland
and bring off sixty horses and large quantities of supplies from upper
Montgomery County.

In January, 1863, White was formally assigned to “Grumble” Jones’
Brigade. Open mutiny almost broke out over this order as the men claimed
that theirs was an independent command not subject to assignment to any
regiment or brigade. The Maryland company claimed they owned no
allegiance to the Confederacy and had the right to select their service.
White soon quelled this insubordination and the battalion settled down
to fighting Yankees again. As in as many similar organizations
discipline was a problem. White was not a disciplinarian, believing that
his mission was to fight and leave the “house-keeping” to others;
however, he was promoted to lieutenant colonel in February.

The battalion continued to serve with Jones’ Brigade in the Valley but
made frequent sorties into Loudoun to battle their old border enemies,
the Loudoun Rangers and Cole’s Maryland Cavalry.

Ordered to join Ewell in Pennsylvania, White led Early’s advance to the
Susquehanna. It was the “Comanches” who dashed into Gettysburg on June
26, and scattered the 26th Pennsylvania Militia, thus firing the first
shots on that great battlefield.

Again back in Virginia they served with Jones until his death, and then
with General Rosser as the brigade picked up the famous sobriquet of the
“Laurel Brigade.” When Rosser moved on to division command White was the
popular choice to succeed him, but the old problem of discipline stood
in the way. Governor John Letcher and Judge Brockenborough petitioned
President Davis in White’s behalf, but General Lee could not be swayed
because of the laxity of the battalion while not engaged in battle;
drilling and sabre grinding were termed as a “perfect nuisance” by
White. On one occasion General Lee wrote Rosser to say that no reports
had been received by the ordnance department from White’s Battalion.
Rosser replied that he had never been able to get a report from White,
and if General Lee could get it he would be happy to see it.

Hard service had depleted the battalion to a mere skeleton of its former
organization by the fall of 1864, but a favorite pastime throughout that
winter was raiding General Devin’s lines around Lovettsville. Devin had
camped his cavalry brigade there to protect the B & O Railroad and the
Canal against raids by White and Mosby, but hardly a night passed in
which the pickets were not fired on.

Engaged at Five Forks, the battalion now numbering only eighty men,
formed the rear guard for Pickett and Fitz Lee as the long retreat to
Appomattox began.

At High Bridge the “Laurel Brigade” was surrounded by both infantry and
cavalry. General James Dearing, then in command of the brigade, ordered
a charge to break the encircling ring. Dearing went down mortally
wounded but White led the brigade through. At last the command which had
been so long denied was his, but only for a few days. As the infantry
surrendered at Appomattox White led the brigade on to Lynchburg
following Rosser. There they disbanded to seek paroles individually over
the next few weeks.

The battalion hardly numbered more than five hundred men, but accounted
for many times their number in killed, wounded, and captured of the
enemy. If they had bothered to carry a guidon its battle streamers would
have shown The Seven Days, Cedar Mountain, Brandy Station, Gettysburg,
Mine Run, Wilderness, Trevilliam Station, The Cattle Raid, Petersburg
and Five Forks. In addition to these were the countless unnamed
skirmishes that occurred daily.

The 35th Battalion, Virginia Cavalry, led by the intrepid White, was
truly one of the best fighting organizations in the Confederacy.

[Illustration: Confederate Monument in front of the Court House,
Leesburg.]

IN MEMORY OF THE
CONFEDERATE SOLDIERS
OF LOUDOUN COUNTY VA.
ERECTED MAY 28 1908

Confederate Monument In Leesburg

The very fine Confederate monument in front of the Courthouse in
Leesburg is the work of an excellent and well known sculptor, F. William
Siever of Richmond. The statute occupies a warm place in the hearts of
the people of Loudoun. With the Courthouse, the clerk’s office and the
lawn, it forms a unit that stands as a symbol of the government which
has been carried on in the county since it was established in 1757.

The statue attracts much attention from tourists. It has become almost a
daily occurrence to see a visitor photographing the Confederate Soldier.

I had the good fortune to be given two folders that give fascinating
details of the activities of the Confederate Veterans and the Daughters
of the Confederacy in years past. One was the program of the ceremony
held at the unveiling of the monument on Thursday, May 28, 1908, and the
committees responsible for its erection. The money to pay for the statue
had been raised by the Daughters of the Confederacy. These were the
members of the monument committee:

DAUGHTERS OF THE CONFEDERACY

Mrs. John George
Mrs. Agnes Summers
Mrs. William N. Wise
Mrs. E. G. Caufman
Mrs. Sallie Fendall

CONFEDERATE VETERANS

John H. Alexander
Lewis W. Shumate
Geo. F. Everhart
W. A. McFarland
Peter F. Schroff

SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS

Paul Garrett
John T. Hourihand
J. H. Leslie
Claude Van Sickler
Clifton Myers

COMMITTEE ON CONTRACT

L. M. Shumate
J. T. Hourihane
E. B. White
John L. Norris

Sculptor—William Siever, Sr.

PROGRAMME

All Committees and Escorts to Meet at Court House
at 9:45 A. M.

10:30 A. M.
Assemble in Court House.
Prayer by Rev. F. P. Berkeley.
Singing, “Maryland, My Maryland.”
Presentation of Crosses of Honor.
MARCH TO CEMETERY
in the following order:
MUSIC
Sons of Confederate Veterans,
Daughters of the Confederacy,
Children of the Confederacy,
Confederate Veterans,
Citizens on foot,
Citizens in Carriages.
At Cemetery, Invocation by Rev. W. H. Burkhardt.
Singing of Assembly, “Nearer, My God, to Thee.”
Placing of Flowers on Graves.
Return to Court House.
12 M.
The President of the Loudoun Chapter of the Daughters of the Confederacy
will entertain the Veterans and Sons of Veterans at luncheon on the
Court House Green.
1 P. M.
Introduction of Speakers by Judge C. E. Nicols, Hon. Claude A. Swanson,
Governor of Virginia, on behalf of Sons of Veterans.
Col. Edmund Berkeley
on behalf of Confederate Veterans.
MUSIC
Unveiling Speech by
Hon. John W. Daniel, U. S. Senator from Virginia.
Poem, Mr. Harry T. Harrison.
Unveiling of Statue by
Master Elijah V. White
Assisted by
Miss Mary H. Keeler, Middleburg Chapter D. of C.
Miss Hannah B. McIntosh, Loudoun Chapter D. of C.
Master Thos. F. Carruthers for Blue Ridge Chapter D. of C.
MUSIC
There will be a committee of ladies at the rooms of the Loudoun Chapter
of the Daughters of the Confederacy, over The Peoples National Bank, to
entertain lady visitors.
Music by courtesy of the Bluemont Band.

It might be of interest to identify those who took part in the program.
Rev. F. P. Berkeley, who invoked the opening prayer, was minister of the
Leesburg Baptist Church. Rev. Burkhardt who offered the Invocation at
the cemetery, was the Rector of St. James Episcopal Church, Leesburg.
Col. Edmund Berkeley, who made the speech on behalf of the Confederate
Veterans, had served in the famous 8th Virginia Regiment. His three
brothers, Norbourne, William and Charles Fenton were also members of
this same outfit. At one time Norbourne was the commanding officer of
the 8th Virginia, to which numerous Loudoun men belonged. After Gen.
Eppa Hunton was elevated to command, they all served as officers in this
regiment for the duration of the war. It will be recalled that the 8th
Virginia fought at the Battle of Ball’s Bluff under the command of Gen.
Hunton.

The four Berkeleys were all born in a house in Aldie now called
Pembroke. At the time of the Berkeleys residence there, they call it
Aldie. At present, the house is unoccupied but is owned by William F.
Bullis, headmaster of the Bullis School. In later years, several of the
Berkeleys developed their own estates in the vicinity of Aldie. They
were great-uncles of William J. Cox, Leesburg.

There are still those who recall that the unveiling took place on a very
hot day. In spite of this, Senator Daniel spoke for over two hours. Mr.
Harrison, who gave the poem, was the late husband of Mrs. Harry Harrison
and father of Mrs. Alfred diZerega. Master Elijah V. White is the
grandson of Col. E. V. White of Laurel Brigade fame and one of the best
known Loudoun soldiers. Mr. and Mrs. White now live on Cornwall Street,
Leesburg.

Miss Mary Keller is Mrs. Edwin Reamer of Middleburg. Miss Hannah B.
McIntosh is Mrs. James diZerega of Leesburg. Master Thomas F.
Carruthers, a Purcellville native, now lives in Charleston, W. Va.

An article about the sculptor, F. William Siever, by Ulrich Troubetzkoy
appeared in _Virginia Cavalcade_, autumn 1962. The author stated that
Mr. Siever was 90 years old and still a resident of Richmond, where he
has lived since 1910. He had promised himself that he would settle in
the place where he received his first major commission. Richmond was
selected as a result of his being asked to do the Virginia Memorial at
Gettysburg.

When the Virginia State Commission called for designs for this memorial,
36 sculptors submitted models. The fact that Mr. Siever was selected
from that many competitors is an excellent indication of his skill as a
sculptor. After being chosen, he put much time and effort in getting all
the details correct. The Commission prepared a list of men who had
fought in the battle and the sculptor sent them questionnaires regarding
the facts he needed to know. When the Gettysburg Centennial was
celebrated in July, 1963, Mr. Siever was present at the Virginia
Monument to greet the visitors.

He has been a prolific producer. Two of his best known statues are of
Stonewall Jackson and Matthew Fontaine Maury on Monument Avenue,
Richmond.

The second folder given me is:

SOUVENIR
CELEBRATION

Of the Birthday of
GEN. ROBERT E. LEE

by
Clinton Hatcher Camp C.V.
Sons of Veterans and
Daughters of the Confederacy
Leesburg Opera House
January Nineteenth
1904

The “Leesburg Opera House” was what those of us who remember it, called
the “Old Town Hall” that stood on King Street where White’s store is now
located.

This statement is found inside the folder:

To the surviving members of the Lost Cause who have assembled today to
pay tribute to the memory of the dead Chieftan, Robt. E. Lee, with the
compliments of
Loudoun National Bank

Menu
Lynn Haven Bays
Stewed Oysters
Celery
Chow Chow
Cold Slaw
Mixed Pickles
Cucumber Pickles
Fried Oysters

Roast Turkey, Fitz Dressing
Baked Pig, a la Beaureguard
Old Virginia Ham
Roast Saddle of Mutton, a la Col. White
Baked Chicken, Virginia Style
Roast Duck, Longstreet Dressing

Stonewall Beaten Biscuits

Confederate Ice Cream
Cake
Coffee
Apollinaris

I realize that in those days, when they ate, they ate. However, I find
it perfectly astonishing that they fed Confederate Veterans a meal
composed of 3 kinds of oysters, 2 fowls and 3 meats to a group of men
who were hungry day after day during the war. Could this possibly be
some form of compensation?

A Short History of the Society Of Friends in Loudoun County

Delivered Before the Loudoun County Historical Society, November 16,
1962
By Asa Moore Janney

The members of the Religious Society of Friends were the last of the
three elements which make up our county to arrive. With the coming of
the Friends, the Germans were pretty well settled in that part of the
county north and northwest of Waterford, and the slave holders were to
the southeast of the Catoctin Hills and in the southwestern part of the
county.

Loudoun’s Friends were introduced to the county, no doubt, by the
settlement of Friends along the Opekon Creek in what was then Orange
County, now Frederick, before the year 1732. In 1734, when George
Washington was two years old, these Friends from Pennsylvania and Elk
River in Maryland, applied for and were granted from East Nottingham
Meeting in Cecil County, Maryland, a meeting for worship which they
called Hopewell. The next year this was enlarged to a monthly meeting
for business and discipline under what came to be called Concord
Quarterly Meeting, composed of East Nottingham and Chester Quarterly
Meeting held at Concord, Chester County, Pennsylvania, and attached to
Philadelphia Meeting. At nearly the same time a Meeting at Monocacy,
Maryland, just across the Blue Ridge due east of Hagerstown, Maryland,
in Prince George County, was included in Hopewell Meeting. Without a
doubt it was this proximity of Hopewell Meeting to Loudoun County which
prompted Friends from the same meetings in Pennsylvania and Maryland who
established Hopewell to set up their meetings in Loudoun.

The good word that there were fine lands in Prince William County got
around, for in February of 1730 Samuel Marksberry ran a survey for his
grant “on Kittockton Mountain near the Thoroughfare or Hunting Path thru
said Mountain.” This place we now call Clarks Gap. Lower down the
Catoctin Creek the Irishman, Asa Moore, had in 1732, according to
tradition, built a home on the South Branch of Catoctin and called it
after his native Waterford. While Moore probably had neighbors, unknown
to us to-day, it was not long before Amos Janney in 1733 left his home
at the Falls of the Delaware in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, and settled
in the Waterford community along with several Janneys, Thomas John,
Edward Morton, Samuel Harris, Thomas Bourne and others.

Since John Mercer, land speculator, and Catesby Cocke, clerk of Prince
William County and later of Fairfax, had already been granted the land
around Waterford, these early Friends must have leased or bought from
them, for we find in the Fairfax County, records that David Potts in
1746 leased 866 acres of land on “Kittockton Run from Catesby Cocke for
(5) five Shillings, paid in Hand, with the right to Purchase and an
annual Rental of one Ear of Indian Corn.”

According to the _Register of Pennsylvania_, edited by Samuel Hazard, in
Vol. VII, printed in 1831—About the year 1733, Amos Janney from Bucks
County, and soon after divers other Friends, settled about 40 miles
lower in Virginia than the Opeckon, who obtained leave to hold a meeting
for worship on first days, which was held at the said Amos Janney’s and
other Friends houses till the year 1741 when a piece of land was
purchased, and a meeting-house built thereon called Fairfax, whose
meetings have since been held twice a week.

Janney’s _History of Friends_ notes in a memorial concerning his wife
Mary Janney, “he (Amos) is mentioned as a valuable Friend and true
helper Zion ward; and she is described as a devoted Christian, whose
meekness, gentleness, and kindness rendered her company truly agreeable
and instructive.

“When they came to Virginia, the neighborhood where they settled was
almost uninhabited, but other Friends soon coming after and settling
near them, a meeting for worship was held in their house.”

At first, in 1733, Amos Janney was authorized to hold an “Indulged
Meeting” by East Nottingham Monthly Meeting; then the Waterford Meeting
was organized in 1735 as a Preparative Meeting, under the auspices of
Hopewell Meeting. Soon its membership increased and when the first
meeting house was built, probably of logs in 1741, the meeting applied
to Hopewell to be allowed to proceed as a monthly meeting. The
application was allowed, and in 1744 Fairfax Monthly Meeting was set up
along with Monocacy Preparative Meeting, just two years after Fairfax
County came into being. At the first Monthly Meeting six couples
requested permission to marry. Jane Hogue was clerk of Women’s Meeting
with Elizabeth Norton and Mary Janney as overseers; Samuel Harris and
Jacob Janney were overseers and Amos Janney clerk of the Men’s Meeting.
Monocacy Meeting was laid down in 1762; there is more of its history
following this date, but since it is out of our scope, we will leave it
where it lies.

Meanwhile the yeast of settlement was working, and about ten years from
the coming of the first settlers to Waterford we find them bringing in
their friends from up North and East. People were coming from Bucks and
Chester Counties in Pennsylvania, from New Jersey, Calvert County,
Maryland, and direct from England and Wales. Pressing out at the
southwest they found unclaimed land, some which, even that indefatigable
amasser of Loudoun County land, George Slater, had missed; rich and
valuable, between the North and Beaverdam Forks of Goose Creek. Here
they established themselves in settlements called Harmony, now Hamilton,
and Goose Creek, now Lincoln.

It is interesting to see how the land was granted to these later
settlers; for instance, the three earliest grants in the Harmony, Goose
Creek, Philomont, so called “Quaker Settlement” area were as follows:
William Diggs, of Diggs Valley (of which Clarence Case’s farm was a
part) acquired 1,074 acres on August 27, 1731, William Bowell, 602 acres
on August 27, 1731, and George Atwood, 1,092 acres on September 24,
1737. Diggs and Bowell obtained their grants the last year Robert (King)
Carter acted as agent for Fairfax, as Carter died in 1732, and Fairfax
was having no more of the high handed manner in which Carter had handled
the business; so, the office was closed until Lord Fairfax came over
himself and issued a few grants in 1737, when the above George Atwood
must have gotten his. The office was not again opened until William
Fairfax, acting as agent for Fairfax, was ready for business in 1739,
when the Quakers stepped in and got theirs.

Around 1745, or sooner, Jacob Janney, his wife Hannah and others came
down from Bucks County and settled in the Goose Creek neighborhood. In
going over the certificates of removals granted persons leaving the
northern meetings and repairing to Virginia and comparing these
certificates with the dates of their grants, we see that several, but
not all, had been down to Virginia, taken a grant, and gone home for
wife and family, for instance: On third month 2nd, 1741, Joseph
Hollingsworth and wife obtained a certificate from Newark or Kennet
Meeting; his grant is dated April 20th, 1742.

In the minutes of the Falls Meeting: “Abel Janney was reported at the
Pertomock” on 10th Mo. 1st, 1742; his grant was dated March 17th, 1741.

George Gregg had a certificate on 5th Mo. 4th, 1740 from Newark and a
grant of June 3rd, 1744. (Wonder where he was the four years).

Isaac Nichols, a certificate on 9th Mo., 1743, for wife and Herman Cox
from Kennet and a grant for 560 acres on March 25th, 1743.

Jacob Janney received a certificate from the Falls Meeting of 8th Mo.,
the 5th, 1743, and a grant of 690 acres on June 20th, 1743. Jacob
married in 1742, if he came to Virginia in 1745 as historians claim,
where was he from the date of his grant in 1744 and the date of his
certificate, 1743?

Some of the grants were quite large: Ames Janney—2,345 acres, John Mead
1,289 acres, Gidney Clark 3,000 acres. Four Janney families got 4,843
acres, and more too, which was possible as Amos was a surveyor for
Fairfax and knew where all the “waste and ungranted lands” were.

Hannah Janney, the wife of Jacob, must have been a very strong character
as shown by a memorial in the minutes of Goose Creek Meeting of 1818,
the year of her death at the age of 93. It is stated that soon after
their establishment in their new home she went regularly twice a week to
a log in the forest where she set up an altar to her God by spending
some time in silent devotion.

As early as 1746 Fairfax Quarter granted to Friends settled on the banks
or tributaries of Goose Creek, which also included South Fork, at Union
(now Unison), the priviledge of holding a meeting for worship on the
third day of each month at the residence of the members. About 1750, or
51, a regular meeting was established at Goose Creek. The first meeting
house was built of logs and was said to have been built on the site
where Hannah held her devotions.

A traveling minister wrote in his autobiography: “On seventh day we went
to their monthly meeting at Fairfax, 8 miles from Leesburg, which was
large and solemn—On second day was at Goose Creek, 8 miles ye Meeting
house small yet did not hold half ye pepal which was a great
disc-advantage yet came away pretty Ese.”

That the French and Indian War did not overly affect Loudoun County is
well known. However, the people well knew the hardship endured by the
Friends in the Valley, as this bit from the “Autobiography of William
Reckitt,” who was a visitor in our county in 1757 shows. “Crossing
Potomac we came into Virginia to Fairfax; where we had a meeting on the
second day of the week and 12th of the 12th month. It was a good
meeting, truth having the dominion—We lodged at Mary Janney’s, a
discrete orderly woman, who had several sober, well inclined children.
From hence we went to Goose Creek and had a meeting on third day; it was
well. On 4th day we had a meeting at David Pole’s several Friends
accompanying us. I had a travail in spirit—We left David Pole’s house on
5th day and rode over the Blue Ridge or Blue Mountains, where the
Indians had done much mishief, by burning houses, killing, destroying,
and carrying many people away as captives; but Friends had not hitherto
been hurt: yet several had left their plantations and fled back again
over the Blue Mountains, where the lands had been rightly purchased of
the Indians.”

Daniel Staunton in “Life, Travels and Gospel” reports that in December
of 1760, “We went forward crossing the Patowmac into Virginia: the next
Meetings were Fairfax, Goose Creek, Potts’, or the Gap, some of which
were largely favored with solid comfort and satisfaction, there
appearing many dear Friends with whom I had unity in Spirit: from the
last place we traveled till we got over Shanandore river, and lodged at
John Vestal’s.”

The Potts’ or Gap Meeting to which Staunton alludes, was held at
Hillsboro and was a meeting held under Fairfax. It was a constant source
of disputation and trouble to its Monthly Meeting, delegations often
being sent to try to straighten things out with the Potts and Janneys of
that section, but to no avail; for instance, Fairfax minutes report in
1761—“As Friends of Goose Creek and Friends of the Gap have not attended
business meetings—this meeting appoints Mary Janney, Rachel
Hollingsworth and Sara Janney to visit (them) to excite them to more
diligence.” In 1765 “—if any disorder appear this meeting appoints David
Potts to supervise.” Still in 1765 “—this meeting takes no note of the
great deficiencies of the Gap Friends in several particulars—” Meetings
were held in the home of David Williams until finally the Gap Meeting
came through with a meeting house, as this minute from Goose Creek
testifies: “Friends of the Gap reporting that they have built a house
for the conveniency of holding their meetings in, and got it now nearly
ready, this meeting concurs with their proposal in 1770 of holding it
therein accordingly.” The land was two acres conveyed by Mahlon Hough to
Stephen Gray, Isaac Nichols, Jr., Thomas Smith and William Hough, “to
permit Such People Called Quakers to erect a Meeting House, Schools,
Yard and Place of Burial.” In 1804 it is noted that the Gap Meeting is
small and in 1805 it is laid down. Sic transit mundi.

South Fork Meeting was another meeting which did not long survive,
despite the observation of the traveling minister John Comly in 1829
that it was strong and healthy. Yardley Taylor states that the meeting
was active in 1853. A later minister reported that all they thought
about was cock fighting and horse raceing. South Fork’s “worldiness”
caused “concern” for its members “drank to excess,” “fought, gambled”,
“took to horse raceing,” and “were lax morally.” This meeting was laid
down shortly after the Civil War, and the administration of its
graveyard on a small budget has been a head ache to Goose Creek Meeting
ever since.

In 1757, while the Goose Creek Meeting was bursting out of its log
meeting house, the county of Loudoun was formed from Fairfax. The
trustees acted quickly. “On the 31st day of August, in the year of our
Lord one thousand seven hundred and fifty-seven, between William Hatcher
of the County of Loudoun and Colony of Virginia, planter of one part,
and Issac Nichols, Jacob Janney and Thomas Clows, of the said county,
planters of the other part, for five shillings sterling, together with
all trees, woods, underwoods, ways, paths, waters, watercourse,
easments, profits, commodities, advantages, emoluments, hereditaments,
rights, members and appurtentences whatsoever to the same
belonging”—were handed over to the said Nichols, Janney and Close for
one year in consideration of “one pepper corn in and upon the feast of
St. Michael the Archangel if demanded.”

The object of this, one of the first deeds in the Clerk’s office of
Loudoun County, was to conform to the Statute of Uses and Possession,
for on the very next day, September 21st, 1757, William Hatcher sold to
Isaac Nichols, Jacob Janney and Thomas Clows for thirty shillings the
very property he had rented them the day before, “to said grantees. In
TRUST to suffer and permit such of the people called Quakers—inhabiting
said County, to erect and build so many Meeting Houses, School-Houses,
Yards or Places of Burial—as they see fit—for the worship of God, the
instruction of youth and burial of the dead.” One day had evidently been
enough to show that the property was in use by the Religious Society of
Friends.

As new settlers and babies arrived in the neighborhood the log meeting
house was found too small to accommodate the members, and the stone
meeting house across the road, according to the best information, was
erected between 1765 and 70. A minute of Fairfax Monthly held on ye 24th
of ye 9th month, 1774 reads: “This meeting received a copy of a minute
of our Quarterly Meeting dated the 15th of last month, granting the
request of Goose Creek Friends, a preparative meeting. This meeting is
willing to assist them as far as capable, and appoints Mahlon Janney,
Jonathan Myers, John Schooley, Moses Cadwalader, and William Williams to
go and sit with them at their first preparative meeting.”

Friends in the Quarterly Meeting of which Fairfax was one part were most
cautious in extending monthly meeting status to Goose Creek, possibly
from unfortunate experiences elsewhere. We find from the minutes of
Warrington and Fairfax Quarterly Meeting the following report of a
committee appointed to judge of the expedience of settling a Monthly
Meeting at Goose Creek. “Most of our members have visited the
preparative meetings consituting Fairfax Monthly Meeting likewise
attended the service of that meeting and have since met together and
agree to report that we feel most easy to encourage the division
proposed—and a Monthly Meeting being settled at Goose Creek. Submitted
to the Quarterly Meeting by Isaac Everett, William Ballenger, James
Steer, William Kersey, Harman Updegraft, Alan Farquhar, Elisha Kirk,
Nathaniel, Jonah Hollingsworth, Ruth Holland, Rachel Hollingsworth, Mary
Updegraft.—It is agreed that a Monthly Meeting be settled there
accordingly.”

The first monthly meeting was held 12th month 26th, 1785 and William
Kenworthy was selected clerk. In the first minutes we read the
following: “Joel Lewis and Sara Daniel handed their intentions of
marriage before the Meeting.” “Moses Cadwalader and Isaac Nichols are
appointed to inquire into Joel’s clearness of other engagements, also to
make inquiry into his conversation and what else may be needful.”

About the beginning of the 19th century the membership became too large
to be comfortably accommodated in what came to be called “the old Stone
Meeting House.” It was not until 1812, with a war going on, that the
question of the most practical way of obtaining more room was brought
before the meeting. The committee appointed to undertake the building of
what came to be “the large new Meeting House,” was Jonas Janney, Isaiah
Brown, Israel Janney, Isaac Nichols, Samuel Nichols, Stephen Wilson,
Thomas Treham, Jesse Janney, George Walter, Joseph Bradfield and Mahlon
Taylor. These gentlemen saw the meeting turn down a proposal to add a
log addition to the stone building and finally on 2nd month, 27th, 1817,
it was decided to build an entirely new house with Mahlon Taylor,
Stephen Wilson and William Kenworthy as the building committee.
Kenworthy was most likely treasurer of the committee as his name is
signed to all the documents connected with the building operations.

William Kenworthy took in the subscriptions, which ranged all the way
from ten dollars to three hundred dollars, with the final total
collected being $3,606.00. Daniel Cockrell was to do the job, furnishing
all the foundings, for the sum of $3,550.00. In the final report of the
committee we find:—“the house being about completed, and in a good
measure answerable to the contract, we have paid him the whole of the
amount. We also examined his account of expenditures, by which it
appears he will suffer considerable loss, by the contract, unless he be
allowed some further renumeration.” They stated that it would be
difficult to ascertain the exact loss but thought the meeting should pay
Cockrell an additional $500.00. A committee was formed which raised the
additional amount and paid the same to Cockrell.

On 1st month 27, 1819, Jonathan Taylor, a frequent visitor to Goose
Creek Friends Meeting, “Preached the first sermon in our large new
Meeting House.”

Jesse Janney who was on the original building committee, never lived to
see it used. His foresight, however, solved one of the problems that
building a new meeting house created, as is shown by this minute in
April, 1819—“The committee continued in the first month last to propose
to this Meeting what particular purpose the donation of Jesse Janney,
Dec’d, shall be applied to reported that they had agreed to propose that
it be applied to enclosing a yard and erecting some necessary buildings
at the back of the New Meeting House. With which the Meeting concurred.”

Jesse Hirst, Samuel Nichols, Daniel Janney, Jonas Janney, Mahlon Taylor,
William Piggott and Joshua Gore were appointed, “to consider what use
the Old Meeting House would be most advantageously applied to, and the
probable expense.” The William Piggott named above “Were the rich Billy
Piggott what had glass windows in his barn.”

By an old record these reasons are given for establishing a meeting: “Ye
objects of Religious assn. are to strengthen ye bonds of love, to
encourage to good works, to support ye weak, to comfort ye mourners, to
watch over one another for good and to reclaim those who have gone
astray.”

A few quotes from the minutes of the meetings and a short review of
Friends accomplishments in Loudoun may let us see how well they attained
“Ye objects of Religious Assn.” The meetings were frank and firm with
their members, for when Goose Creek was “informed that Jonathan
Bradfield had joined with light company in dancing,” a committee pleaded
with him several times to reform his ways and at last upon his not
giving satisfaction he was reluctantly dropped from the rolls.

A more unfortunate event is recorded in the business meeting of the 28th
of 1st month, 1819: “A testimony was produced against S— N— which was
read, approved, and signed being as follows and handed to the Women’s
Meeting. S— N— who has a right of membership in the Society of Friends
thru in attention to the dictates of Truth in her own Breast hath so far
deviated as to be guilty of fornication for which reproachful conduct we
deny her any longer a right of membership until she be enabled & make
suitable satisfaction for her offence, which is our desire for her.”

Fairfax and Goose Creek records are a mine of genealogical data. Henry
B. Taylor in response to the request from a lady out west once sent her
what the minutes had to say about her Quaker ancestors. Several had been
“kicked out of meeting or been delt with” for drunkness, fighting and
adultery. She received his letter and some time later wrote again to
Henry, “that she was glad to state that her family had done better since
they had joined the Methodists.”

The Meetings took care of their own, for often entries like the
following are found in the minutes: “Samuel Nichols, Seir. produced his
account of articles furnished for the support of Martha Scott.” Social
security was unknown in those days. At Fairfax we find that a committee
was appointed to divide the estate of Richard Brown, deceased; to raise
a fund to settle the estate of a member who died poor and in debt; to
look after the widows and orphans; to see that members paid their debts;
to attend to a member “for encouraging the visits of a man not of our
Society in Courtship of his daughter”; to reprove a man “for taking off
his hat at a courtsmartial to gain favor with the officer in charge.”

Friends in Loudoun owned slaves in the early years and for the first
quarter of a century the Fairfax minutes mention only that “Blacks in
the home should be well treated,” and “African children” should be given
a useful education. In 1790 a committee was appointed “to care for freed
slaves.” Later there was considerable opposition against slavery in the
meetings, several Friends were disowned for owning slaves. In 1836 a
committee “treated” with William Stone for hiring a slave, and in 1856
Mary Jane Hough was disowned for doing the same, though her husband
escaped a like fate by saying he was sorry and wouldn’t do it again. It
was not until 1818 that the last ownership of slaves by Friends ceased
in Virginia. The story is told that John Woolman talked long and
earnestly with William Nichols that he free his slaves but when William
died in 1804 there were slaves mentioned in the inventory of his estate.
My grandfather, Francis Hogue Janney, was disowned for hiring a slave
and marrying out of meeting.

A manumission society was organized in the Oak Dale schoolhouse in 1824
for the purpose of sending slaves to Haiti and Africa, though we have no
information of any being sent.

It is my understanding that the small colored settlements at Rock Hill
and Guinea Bridge were made on land (rocky and poor, it is true) sold
cheaply to free negroes by Friends that they might build a home of their
own and not be sold back into slavery.

The first county map published in what was once Prince William County
was that of Loudoun by the Quaker Yardley Taylor. This work of enduring
value was published in 1853 and up to its time was the finest in
Virginia. Yardley was a nurseryman and the beautiful spruce trees around
Lincoln are his still living legacy to the beauty of Loudoun.

Yardley Taylor was engaged in the underground railroad trade. He was
castigated for it in at least one newspaper article in the fifties
written in the peculiar vehemence of the time. Samuel M. Janney never
said he helped a slave along physically but he was brought before the
county court for publishing that “the owners had no right of property in
their Slaves.” His Statement to the court, “That the more you keep this
subject before the people the more they will be to my way of thinking,”
had the desired effect and the indictment was squashed.

It was in 1803 that Thomas Jefferson writing to a friend said, “The
county of Loudoun had been so exhausted and wasted by bad husbandry,
that it began to depopulate, the inhabitants going southwardly in search
of better lands—it is now become one of the most productive counties of
the State of Virginia and the price given for the lands is multiplied
manifold.” This was the result of the LOUDOUN SYSTEM of agriculture we
have heard so much about. When Alexander Binns (no Quaker) published his
little “A Treatise on Practical Farming” in 1803, the County found out
what the Friends knew all along: that ground should lie in grass and
clover in rotation with the corn and wheat then grown, and what’s more,
that lime was a must to get the most out of the grass and clover. Israel
Janney on a trip to Chester County, Pennsylvania, had brought down some
crushed limestone in his saddlebags and tried it out on some oats. The
oats flourished and so did the clover which Israel grew and sold to his
neighbors a quart at a time to try to get them started on this grand
forage plant. Binns tried all kinds of lime and plaster, he even bought
a ton of Israel Janey’s lime and some of his clover seed, but the real
service he did was to experiment and publish his results.

The peace testimony of Friends was constantly appearing in the minutes.
Members were “spoken to” for attendance at muster; were “delt with” for
purchasing substitutes and paying the muster tax. At first the
Revolutionary War affected the Fairfax Meeting but little, however,
before it was over some fifteen members had been disowned for joining
the army. George Washington summed up the general attitude towards the
Quakers then in his famous, “Leave the Friends alone for you cannot
induce them to swear or fight for or against us. They are harmless,
peaceful and industrious people who will produce bread and meat, and if
they will not sell it to us, we will take it, if we need it; we need
bread and meat as much as we need soldiers.”

During the Civil War soldiers of both sides were quartered in the
Waterford Meeting House. When meeting was going on they stepped outside
and some even came to meeting and as one writer said, “When they (the
Southern soldiers) first came to Waterford they seemed to entertain a
strong animosity against Friends—but becoming better acquainted, some of
the soldiers acknowledged (that) Friends delt with them more fairly than
any they had met on their march from the South, and their prejudices
were removed.” It did seem strange to Friends to hold meetings with
swords hanging along the walls. A very original account of captivity
during _The War_ is given by William Williams. He and Robert J.
Hollingsworth were imprisoned in Richmond for two Southerners likewise
treated by the Federals. After much travel and hard work on the part of
wife Mary and Friends the two were released, though not before suffering
many real hardships.

Young Quaker men, being sympathetic with the Union, went North in great
numbers during _The War_, many to Ohio; they obtained jobs and found a
living away from Loudoun County and never came back to stay. It was this
exodus which began the decline of the meeting at Waterford. Many Friends
during the hostilities wished to travel to Baltimore in order to go to
Yearly Meeting. To do so they had to run the blockade along the Potomac.
Many ignored the guards at the river crossings, but many a one was
turned back. Samuel M. Janney was questioned by General (Shanks) Evans
after he was arrested for crossing the river during the early part of
the war.

General Evans—“Don’t you know that your first duty is to your
country.”

S.M.J.—“No, my first duty is to my God.”

General Evans—(After a pause) “Yes, but your second duty is to your
country.”

It was just poor business arguing with Sam Janney. In fact he got so
tired of arguments every time he wished to cross the Potomac he obtained
a pass from the Federal President, which I have seen,—an ordinary page
from a school boy’s lined tablet on which was written, “Allow the
bearer, Samuel M. Janney, to cross the Potomac at any time.”—A. Lincoln.
That pass was just about as all inclusive as one can be made.

Samuel Janney claims that Loudoun County did not have near the troubles
of neighbor against neighbor as did East Tennessee, and it can, he says,
be credited largely to the influence of Friends. In fact, it was not
uncommon when the Confederates occupied the section for the Secessionist
neighbors to help out their Union friends and vice versa when the Union
occupied the county.

The War cost the Friends of Waterford at least $23,000.00, while those
at Goose Creek lost over $80,000.00, including both property damage and
livestock loss. In 1872 all loyal Loudoun citizens received $61,821.13
for livestock losses, nothing for property lost by burning. Friends from
Philadelphia largely built back the mill of Asa M. Janney where Coit
McLean now lives, known as Forest Mills. If it had not been for the
generosity of Friends in the North there would have been real suffering
among Friends in Loudoun after the end of hostilities.

As early as 1792 a committee on “Spiritous Liquors” was appointed at
Fairfax and it must have done a good job, for by 1809 no member was
reported to deal in them. In the year 1819 Goose Creek had a committee
report that several members had even stopped the giving of liquor to
harvest hands and found it to be such a good idea that a minute was
written admonishing against its use thereafter at harvest. It was not by
accident that Loudoun County was for years the center of the Womans
Christian Temperance Union in the state of Virginia. When the Lincoln
Lyceum Association Hall was built in 1874 a Men’s Temperance Society,
the Good Templars, flourished there for some time. The first performance
in the new hall was “Ten Nights in a Barroom.”

Nearly every deed to a meeting house calls for a school house, for the
instruction of the young. At Fairfax a school fund was raised in 1779,
but it was not until 1802 that a plan for “pious and guarded education
for children of Members of the Society” was instituted. The school,
built for $400.00, remained open until 1871, when the public school
system took over.

At Goose Creek, on the first of 6th month 1815, a committee of William
Smith, Mahlon Taylor, Jonas Janney, Stephen Wilson and Samuel Nichols,
Sr., were appointed to consider the building of a school on the Meeting
lot. The committee reported in favor of the building on the 27th of 6th
month, and in 8th month reported to build the school for the sum of
about $400.00 or thereabouts; already subscribed was $346.00.

In 8th month, 1816, the following committee was appointed to have care
and oversight of the school held in the recently erected schoolhouse:
Israel Janney, Amos Gibson, Mahlon Taylor, Isaac Nichols, Bernard Taylor
and William Kenworthy. Jonathan Taylor was the first teacher employed.

As committees were released, new ones were appointed whose duties were
care and oversight, the hiring of the teachers and visiting the school.
On such an occasion, a student of the school has told us, they looked
forward to the visit of the dear old Friends, kindly offering to assist
with a hard lesson or difficult problem. (How they have changed since
his day.) When the lessons were all through the copy books were placed
before them for inspection and marked 1, 2, and so on, down to the one
containing “pot hooks and hangers” as the curves were then called.

This school continued right on through the summer without any
intermission except for two weeks for wheat harvest. No holidays were
observed. One teacher taught ten years with only one day off and that
the day of his wedding. A roll of the students of the Oak Dale School
shows one-third of them to be either Taylors, Nichols, Janneys, Hirsts,
or Browns, with one-half the teachers of like surnames. For many years
the bequest of Isaac Nichols, deceased, was used to defray the expenses
of poor children going to this school.

Early Friends had schools in other places: one a spring house on the
Isaac Wilson farm, where several families pitched in together to keep
school. There was a log school at Ivandale, one called Summer Hill in
front of the present driveway to Thomas Taylor’s home, where P. G. Clark
now lives, built of logs hauled by Josh Hatcher, who has been called
Loudoun County’s first bank. Another was Flint Hill Academy at
Hugesville, run by Friends.

At Springdale, in Lincoln, Samuel M. Janney had a boarding school for
girls, charging $32.50 per quarter in 1839-40, with extras, pen, ink,
pencils and lights 50 cents additional per quarter. Drawing and French
were three dollars extras. Day students paid twenty dollars the quarter.
Supplies were taken in lieu of cash. Henry S. Taylor paid his tuitions
in 1842-44 with several quarters of beef, barrels of flour, a horse and
sheep (the horse for transportation, not eating). Henry B. Taylor
states—“dried peaches and apples were standbys in the diet of that day
and hominy was the universal substantial breakfast food, one that would
stick to the ribs. Samuel Janney bought hominy at Waterford mills, 5 or
6 bushels at a time. No Shredded Wheat or toasted hay for breakfast food
at Springdale.”

Before 1908, Will Smith and Josh Brown and others were canvassing the
county and Philadelphia neighborhood for money to build a high school.
At last $15,000.00 was raised, and in 1908 Lincoln High School opened
its doors. The labors and work of erecting this school, the first high
school in the county, was borne mostly by Friends. When the building
burned in 1926, there was agitation to take the insurance money to
another town to rebuild; a lengthy hearing was held at the Goose Creek
Meeting House, but people had reckoned without the canniness of the
original builders as the deed stated that the money was to be used to
build a school within one quarter of a mile of the meeting house and
that was where it was rebuilt. For the year the rebuilding was going on
the students were taught in the meeting house, the present store
building, and the old Phin Janney store building in Lincoln.

Friends engaged in businesses of all kinds, of course, stores, iron
foundries, such as the William H. Taylor foundry at Lincoln, where the
celebrated Taylor plow, bells, and frog doorstops were made, woolen
mills, flour and grist mills and the like. Though transportation was a
difficult problem Friends were right up front in the first turnpike and
railroad ventures. Many a Quaker trunk contained crumbling shares of the
stocks. Israel Janney was a trustee of the Leesburg-Dranesville turnpike
and Phineas Janney of Alexandria, treasurer of the road from there into
Alexandria. Phineas Janney’s reports are on file at Richmond, and are
referred to by one writer as being “full of these and thous and common
sence.”

The meetings became a sort of Chautauqua for visiting Friends having a
‘concern’ and many came to hear these people from far off. John Woolman
visited Fairfax in the early 1740’s. The famous Elias Hicks visited in
1798, and several times later; Stephen Grollet in 1801 and Richard Mott
in 1801; John Kersey (the book has it Jersey Kersey), a famous Quaker
preacher and author of the driest book I have ever read; Elizabeth
Robson, Bartholomew Wister and Ruth Ely, 1826. Elizabeth Robson was an
English Friend with very Orthodox views as was Thomas Shillitoe, another
English Friend who came to Loudoun on a preaching mission in 11th month
1827. Also gracing the fronting benches of the Loudoun Meetings were
Elisha Bates, John Comly, Edward Hicks, whose primitive paintings are so
much in demand, and the famous Benjaman Hallowell who started Robert E.
Lee in mathematics.

Stephen Grellet, Elizabeth Robson, and Thomas Shillitoe were the
so-called Orthodox Friends whose ministry throughout the country helped
to cause such sad havoc in Friends meetings and brought about the
separation of 1827-28. Loudoun Friends at this time were little affected
by the ideas advanced by these people, based mostly on theology and
evangelism which at the time was traveling thru many of the churches of
the land. Some eight families took off from Goose Creek Meeting only,
Fairfax being affected not at all. These Orthodox Friends, as they came
to be called as opposed to the so-called Hicksite Friends, built a
meeting house south of the graveyard in Lincoln on the next hill, a
corner now of J. C. Chappell’s heirs. Here they had a meeting until the
Civil War, when it was laid down.

Along about the early 1880 this sad chapter in Friends history had to be
reopened when Richard and Mary Snowden Thomas, brother and sister from
Baltimore, raised the clarion call of evangelism. At first, in 1885, the
Orthodox meetings were held in the Lincoln Lyceum Hall until a house
could be built. In all about eight families withdrew from Goose Creek to
form this new Lincoln Monthly Meeting of Friends which occurred in April
of 1887 in their new meeting house. Daniel J. Hoge, Clark and Rebecca I.
Brown were appointed overseers with Joseph Pancoast as treasurer. A
subordinate meeting was organized at Silcott Springs in 1894 but its
life was short, being closed in the winter of 1904-5 and the building
sold in 1933.

As is usual with such religious separations there was too much feeling
on both sides, and I am not going to say there was not. Now we can laugh
at Will Brown’s sally to one of the Orthodox driving by the old meeting
to go up the road to the Orthodox meeting on a very blustery, wet day:
Brown, “Well, Hoge, the new road to heaven is a damn wet one, isn’t it?”
Or an Orthodox Friends referring to the Hicksites (in the words of a
Hicksite), as “those cigarette smoking, whiskey drinking, Christ
rejecting Hicksite Friends.”

Fairfax Meeting House was burnt in 1887, and in spite of the decrease in
numbers it was rebuilt at a cost of $4,840.00. Its young men having gone
away to the west and the opportunities limited to educated persons, as
the Quakers undoubtedly were, the meeting lost members until the sad day
came when it was laid down in 1926. The last paper was signed in 1929
and the final grand meeting held with many a Friend wiping away a
furtive tear.

Goose Creek Friends were not paying their preacher either, for during a
terrible wind and rain storm in 1943 half the roof and the west end of
their meeting house was blown off and in, making the house unusable. The
Orthodox Friends came to the rescue and meetings were held together in
their house until the Goose Creek meeting house could be rebuilt.
Friends found out they could get along together and like it. All the
younger Friends wondered what it had all been about anyway, so after the
grand opening of the newly reconstructed meeting house in 1948, the
Goose Creek United Monthly Meeting of Friends came into being in 1950.

Friends have stepped on many toes with their advanced views, but they
have been right so often as to gain much respect throughout the country.
That their worship is not understood by many is well known and even as
early as 1776 Nichols Cresswell went to meeting in Leesburg and
reported, “Mr. Brooks and I went to the Quaker Meeting, but were too
late, tho it would have been equally as well as if we had been sooner,
for the spirit did not move any of them to speak. Can’t conceive what
service the people can receive by grunting and groaning for two or three
hours without speaking a word. This is a stupid religion, indeed.”

The Religious Society of Friends is as the name implies a group of
people with the religious conviction that one’s life is the experience
of love, love of God and love of one’s fellow man. It is a living
fellowship rather than a sacred institution. From this view comes all of
its good. It affirms that it is the Presence in the Midst—that God is
everywhere—that every man is endowed with this light within. Religion
for Friends is not apart from life nor for special days. The early
Friends had no Christmas nor Easter, every day is equal in the sight of
God. It is “the life we lead, the things we do” which count; as witness
their history in Loudoun: that African children should be educated; that
men should be free; a man should not demean himself by taking off his
hat to another; that work is noble; that the laborer is worthy of his
hire; that no man should lose while you gain; that children must be
educated to live a fuller life for mankind; that no one has the right to
take a life that only God can give; that the _fallen_ should do better
and come back into the fold, “which is our desire for her.”

Friends hold their meetings for worship unplanned; with no constant
jumping up to do this or sitting down to do that; in a plain room
without distracting influences, trying to find in a silent communion,
enfolded by His presence, the spiritual guidance they seek.

And so I find it well to come
For deeper rest to this still room,

For here the habit of the soul
Feels less the outer world’s control;

The strength of mutual purpose pleads
More earnestly our common needs,

And in the silence multiplied
By these still forms on either side,

The world that time and space have known
Falls off and leaves us God alone. _Whittier._

Sources other than acknowledged in the text: Henry B. Taylor, Howell S.
Brown, Mabel N. Lybolt, L. H. Taylor, for minutes, notes, articles,
manuscripts, and consultation; _Landmarks of Old Prince William_;
Briscoe Goodhart, _The Loudoun Rangers_; James Head, _The History of
Loudoun County_; Loudoun Historical Society _Bulletin_, 1958; Samuel M.
Janney, _Memoirs and History of Friends_; Hopewell Friends, _History of
Hopewell Friends Meeting_; Hinshaw, _Quaker Genealogy_; Frederick
Gutheim, _The Potomac_, from “Rivers of America” series.

The Uses of History

A Lecture Delivered Before Members of the Society, January 15, 1965
By Col. Trevor N. Dupuy

At the outset I should make clear that I have no credentials in
historiography. In fact I do not have even have the so-called Union Card
for the professional academic historian—a Ph. D. degree—but I do believe
that I have enough practical experience in the writing of history, and
in teaching it at three universities, to warrant having some thoughts on
the nature of history, and of its uses. And I have another reason, as
well, as you will see.

Let me start by explaining how I intend to treat this important topic:
The uses of history. First I shall give you my interpretation of what
the _nature_ of history is. Next I will offer some very _general_
thoughts on the _uses_ of history. Then I would like to make one or two
comments on how I visualize history being currently useful for Loudoun
County. Finally, I shall tell you a little bit about my own day-to-day
involvement in several very specific uses of history.

First, then, for my views on what history is—and what it is not. Several
months ago there was an interesting debate in the New York _Times
Magazine_ about the nature of history, provoked by an article written by
Barbara Tuchman, the historian whose public reputation is based
primarily upon her magnificent book, _The Guns of August_. The essence
of the debate was whether history is what _actually happened_ in the
past, or is merely the _record_ of what happened. The subtle
distinction, of course, is comparable to that involved in the question
of whether there can be noise—as from a tree falling in the middle of an
impenetrable forest—if there is no ear to hear the sound waves. I don’t
intend to revive the debate; I merely want to suggest that there are
various ways of looking at the nature of history. You are about to be
exposed to _my_ way of looking at it.

As I see it, recorded history is society’s memory. For society as a
whole, as well as for an individual, memory can provide insights,
wisdom, and the recollection of past experiences which are in some way
relevant to every new experience—no matter how unanticipated the
manifestation of that new experience may be. And of course each new
experience adds to the information stored in that amazing electronic
computer—the human brain. Sometimes the new experience reinforces the
information already stored there, sometimes it qualifies the existing
information, but always the new experience is in some way relevant to
events in the past which are already recorded in the memory. This same
process is to some degree true of society as a whole.

Every event of significance in mankind’s past can enrich the memory of
human society, and can be used to the future benefit of mankind—if some
way can be found to relate that experience to current issues and
problems, without distortion, through some kind of memory process. The
historian, of course, is the essential element of this memory process.

In considering this relationship of experience to memory, it is
pertinent to point out that even the most startling new scientific
development invariably has had a historical background of its own. New
wonders of technology and science all have a direct connection with the
past, not only through the evaluation and analysis of empirical records,
but also through discontinuities or continuities which exist between the
new development and what has happened in the past.

If there is anything to my suggestion that historical experience is the
basic material for the memory of society, then the record of past
experience is a natural resource, which can and should be mined for the
present and future benefit of mankind. Save possibly in the area of
science, human society has never come near to efficiently exploiting
this resource of its own experience.

When it _is_ mined, this natural resource can make its principal
contribution to social memory by enriching wisdom. We have a tendency to
speak of the “lessons” of history, as though they were immutable—I do
this as much as anyone—but I realize that in a literal sense this is
impossible. One can never recreate, in every detail and particular, the
exact circumstances of a past event. History can never _exactly_ repeat
itself, and so its so-called lessons cannot be applied blindly or
automatically.

But if history doesn’t repeat itself it does, in the words of Herman
Kahn, paraphrase itself. Kahn, incidentally, is a scientist and not a
historian, but he, like Toynbee and other historians, recognizes that
human and institutional relationships in modern times can often bear a
close resemblance to events of the past. One can discern many parallel
patterns in history, and both trends and specific events are often
directly comparable between these patterns. The rise and fall of nations
and dynasties, for instance. And since human reactions to circumstances
and stimuli are not ever likely to change radically, it is easy to note
danger signals from certain circumstances in related patterns of events,
and to see what kinds of actions have been successful in certain
circumstances in the past, and which have failed, in similar patterns.

Thus, while rejecting the idea that history teaches us lessons from the
past, I am convinced that history will widen our horizons, revealing new
perspective, providing insights, and generally enriching wisdom in using
good judgment in dealing with the present. There is still one caution,
however. If there is _any_ immutable lesson which history teaches, it is
that no quantity of insights can ever replace or substitute for good
judgement or the basic intellectual capacity which experience transforms
into wisdom.

I have tried to indicate what I think the nature of history is, and in
the process I have given you some very general thoughts about the use
and utility of history. I would like to pursue this question of uses of
history a bit further.

What really do any of us have in mind in speaking of the “Uses of
History?” Is it history for the enrichment of one’s life? For the
lessons (so-called) to be gained from experience? For developing
patriotism or a sense of one’s heritage? For making money?

At this point it might be useful to recall that a number of ancient and
not-so-ancient philosophers have commented on the value and importance
of history. Let me simply refresh your memory on four that I happen to
like:

_Polybius_: For it is history and history alone, which will mature our
judgment and prepare us to take right views, whatever may be the
crisis or the posture of affairs.

_Shakespeare_: The past is prologue.

_Santayana_: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to
repeat it.

_John Gardner_: “In the renewing society the historian consults the
past in the service of the present and the future.”

But, like so many philosophical sayings, these aphorisms are somewhat
cryptic. We understand them, but they require some elaboration, and
possibly some interpretation.

Many academic historians would insist that history doesn’t need to have
a use. Its existence is as inevitable as life itself; as last night’s
sunset, this morning’s sunrise. These scholars feel that the study of
the events which make up history is rewarding in itself without any
further direct use. It is a part of the well-educated man or woman.

There are other people, of course, who would insist that—save for the
scholars who teach it—history has no more utility than knowledge of
Latin and Greek. Having found no adult use for the contents of their
history textbooks, such people might be pardoned for feeling that
history is merely the useless foible of educators. (I leave it up to you
whether it is appropriate to apply the same logic to the so-called dead
languages.)

Yet, if there is any validity to what I said earlier about history being
the memory of human society—and of individual humans as well—I suspect
that history has had some utility—direct and indirect—to even the most
pragmatic amongst us. Certainly _something_ of what was taught us in our
history courses has entered our memories, even if subconsciously so.
Otherwise we could not have any opinions about it. It is even more
certain that the reader of a daily newspaper will retain _some_
recollection of what he has read in that paper, and then will relate
these recalled events to what he does, what he thinks, what he talks
about, and what he reads in the next day’s newspaper. These events,
recorded in the newspaper, are as much history as events which happened
in the days of Roman power, as recorded by Julius Caesar, Livy, and
other writers of those times. Thus the man who reads a daily newspaper,
or a weekly newsmagazine, is making definite use of history—otherwise he
wouldn’t bother to read!

Equally, events which happened to us in our daily work last year, last
week, even today, are as much historical events as things which occurred
centuries ago. These events are experience, and our recollection of
these day to day events are used by all of us in planning and doing
things in subsequent days. Deprived of this memory, we would be both
useless and helpless. The same is true of society as a whole.
Recognizing this, there are economic and social historians who
concentrate their efforts on events of the very recent past, in order to
provide useful inputs to the memories of scholars, policy makers, and
others who are concerned with modern economic or social affairs. It is
beside the point whether or not we believe the job could be done more
systematically.

Even more basically, some of us believe that a sense of history, and a
consciousness of participation in history, is a basic human need. Now
there are, of course, different kinds of basic human needs—there are the
powerful and elemental forces of life and the preservation and
continuation of life; instincts and drives relating to food, shelter,
sex, parenthood and survival. Then there are the other, more social,
needs—as for recreation, privacy, living space, and the like. It is in
this latter category that I would place the need for a sense of history.
Aside from the memory aspect, to which I have already alluded, there is
an enrichment and humanizing effect on peoples’ lives resulting from a
consciousness of making history as they vote in an election, testify at
a local hearing, help create a local institution, or work at responsible
jobs. Essential to this enrichment is some kind of prior realization of
what history is, and how these personal activities can contribute to it.

What I have been saying so far has all been rather theoretical and
ethereal. I believe it is probably time for me to come down to earth
with some practical uses of history, as I see them, and as I have
personally experienced them.

First let me say a few words about how the use of history can be
directly relevant to Loudoun County. Before going further I should
explain to you that, even though I am not a resident, I am no stranger
to the County or to Leesburg. For about twenty years the Dupuys have
been property-owners in Loudoun County. As my father used to comment, we
are thus modern recruits of the Army of Northern Virginia. My wife and I
even have plans for a house which we someday expect to build on our
property on the banks of Goose Creek.

So I know something about the county, and something about its history.
Not enough to discuss in any detail with _this_ group—but enough to know
that it is an appropriate place to settle for one who (like myself) has
forebears who fought on both sides in the Civil War (a conflict which,
as most of you know, my friends, Pat Andrews, always refers to as the
War of Northern Aggression; I won’t bother you with the details of my
many Civil War controversies with Pat; I’ll simply mention the fact that
our principal dispute centers over the question whether McClellan was a
greater detriment to the Union cause than Braxton Bragg was to that of
the Confederacy.)

To return to history and Loudoun County.

A number among you know my father—who is still at heart a recruit in the
Army of Northern Virginia, and who left Loudoun County only because of
pressure on him from those of the family who felt that his age and
health required a less rigorous life and a more accessible home than
conditions permitted in their isolated house on Goose Creek. While he
lived here, he took the time to immerse himself in Loudoun County
History; in fact, he probably should be talking to you tonight instead
of me.

Anyway, I recall his telling me about the old canal locks in front of
his house—long since inundated by the dam built largely on what used to
be their property. These canal lock ruins clearly demonstrated the
relationship of past events to the present—and of the usefulness of
being able to interpret such relevance. Even submerged, they are mute
evidence of a dream of mass transportation—movement of Loudoun County
produce to the Potomac. This dream was a bubble pricked by the
unexpectedly rapid growth of the railroads. The local railroad, in turn,
has given way to the equally unexpected rapid growth of road
transportation, which has not only brought this rural region into the
suburban circle of the nearby metropolis, but has actually brought about
the appearance within the county of the major metropolitan terminus for
a still newer means of mass transportation—and of course I am speaking
of Dulles Airport.

This is only one of the many manifestations of the fact that history is
certainly sweeping Loudoun County into the Eastern Seaboard Megalopolis.
This historical fact has great relevance and use to this county—and I
should think poses a challenge to this Historical Society.

I am sure the county must have some plans for coping with this
historical fact, and I imagine that this Society has probably done much
thinking about its role in these plans. But let me mention anyhow, at
the risk of telling you things you have already thought of, how I
visualize using history for planning purposes in Loudoun County right
now.

I understand that Fairfax County has recently begun to prepare to
identify its historical landmarks. There are several reasons for such
identification, particularly to permit the county to preserve the
essentials of its past history, as embodied in places, objects and
memories, while still participating in present history. I would hope
that Loudoun County has done, or will do, the same, relying upon this
Society for advice and counsel.

I should like to spend the next few minutes in telling you about some
examples of practical use of history by an organization created for the
specific purpose of making use of history.

This is the Historical Evaluation and Research Organization—which we
modestly call HERO. HERO is dedicated to stimulating improved use of
historical experience—as well as improved use of the professional
historians who are most competent to marshal and to evaluate historical
experience—in the development of national security policy.

Interestingly, and not surprisingly, we have encountered some skepticism
amongst Government officials and others who had some doubts about the
need for or the utility of our principal function: The application of
historical experience to the development of current and future national
security policy. There were two principal reasons for the skepticism.
First, there are a number of people who feel that the tremendous
technological advances of our times have totally invalidated any
possible relevance of the past experience which is the stuff of history.
Secondly, there are those who feel that the competent Government
specialist has no need for the services of the historian; he is usually
far more conversant with his field of interest than any academic scholar
can be; he has his files available for documentation; he knows what
facts can be considered relevant, and he will include these in any
statement which may be required of “Facts Bearing on the Problem.”

As to the first of these doubts, as I shall show, we have clearly
demonstrated the relevance of history to current policy issues. For the
second, we believe that the dangers of the concept of “every man his own
historian” are becoming apparent to many Government officials. The
historical background of Government specialists, even in their own area
of specialty, is not only spotty, but their recollection of historical
experience is limited mostly to those examples which tend to support
their own pre-conceived ideas. Furthermore, their own Governmental
documentation is often inadequate in most areas other than in classified
documents. More and more people are beginning to recognize the ability
of the trained historian to bring out _all_ of the pertinent facts, and
to weigh their relative value far more objectively than is possible for
the average person without historical training.

Thus, HERO is convinced of the utility of our primary mission of mining
the rich natural resource which we think history is, and also of
refining the ore so as to permit history to serve mankind, as
philosophers have always said it should. This has never been done
before, either here or in any other country, to the best of my
knowledge—though, as a historian, I am aware of the danger of using such
absolute terms as “never,” or “the first ever.”

Rather than going into any generalized explanation of how we go about
mining and refining this resource, I think I can demonstrate how we do
it—and at the same time give concrete examples of some uses of
history—by talking about some of HERO’s past and current work.

The first study which HERO completed was done for the Sandia
Corporation—a special contracting agency for the Atomic Energy
Commission. The purpose of this study—which we dubbed “Pre-Alert”—was to
ascertain the extent to which historical example and experience could be
useful in the area of military command and control. The Sandia
Corporation had the responsibility for developing the so-called “black
box” to provide foolproof, automatic controls which will prevent
accidental or unauthorized employment of nuclear weapons systems. Our
study was unclassified, so we didn’t get into the classified details of
these foolproof, automatic controls. Our task was to assess the
likelihood that such controls might be so complicated, or might be so
inhibiting to individual initiative, as to preclude adequate military
response in the event of unforeseen emergency conditions or
circumstances.

Sandia had, of course, called upon the psychologists and sociologists to
study this problem but the results of these scientific studies were not
completely satisfactory in synthetic “model” environments. So we were
asked to see if anything could be learned from historical experience.

After surveying the history of weapon systems, and the sometimes
divergent history of command and control systems, we came to the
conclusion that much _could_ be learned from history about the human
aspects of command and control. We laid out a program for a detailed
investigation of a number of pertinent case studies, and some general
areas for intensive research. We don’t know how useful our study was to
the Sandia Corporation. We do know, however, that it aroused
considerable interest in the Army. And it proved to us, without
question, that our thesis about the relevance of history to current and
future problems was as sound in the nuclear era, and with respect to
nuclear weapon systems, as we had believed would be the case.

Our next study was for the U. S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
Entitled “Riposte,” the purpose of this study was to survey historical
experience in the field of international treaties, to analyze this
experience, and to point out lessons applicable to current and future
treaty negotiations and treaty enforcement, particularly as this
experience might be relevant to arms control treaties.

For over a year we surveyed and analyzed modern treaty experience,
particularly looking at instances of violations of treaties, and
enforcement measures that were taken, or that could have been taken, in
response to these violations. We gave special attention to the
enforcement (and non-enforcement) of the Treaty of Versailles; to
sanctions and treaty enforcement experience of international
organizations like the League of Nations, the Organization of American
States, and the United Nations; and to the details of experience in
negotiating and enforcing agreements with the Communists since World War
II, such as those dealing with access rights to Berlin, the Geneva
Conferences of 1954 and 1961 on Southeast Asia, and the Korean
Armistice.

We were very pleased with the results of this study, and we understand
that the Arms Control Agency was, also. We demonstrated how our
Government may profit from its own experience and from that of others in
the fields of treaty negotiation and enforcement.

Perhaps the most significant study we have done to date, and the one
which gives promise of having the greatest impact upon policy makers, is
one which we completed for the Army last fall, entitled “Historical
Trends Related to Weapon Lethality.” The purpose of the study was to
provide useful insights to men who are trying to develop new doctrines,
and new organizations, for the most efficient possible employment of the
terribly destructive new weapons which are available to the Army today.
In the process we surveyed the history of weapons development from the
Fourth Century B. C. to the end of the Korean War.

This comprehensive survey provided us with a formidable mass of data on
weapon experience in the history of war. We grouped related facts
according to novel schemes of classification and analysis, and then
tried to ascertain what these groupings meant. From this we derived a
number of most interesting conclusions. Let me mention a few:

We learned that the mere invention of a new weapon has almost never
affected the course of world events, or altered the balance of power.
The real impact of weapons on events comes from the assimilation of
weapons into an effective military system. (By assimilation of a weapon
we mean its integration into the nation’s milita organization and
doctrine in such a way that it is employed effectively and confidently,
and that its employment usually results in a relative decrease in the
user’s casualties, while permitting the user to inflict higher
casualties on military forces that have not assimilated it.) One
interesting pattern which emerged from our analysis of assimilation,
incidentally, is the fact that it has almost always, through history,
taken at least one full generation, or about 20 years, for a weapon to
become assimilated after its first adoption. This time lag of about 20
years seems still to be with us today, despite the accelerating trends
of technological weapon development. Nuclear weapons, first employed in
1945, have not yet been effectively assimilated into a tactical system
by our army or—to the best of our knowledge—any other army—though of
course the weapons are available, and can be used.

Of the many significant conclusions that emerged from this study,
however, one seemed to us to be especially important: New and effective
tactical systems in history seem to have been more the result of new
ideas than of new or improved weapons. New and imaginative concepts have
often permitted inferior forces to overcome handicaps in numbers and/or
equipment. We suspect that Vietnam is no exception to this.

Another thing which we did in this report was to develop a basis for
calculating what we term “lethality indices” for all weapons in history,
from hand-to-hand implements of antiquity to nuclear explosives. Using
data derived from history, we have been able to calculate the relative
theoretical efficiency of weapons, and have discovered that these
lethality indices are consistent with actual combat experience in a
number of wars which we analyzed in depth. This, in turn, permitted us
to develop a quantitative relationship between lethality, mobility, and
dispersion in combat.

As a military historian, what we did, and what we ended up with, in that
study are particularly fascinating to me. I might add that we have also
stimulated very gratifying interest in the Army. This very afternoon I
presented a briefing of the study report to the Army staff, and
discussed some new, and we think potentially important, tactical
concepts which the results of the study seem to point out to us.

Before leaving the subject of this study, I wish to mention that one of
the members of your Society—Mr. Marshall Andrews—was a very important
contributor to that study.

HERO has also done quite a bit of work in a rather different field of
historical research—in which we have concerned ourselves with the
teaching of history in American schools—which also demonstrates how
history can be used.

We became interested in the subject of the teaching of American history
in our schools for two reasons. First, because we have reason to think
that the teaching of history has not been as good or as effective as it
can be and should be. Too often children think of history as one of the
dullest of their subjects, instead of one which can provide endless,
dramatic fascination. And, as historians, we saw in this situation the
possibility that historians could make a direct contribution to one of
the great social problems of our time: the alienation of important
minority groups, particularly in our large urban areas, from the rest of
American society.

It is our hypothesis that improvement in the teaching of history will
not only be a contribution to American education in general, but may
also be a start toward the building of a bridge between these alienated
minorities and the main stream of American society. This will be no easy
task. The imaginations of Negro, Puerto Rican, and Mexican-American
children will not be stimulated by such simple methods as teaching them
about great American heroes—nor teaching them about Negro, Puerto Rican
or Mexican-American heroes. History and historians can play only a
contributory role in this task, which will require the cooperation of
many different specialists. We know that two apparently divergent
results must be achieved by this cooperation: improvement of the
self-concept and self-respect of these minority children, who have been
largely second-class citizens, while at the same time stimulating their
feeling of association with the larger white majority.

As a start toward testing—and we hope proving—our hypothesis that
history can help in the effort to achieve these apparently divergent
goals, we developed a five-city survey plan to see how history is being
taught in five major cities, and particularly how it is being taught to
the underprivileged minority groups in those cities. We developed these
plans with the cooperation of the school authorities in New York,
Washington, D.C., Detroit, Phoenix, and Los Angeles. We are currently
seeking funds which will permit us to undertake this planned survey
which, in turn, will provide the basis for long-range research and
experimentation in the teaching of history to underprivileged minority
groups.

Without waiting for the survey, we have already begun one small
experimental program ourselves. We came to the conclusion, while we were
developing our survey plans, that if History is to have any effective
impact on these minority group children, they should be exposed to it as
early as possible, and as effectively as possible, before they have
become embittered and alienated in their reaction to the social
conditions in which they live. We accordingly developed a teachers’
source-book for teachers of kindergarten and the early elementary
grades. The book comprises 27 separate essays on important holidays
commemorating events of significance in American history. I can perhaps
best describe the book, and what we hope it will accomplish, by reading
two paragraphs from its introduction:

“‘Holidays’ has been written primarily for elementary school teachers
who are searching for ways to communicate meaningfully and with balanced
perspective to very young children those values inherent in American
history: patriotism, heroism, self-reliance, and tolerance, to name but
a few. The book is intended to help busy teachers who need brief, pithy,
scrupulously-researched essays that are laced with ideas for
presentation. The authors are specialists, whose experience and
scholarship have particularly qualified them to write with authority and
accuracy on their subjects.

“Included in this book are regularly celebrated American holidays for
all races, creeds, and regions across the entire nation. Among these
are: Alamo Day, celebrating the memory both of valiant Mexican-Texans
and Anglo-Americans who died together for the principle of
self-government; United Nations Day and Pan-American Day, which both
symbolize world unity and peace; American Indian Day and Commonwealth
Day, neither widely celebrated, but both undeniably American. From these
and the other stories youngsters can start to learn about their
privileges and responsibilities as members of a pluralistic, democratic
society. They will also begin to establish a useful base of historical
knowledge upon which they can build in subsequent school years.”

In this endeavor, and in some related educational-historical projects,
we believe that we are indeed making some very good use of history in
the national interest.

I have one last HERO project which I should like to mention as being
relevant to the uses of history.

You will recall my concept of history as society’s memory. Several of
us, through long and bitter experience, have come to the conclusion that
the memory of the Government is not very good. We are dismayed by the
duplication of effort in Government research and in policy-making; by
the lack of communication which exists between people doing related work
in different Government offices, and by the lack of communication within
individual Government offices—which is another way of saying lack of
continuity.

We have also been struck by the fact that the richest single source of
material for the Government’s memory has been almost ignored, and never
organized or utilized systematically. This is the mass of information on
all of the varied activities of the Government which is available in
unclassified publications prepared in and for the Congress. For all
practical purposes, this material is not even usefully available, in
organized form, to members of Congress or its committees. Accordingly,
HERO has decided to do something about this.

We are in the process of developing what we call a “Defense Memory
System.” This comprises the collection of all Congressional documents
dealing with national defense, abstracting them, then indexing the
abstracts so that queries on any aspects of national defense can be
answered by going directly—via the index—to the abstract or abstracts
which deal with the topic in question, and—if necessary—going to the
basic document itself. What we are doing, essentially, is to apply to
the conceptual field of non-technical, non-scientific policy-type
information the same kind of modern storage and retrieval methods which
have been so successfully applied to the physical sciences, to
engineering data, and to hardware information.

We are in the process of preparing a prototype of this system for
demonstration next month to Congress and to possible private users of
this historical data. In this project, then, we at HERO are not only
making use of history, we are organizing it so that others can use it as
well.

Which is, I think, about as much as I can say about the uses of history.

The Skirmish At Mile Hill

By Col. A. B. Johnson
U.S. Army (Ret.)

Following the battle of Second Manassas General Lee brought his Army of
Northern Virginia through Loudoun County for the first invasion of the
North. One of Lee’s prime considerations for the movement through
Loudoun is best described in a letter from Lee to President Davis dated
September 4, 1862: “I did not think it advantageous to follow the enemy
into his fortifications. If I had possessed the necessary ammunition I
should be unable to supply provisions for the troops. I therefore
determined to draw troops into Loudoun County where forage and
provisions could be obtained.”

White’s Ford, a low water crossing of the Potomac, offered his best
access to the Maryland shore. (White’s Ford is not to be confused with
present day White’s Ferry. The ford is about three miles upstream, and
can be reached via Routes 661 and 656, east of Route 15).

General J. E. B. Stuart’s cavalry was to screen the advance, and in
doing so he sent Colonel T. T. Munford with the 2nd Virginia Cavalry
toward Leesburg. Munford’s mission was to clear the enemy from the river
crossings, and in so doing he was to strike the “notorious Means” who
was thought to be at or near Leesburg.

Captain Samuel C. Means of Waterford had organized a company of Union
cavalry known as the Loudoun Rangers from the northern part of Loudoun.
This act had embittered the Confederates and at every opportunity they
tried to annihilate these Virginians who would not support the State.
The Rangers had been roughly handled a few days before at the Waterford
Baptist Church by Major E. V. White’s 35th Battalion, Virginia Cavalry.

On September 1, Munford left the army and bivouaced at Goose Creek near
where it crosses Route 7. In the meantime, Cole’s Independent Maryland
Cavalry (3 companies) and Means’ depleted company were in Leesburg.

On the 2nd as Munford approached Leesburg he divided his command,
sending Captain Irvine of Company C with a squadron to drive through the
town. With the remainder of the regiment, Munford turned off Route 7 in
a northerly direction, crossing the Edwards Ferry road and the Trundle
plantation (Exeter). While Munford was making this flanking movement,
Captain Irvine charged into the town wounding four of the Loudoun
Rangers and causing Means to withdraw north on present day Route 15.

Cole’s three companies had taken position on a slight eminence about a
mile north of town. In taking up this position Cole had dismounted his
troopers and sent the horses to the rear near Big Spring; one holder was
in charge of four horses, thus depleting his fighting strength by one
fourth. (Cole’s line was in the “V” between old Route 15 and the new
part that has been recently straightened, and approximately on the ridge
at the entrance to Ball’s Bluff.)

Fences bordered the road and a wheat field in shocks was on the
southeast side. Irvine’s squadron had followed Means from the town and
was firing from behind the shocks as they drove the Loudoun Rangers back
on Cole’s line.

Irvine had performed his work well, for in attacking from the front he
had allowed Munford with the rest of the regiment to circle around
behind Cole unnoticed. Suddenly from the rear came the horseholders at a
full gallop shouting, “Here come the Rebs.” Munford with most of his
regiment riding boot to boot and shouting at the top of their lungs was
upon them. No time was lost in formal maneuvers as Cole shouted to his
men to mount up and charge to the right—the melee was on. Some of the
blue troopers were shot down and sabred before they could mount, others
were captured on foot; many with blood streaming down their faces from
sabre cuts on the head.

The melee developed into a running fight as Cole led his men toward the
mountain road that runs past the Burdett Wright farm toward Waterford.
Again the sabre was freely used as it was impossible to reload revolvers
on moving horses. The pursuit continued for about two miles until
Munford called a halt to secure horses and prisoners that had been
passed in the chase.

From existing reports it is difficult to reconcile either the strength
or the casualties for the opposing forces in this engagement. Munford
officially reported his strength at 163. This figure seems low, for at
this early date in the war a company of only 16 men was the exception
rather than the rule. Munford adds further that: “A squadron of 40 men
under Captain H. Clay Dickinson disgraced itself, having run as far as
Goose Creek and failed to support the regiment in the fight.” The usual
Confederate system for reporting strength was to count only those on the
field with musket in hand; thus, it is possible that the 2nd Virginia
Cavalry had a pre-battle strength of 203 of all ranks.

The Confederates list only 2 killed and 5 badly wounded; evidently there
were no slightly wounded or they failed to report them.

The Union strength was not reported officially. Goodhart, the company
historian, estimates the Loudoun Rangers had 30 men on the field. Its
casualties were 1 killed, 6 wounded and 4 captured; four of the wounded
also fell into the hands of the enemy. Cole’s strength may be placed at
150 or an average of 50 men per company for his three companies. The
battalion historian gives the names, which total 6 killed, 27 wounded,
of whom 11 were captured, as the losses sustained.

Goodhart says that this engagement coming in such close succession after
the debacle at Waterford, and before the company had attained
proficiency in discipline and drill, seriously affected recruiting and
nearly broke up the company.

It is interesting to note the high percentage of officers among the
casualties; this is no doubt due to the fact that in cavalry the
officers rode in front and led the charge.

The psychological effect of a mounted charge, particularly when a
surprise, is powerful. In this instance the 2nd Virginia Cavalry with
about 200 men was reported by Cole as an entire brigade.

Cole’s great mistake was of course in not posting pickets at his rear
and flanks to prevent just what happened, a surprise attack. He left the
Smart’s Mill road, less than a half mile from his flank, entirely
unguarded; a fatal mistake as it left open a road mostly sheltered from
view for Munford to follow to his rear.

Munford appears to have handled his operations without flaw. He kept his
men well under control, even in pursuit of Cole, which so often broke up
commands and caused the men to scatter and not answer recall. He was
completely successful in clearing the enemy from the area to allow Lee’s
infantry and artillery to make uninterrupted marches to the river
crossings.

Source material has been drawn from the following sources:

Goodhart: The History of the Loudoun Rangers
Newcomer: Cole’s Maryland Cavalry
Official Records: Vol. XIX parts 1 & 2
Manuscripts of an unpublished history of the 2nd Virginia Cavalry now
in the library at Duke University

Members of the Loudoun County Historical Society

Life Members

Lucian M. Abbott Washington, D. C.
Mrs. Hazel T. Allyn Purcellville
Arthur W. Arundel McLean
Major Gen. Milton Arnold Middleburg
Miss Nancy L. Bradfield Leesburg
M. T. Broyhill Corp. Sterling
Edward Chamberlin Hillsboro
Dr. L. L. Cockerille Washington, D. C.
William J. Cox Leesburg
William B. Dew, Jr. Middleburg
Major Gen. Robert L. Dulaney Purcellville
Major Gen. George L. Eberle Leesburg
Mrs. Henry Fairfax Aldie
Mrs. Fenton Fadeley Waterford
Col. Robert H. Fletcher Leesburg
Mrs. Robert H. Fletcher Leesburg
Mrs. A. D. P. Gilmour Leesburg
Mrs. W. Fairfax Griffith Alexandria
George P. Hammerly Leesburg
Miss Nelly B. Hammerly Leesburg
Huntington Harris. Leesburg
Mrs. Huntington Harris Leesburg
Miss Susan Harris Leesburg
E. H. Heaton Grosse Point Farm, Mich.
Eppa Hunton IV Richmond
Mrs. Arthur A. James Washington, D.C.
President Lyndon B. Johnson Washington, D.C.
Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson Washington, D.C.
Mrs. L. B. Jobusch Champaign, Ill.
Mrs. John Kincaid Leesburg
George C. McGhee Middleburg
C. Harrison Mann Washington, D.C.
Paul Mellon Upperville
Jerome Monks Middleburg
J. V. Nichols Purcellville
Miss Charlotte H. Noland Middleburg
Major Gen. J. D. Patch Corpus Cristi, Tex.
Mrs. Robert Pickens Ashburn
Dr. Joseph H. Rogers Hamilton
A. A. Rowberg Purcellville
Mrs. Henry B. Rust Leesburg
Mrs. S. Murray Rust Leesburg
Mrs. Paul Scheetz Pittsburgh, Penna.
J. Brabner Smith Lovettsville
Mrs. J. F. N. Stewart Upperville
George E. Tener Middleburg
Mrs. Charles Tyroler Bluemont
Henry B. Weaver Aldie
Mrs. Henry B. Weaver Aldie
Miss J. Elizabeth White Leesburg

Regular Members

Mrs. Contee Adams Hamilton
S. Hawpe Adams Leesburg
Mrs. S. Hawpe Adams Leesburg
Frederick S. Adrain Leesburg
Mrs. C. R. Ahalt Leesburg
Major Gen. Spencer B. Akin Purcellville
Shaler E. Aldous Purcellville
Mrs. Shaler E. Aldous Purcellville
Lawson Allen Leesburg
Mrs. Lawson Allen Leesburg
Marshall Andrews Chantilly
Mrs. Marshall Andrews Chantilly
George Atwell Leesburg
Andrew H. Baxter Philomont
Mrs. Andrew H. Baxter Philomont
James Birchfield Ashburn
Smith Blair Purcellville
Mrs. Smith Blair Purcellville
Mrs. I. A. Bonilla Santa Barbara, Calif.
Mrs. Virginia R. Bowie Leesburg
Miss Virginia L. Bowie Leesburg
Mrs. Urcell M. Bradfield Leesburg
Dr. B. A. Brann Leesburg
Mrs. B. A. Brann Leesburg
Mrs. Eleanor Brower Purcellville
Mrs. Emily T. Brown Lincoln
Miss Helen P. Brown Leesburg
Stanley N. Brown Leesburg
Mrs. Stanley N. Brown Leesburg
Dr. Ray Brown Washington, D. C.
Mrs. Ray Brown Washington, D. C.
Mrs. William Holmes Brown Purcellville
Dr. William Burch Waterford
Mrs. William Burch Waterford
Richard W. Burbank Leesburg
Mrs. Richard W. Burbank Leesburg
Edward Burling, Jr. Middleburg
Mrs. Edward Burling, Jr. Middleburg
William D. Carey Purcellville
Mrs. William D. Carey Purcellville
Miss A. I. Carruthers Leesburg
Mrs. E. W. Clark Leesburg
Allen S. Clarke Paeonian Springs
Mrs. Allen S. Clarke Paeonian Springs
Tom Clarkson Leesburg
Mrs. Tom Clarkson Leesburg
C. H. English Cole Leesburg
Mrs. C. A. English Cole Leesburg
Miss Maria H. Copeland Round Hill
Mrs. Chester Cooksey Leesburg
Mrs. Nan B. Cornwell Purcellville
Brig. Gen. William C. Crane Leesburg
Mrs. William C. Crane Leesburg
Mrs. Bowman Cutter Waterford
Mrs. J. C. Daniel Hamilton
Mrs. Thomas DeLashmutt Aldie
Major Gen. John M. Devine Leesburg
J. A. Dillon Purcellville
John E. Divine Waterford
Thomas DiZerega Aldie
Mrs. Thomas DiZerega Aldie
George J. Durfey Leesburg
Mrs. George J. Durfey Leesburg
Murray Dyer Leesburg
Mrs. Murray Dyer Leesburg
Miss Florence Ebling Waterford
Carl F. Fayen Leesburg
Mrs. Carl F. Fayen Leesburg
Mrs. T. M. Fendall Leesburg
Miss Roberta Fleming Leesburg
David E. Findley Washington, D. C.
Mrs. David E. Findley Washington, D. C.
William V. Ford Round Hill
Joseph M. Frank Lovettsville
Mrs. Joseph M. Frank Lovettsville
Mrs. W. P. Frazer Hamilton
Rogers Fred, Jr. Leesburg
Mrs. Rogers Fred, Jr. Leesburg
Major Gen. William H. Gill Leesburg
William F. T. Grant Leesburg
Holmes Gregg Lincoln
Mrs. Holmes Gregg Lincoln
R. S. Gregg Purcellville
Mrs. R. S. Gregg Purcellville
Mrs. Michael Grenata Leesburg
Hugh Grubb, Jr. Purcellville
Mrs. Hugh Grubb, Jr. Purcellville
B. Powell Harrison Leesburg
Mrs. B. Powell Harrison Leesburg
Mrs. James Head Hamilton
Miss Anna Hedrick Leesburg
Mrs. Bentley Hoeber Arlington
Lawrence G. Hoes Washington, D. C.
Mrs. C. F. Holder, Jr. Purcell
Mrs. William L. Humphrey Round Hill
Miss Nell C. Hutchison Leesburg
Mrs. M. S. Jackson Leesburg
A. M. Janney Lincoln
Mrs. Walter Jewell Arlington
Col. A. B. Johnson Leesburg
Mrs. A. B. Johnson Leesburg
H. Austin Kaye Upperville
M. Glen Kirkpatrick Asheville, N.C.
Hans A. Klagsbrunn Purcellville
Mrs. Hans A. Klagsbrunn Purcellville
Ambassador W. S. B. Lacy Leesburg
Mrs. W. S. B. Lacy Leesburg
Robert Landreth Leesburg
Mrs. Robert Landreth Leesburg
Mrs. Bolitha J. Laws Round Hill
Mrs. Carlos Lewis Leesburg
John A. Linder West Fairfield, Pa.
James Ludlum Purcellville
Mrs. James Ludlum Purcellville
Mrs. Moncure N. Lyon Purcellville
Coit MacLean Leesburg
Mrs. Coit MacLean Leesburg
J. T. Martz Purcellville
Miss Mary N. McCabe Charleston, W. Va.
Frank W. McComb Purcellville
Mrs. Frank W. McComb Purcellville
Mrs. Thomas Meloy Washington, D. C.
Harold D. Menken Upperville
Mrs. Harold D. Menken Upperville
Mrs. Elizabeth B. Miller Purcellville
R. J. Mitchell Leesburg
Robert A. Myers Lovettsville
Mrs. Robert A. Myers Lovettsville
T. Frank Osburn Leesburg
Mrs. T. Frank Osburn Leesburg
Mrs. Donald Niman Leesburg
Edward C. Norman Purcellville
Mrs. Edward C. Norman Purcellville
Lucas D. Phillips Leesburg
Mrs. Lucas D. Phillips Leesburg
Miss Mary W. Pierce Leesburg
W. E. Plaster, Jr. Leesburg
Mrs. Herbert Pollack Leesburg
Col. Harold E. Potter Aldie
Mrs. Harold E. Potter Aldie
J. A. Powers Middleburg
Mrs. J. A. Powers Middleburg
Miss Addie Purcell Round Hill
Col. Lowell Riley Leesburg
Mrs. Lowell Riley Leesburg
Hobart E. Rowe Alexandria
Mrs. Hobart E. Rowe Alexandria
Mrs. Innes T. Saunders Leesburg
Edward Seneff Leesburg
Mrs. Marvin Shoaf Waterford
Mrs. Helen J. Skinner Middleburg
Mrs. H. H. Slaughter Purcellville
J. Russell Smith Swarthmore, Pa.
Miss Jean P. Smith Leesburg
Mrs. William T. Smith Purcellville
Dr. Charles G. Souder Purcellville
Mrs. Charles G. Souder Purcellville
Mrs. W. E. Sparrow Leesburg
Mrs. Howard Sprague Purcellville
Rev. Melvin L. Steadman, Jr. Gainesville
Mrs. Alice K. Stehle Hamilton
Lt. Col. William L. Still Purcellville
Mrs. William L. Still Purcellville
Mrs. S. F. Stowe Round Hill
L. H. Taylor Lincoln
Mrs. L. H. Taylor Lincoln
T. H. Thomas Waterford
Mrs. H. C. Thompson Purcellville
Gen. Elliot VanDevanter, Jr. Leesburg
H. J. Van Kretchmar Leesburg
Mrs. H. J. Van Kretchmar Leesburg
Mrs. Martha Vesey Leesburg
R. E. Wagstaff Herndon
Mrs. Harry Wanner Leesburg
Mrs. I. Clifton Warner Purcellville
Fulton Want Leesburg
Mrs. Fulton Want Leesburg
Mrs. J. A. Welbourn Leesburg
Mrs. Fairfield Whitley Round Hill
Robert G. Whitton Lincoln
Mrs. Robert G. Whitton Lincoln
Mrs. Elizabeth T. Williams Purcellville
Mrs. W. Curtis Wilson Purcellville
Miss Lottie E. Wilson Leesburg
Col. James Winn Leesburg
Mrs. James Winn Leesburg
Mrs. Burdette Wright Leesburg

The Bulletin
of the
Loudoun County
Historical Society

Volume III
1964

A few copies of Volume I are still available to members of the Society,
and to the public, at $2.00 per copy. Address inquiries to The Loudoun
County Historical Society, Leesburg, Virginia.

So long as the supply lasts, additional copies of the current _Bulletin_
(Volume II) can be obtained at the same address, at $2.00 per copy.

Transcriber’s Notes

—Retained publication information from the printed edition: this eBook
is public-domain in the country of publication.

—Silently corrected a few palpable typos.

—Transcribed in-photo text.

—In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by
_underscores_.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Bulletin of the Loudoun County Historical Society, Volume IV, 1965" ***

Home