Letters To The Editor

Originally published June 2017 · p. 3

TO THE EDITOR: Just wanted to say I enjoy every issue of Civil War News and look forward to every issue! However I have a question concerning question number 5 of Small Talk in the most recent issue. How many Confederate capital cities were occupied by Union forces during the War? The answer given is seven. However, correct me if I am mistaken but I believe Montgomery, Alabama, was occupied by Union forces under Maj. Gen. James Wilson on April 12, 1865. A U.S. flag was hoisted over the capital dome by his forces the same day. I know the 50th U.S.C.T. were camped on the capital grounds a few days afterward. Regarding the capital of North Carolina, I believe Union forces entered Raleigh on April 13, 1865 and the flag of the 21st Wisconsin was hoisted over that capital dome. It has ALWAYS been my understanding that the only two capitals NOT CAPTURED prior to the Wars end were my own, Tallahassee, Florida, formerly surrendered on May 20, 1865 and Austin, Texas, where the U.S. flag was not raised until June 25, 1865. Thank you so much for your wonderful publication and keep up the great work! John F. Horrighs Ocala, Fla. EDITOR’S NOTE: Steve Davis agrees. See his “Small Talk” column on page 33. TO STEPHEN DAVIS: My thanks to you, Civil War News and Mr. Tom Ryan for an excellent review of my new Gettysburg book After Gettysburg: Lee retreats, Meade pursues in the May 2017 issue. The review was balanced and a good critique capturing the essence of the work. Mr. Ryan correctly understood that the book is aimed at readers new to the subject “who can learn from the information provided.” Thank you for providing your reviews, a wonderful service to the Civil War Community. Joe Mieczkowski Fairfield, Penn. TO THE EDITOR: Great job with the paper. It has improved 100 fold! Dennis Buttacavoli Hasbrouck Hts., N.J. TO THE EDITOR: RE: the ongoing relevance of the Civil War: Recently I had dinner with Barton Myers, Professor of Civil

War History at Washington & Lee University. During our time together we touched on the fighting in Kentucky during the last years of the Civil War and in the decades thereafter. It turns out that one of the courses he teaches at W & L is on Irregular and Guerrilla Warfare during the Civil War. Within this course he stated that he covers the Army’s progress from the Francis Lieber 1863 Code to today’s FM3-24 in countering guerrilla warfare. One of the books his students reads is Cassandra in Oz: Counterinsurgency and Future War, by Conrad C. Crane. We had a nice conversation about FM3-24 and what would its impact have been on the Civil War and the Reconstruction Period if it had been available. Apparently the American Civil War and its aftermath are of interest to many in developing techniques for combating today’s insurgencies. Charles Bogart Louisville, Ky. EDITOR’S NOTE: Dr. Myers’ new book is The Guerrilla Hunters: Irregular Conflicts During the Civil War (Louisiana State University Press, $49.95), a collection of essays co-edited with Brian D. McKnight. TO THE EDITOR: Joe Bilby recently noted in his column Black Powder White Smoke (Civil War News April 2017) the example of a LeMat revolver which after being “defarbed” was then “aged” to lend it the appearance of a 150 year old antique. This is a classic example of a practice which is not appropriate for serious living historians and reenactors. A modern reproduction was “de-farbed” but then the appearance was further modified so it might be passed off at some point in the future as something it is not (an original Civil War revolver), whether intentionally or not. This is not acceptable. Far be it from me to coin a new term for this, but if we did should be it be called a “re-farb?” The term “farb” is a made up hobby term, or at least a nonword of uncertain modern origin that is by now time honored and very well known in the Civil War living history community. It was said to come from the phrase “far be it from me…” to take issue with an item of material culture. Who knows? It is probably one of those slang terms whether used as a verb or a noun that doesn’t quite rate a mainstream dictionary definition because it is distinct primarily to one hobby. We think we will know what “farb” is when we see it. Just so we are all on the same page, let’s provide a fast and dirty definition of “farb” as any item of material culture used in living history or reenactments that is anachronistic to the time period being portrayed. The most common examples are wrist watches or modern eyeglasses. The term “de-farb” has come to mean the process of correcting or removing that anachronistic material culture. To illustrate, there is an anecdote about the aftermath of a severe windstorm that blew through camp during the Cedar Creek Civil War event a few years ago. It knocked over tents and took with it empty Styrofoam ice chests and those awful plastic shopping bags that grocery stores use. A comrade in attendance humorously noted after surveying the storm damage that “God defarbed the camp.” The term “de-farb” is a little awkward in other languages and as such can be lost in translation. The reproduction Civil War musket manufacturer ArmiChiappa (Armi Sport) of Brescia, Italy, offers on their website “de-farbed” Civil War muskets with the modern markings either removed or relocated under the barrel but they also offer other models listed as “farbed” which have modern anachronistic proof and other markings left intact. The terms “farb” and “de-farb” don’t quite work that way in general usage, but Armi-Chiappa is to be applauded for their effort to offer more historically accurate reproduction muskets regardless of what they are called in the catalog. They are on to something by offering these improved products. Perhaps the most common item that Civil War military reenactors will attempt to “de-farb” is their reproduction musket or revolver. A veritable cottage industry of gunsmiths exists that will make these historical feature modifications to reproductions for a fee. Depending on the nature and the amount of work to be done that fee can total several hundred dollars. There is a good case to be made for doing so. First of all, most modern reproduction Civil War muskets are actually not that close in detail or accurate in dimension to original Civil War muskets. There are reproductions of Civil War arms that never saw one minute of service and a lack of any reproductions of various European muskets that saw extensive use. Of the reproduction Civil War muskets that are offered, most barrels and therefore gunstocks are excessively over-sized and heavy. The investment cast springs in the lock assembly are weaker than forged original parts. The distinct period markings are either non-existent or incorrect. Both editions of The

Civil War Musket: A Handbook for Historical Accuracy (2006, 2011) address just exactly how to go about making necessary historical feature modifications to reproduction muskets and why it is important for the serious reenactor or living historian to do so. The book, which is no longer in print, went into some detail about how far this process should be taken and what might be considered going too far. The goal is to affect both the appearance of historical features as well as the performance of what was actually in use during the U.S. Civil War. In other words, de-farbing a reproduction Enfield is not an attempt to make it look the way an original musket looks sitting in a museum today, but rather to replicate as closely as possible how that musket looked and felt in the hands of Civil War soldiers over 150 years ago. To summarize, reproduction muskets, after being “de-farbed,” should still look new or refurbished in appearance, which is the way originals looked like when they were first issued. Some amount of wear and tear due to field use is to be expected, but this occurs naturally through taking the reproduction musket out and firing it at events. It could be argued that if you were portraying one of the Union or Confederate soldiers issued a Mexican War-vintage U.S. Model 1842 smoothbore musket early in the Civil War (of which there were over 270,000), it might show more wear and tear than a spanking new Springfield Armory U.S. 1861, but the general point is the same. The musket would not look well over 150 years old. A de-farbed reproduction musket should look now the way it looked when the original was used during the Civil War. This is one good reason why using original Civil War arms is discouraged. They no longer look like they did during the Civil War because they are antiques. More importantly, perhaps, if an original Civil War musket is lost or damaged, then so is an important part of our history and heritage. For these reasons, the National Park Service only allows the use of reproduction Civil War muskets for their historic black powder weapon demos. A gray area exists with respect to the use of disassociated original parts to dress up what is essentially a reproduction musket. This is not exactly the same as a “de-farb” and we should probably refer to those as something else. Should we perhaps call them “put togethers?” Depending on the number and extent of original parts vs. reproduction parts in use, exactly when a reproduction musket is no longer considered a reproduction is difficult to say but, conversely, we do know what The National Park Service considers an “original,” and it was the subject of a Civil War News Watchdog column by me several years ago. Their standard was that if the lock, stock or barrel was original (even if not all from the same original musket) then the musket was considered an “original” and could not be used for any NPS historic weapons demos. Craig Barry Murfreesboro, Tenn. TO THE EDITOR: I really enjoyed the article about Elmira, N.Y. prison camp. I seek more information on Gratiot Street Prison in St. Louis! Confederate POW’s were sent here on steamboats like the War Eagle, and I wonder if any photos exist of Confederate POW’s being marched to Gratiot as, no doubt, pro-Union crowds jeered them? Are there any photos of the prison itself? A docent from the Civil War Museum recalled one photograph of the prison and told me all the CSA POWs came from the battles in the Trans-Mississippi theater such as Fort Donelson, Tenn., Fort Henry, Ky., Fort Hindman, Ark., and Vicksburg, Miss. Do any Civil War News readers have descendants who were Confederate POWs at Gratiot Streete Prison in St. Louis, Mo.? I would also love to see more photos and stories of Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest’s “Critter Cavalry.” My G-G-uncle and G-G-Grandfather served in Forrest’s Brigade of Kentucky Mounted Infantry (mostly mules) and 12th Kentucky Cavalry! One was killed at the Battle of Harrisburg and the other deserted at Guntown, Miss. The controversy raises still among Civil War buffs about Forrest’s defeat at Tupelo, Miss. Did he give the order to charge heavily fortified Union cavalry and infantry or did Lt. Gen. Stephen D. Lee order the charge personally? I understand it was the topic of conversation for years in the deep South and at UCV conventions. I encourage anyone planning a trip to Saint Louis to visit the Missouri Civil War Museum next to Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery! Tom Yockey, Jr. Florissant, Mo.