camera loaded with color film. not just like in white. -- not just black and white. they would use these interchangeably. there are some black and white photos that are near duplicates of the color photos you can find in the 1930's and 1940's set. >> up next, dana show talks about the history of the bayonet and how it affected its use in the civil war. ofdescribes a difference opinion between civil war and an enlisted men on if the bayonet to be used in battle. the editor and chief of

"american civil war." i want to welcome everyone to our civil war symposium. on behalf of all of my colleagues with emerging civil war, welcome to spotsylvania. it's a great location to be because you can't turn around without tripping over civil war history. it's a pleasure to welcome you to spotsylvania county, what is literally the bloodiest ground in america. hopefully over the next few days we will have the opportunity to commemorate and recognize some of those stories and some of the legacies. the theme this year is civil war legacy. i'm proud to be presenting for you a fabulous lineup of speakers over the next day and a half, and excellent tour on sunday morning. kicking things off for us is our keynote speaker, dana shoaf from "civil war" magazine.

for generations of people it has served as the single most influential and accessible points in civil war history. dana's been there for 16 years, he has been editor for 7, and he has left some complementary copies for us upstairs. thanks to dana for bringing some of his work to us. i want to ask about coming down here to speak as part of our symposium. i said, just pick something that is interesting to you these days. what gives you the chance to explore? as a magazine editor he is so

busy overseeing the stories of so many other people that perhaps he doesn't have the time to explore the stories that he himself is interested in. ladies and gentlemen, it's my distinct pleasure to introduce a man who has been very good to me in my career and colleagues, dana shoaf. [applause] mr. shoaf: wow. i just made it here. i'm usually habitually late. today i was really proud of myself because i wanted to leave at 3:00. i figured i would be here by 5:30. i was in my truck pulling out of the parking lot at 3:00, very proud of myself, then i hit route 17. it took me nearly an hour to hit 95. arrival time is slipping away. i'm looking at facebook, looking

for phone numbers, and then this thing pops up. rob orison has checked in.i thought, maybe i can call him, and he called me in a few minutes. he said, do you need help finding the place? i said no, i'm on my way but i'm running a little bit behind. thankfully i did make it here. chris mentioned the magazine very kindly. before i skip to that, i should say, for part of the time i was stuck behind a white ford pickup truck not unlike my own with a very large expansion in the bed with a giant confederate battle flag in that stantion, and a huge bloodhound as well in the bed of the truck. i'm just looking at this and saying, i guess if i have to be late to a civil war conference -- there is no doubt where that guy stands on the issue. there is some meaning here.

i have not parsed it out yet. the flag issue that chris held up, i would like to point out that emmanuelle seated back here contributed to the article about the confederate flag. maybe emanuel will autograph that for you later. chris also remembers our conversation a little differently. he said, you want to come and speak for the organization. i think this emerging civil war is a fantastic organization because it is giving people a chance to get started to get themselves published on the blog and giving new voices a place to express themselves. i think that's really important to see new historians coming up and new material being explored. i suggested a couple of talks i had already done. he said, i don't know. i ended up saying, maybe i can

talk about bayonets because i have a couple ideas. like a rookie, i went into it with ideas that did not flesh out. i forced ahead and i put this talk together about the role of the bayonet during the civil war. there's a couple things i hope you will find interesting at least in this discussion. i want to start out with this beautiful image of a federal squad of soldiers all with their bayonets fixed, proudly staring into the camera, giving a warlike appearance. it might help to give a general history of the bayonet. the first bayonets come into existence that are used in the military around 1660's in england.

before that firearms became available to military forces, lances and pikes were standard weapons. after firearms are available there is the idea that they want to be converted to pikes or lances if necessary. the first bayonet was made to be plugged into the barrel of the weapon. there's an obvious disadvantage there because you can't discharge the piece with the plug bayonets in there. i have a friend that collects these. they are very rare. the workmanship is incredible. they were also used as shows of force. he had one that's engraved with king james the second coat of arms. these are around for the 1660's to the 1680's. by 1687, the french had

developed the socket bayonets. the english quickly picked it up and by 1703 the socket bayonet is standard in all the major european militaries. the device is fairly simple but very ingenious. the socket bayonet, simply a socket that goes over the muzzle and locks in place on a lug so you can still load and discharge the weapon. frederick the great, who ruled from 1640-1786, was a particular fan of the bayonet and is quoted as saying, fire as little as possible with the infantry in battle. charge with the bayonet whenever possible. bayonets are heavily used and considered a primary weapon on the battlefield by the 18th century, in part because of the unreliability of firearms. just want to bring it up, to the civil war at this point -- this is the model 1855 socket bayonets.

there are variances throughout the civil war but this is your standard civil war bayonet. it really did not change much since the 18th century. it consists of a socket. there has been the addition of a reinforcing ring here at the -- is my pointer working? it's erratic. you can see the reinforcing ring that the lug passes over, and then there is a locking ring that helps hold the lock in place. the blade is about evan -- 18 11/16 inches long. when it's on the end of a musket it is pretty fearsome looking.

the other type of bayonet you see used during the civil war is the sword bayonets. this is united states model 1855 sword bayonets. it was designed to take the place of the small sword, which is another 18th-century holdover, as well as offer the infantry men a particularly long, and uncomfortable to wear bayonet. it also fits over the muzzle. the muzzle slides through that and there's a locking mechanism with the lug under the barrel and it catches it in place. that is the brief evolution of the bayonet. the revolutionary war 1775 to 1783, the bayonet is a primary weapon of that conflict and it's a weapon of great concern for the american side because they are not adequately trained to use them. battles were called off in the revolutionary war because of the rain by the american forces because of lack of faith in the bayonets.

the philadelphia campaign, the battle of the clouds on september 16th, 1777, right before the big battle of brandywine the next day, lieutenant samuel shaw of the continental army wrote, quote, our army was formed in order of battle but rain coming on very fast, the general -- washington -- filed off, choosing to avoid an action -- an action which the discipline of the enemy and use of their bayonets would give them too great a superiority. the battle of the bayonet is such a primary weapon that washington is afraid to engage the british using only that tool, and he calls off an engagement and marches away. a few days after that, one of the greatest disasters of the campaign for the americans occurred on september 21, 1777, the battle of payoli, not far from philadelphia, which is depicted in this painting.

this was a british nighttime attack on met anthony wayne's pennsylvania legion. you can see wayne's legion were camped along a tree line next to an open field. the british attacked with unloaded weapons and bayonets only. major john andre, british officer who will later be hanged in 1780 for spying and complicity in the treason of benedict arnold, recalled, quote, no soldier was suffered to load we rushed along the line, putting to the van at all they came up with an overtaking the fugitives, stabbed great numbers. they go in, unloaded bayonets -- unloaded muskets, up wayne's 1500 men, 200 were killed and 100 wounded by the bayonets. if you know anything about military history, you usually have more wounded and killed. in this case the numbers are reversed, so the british are having a stabfest there.

you can see infantrymen engaged in the active bayoneting. a couple years later, july 16, 1779, wayne had a measure of revenge at the battle of stony point about 30 miles north of new york city in the lower hudson river valley when he attacked the british garrison with unloaded muskets as well. nathaneal green one of his subordinates wrote, the whole business was done with six bayonets or it that businessmen to of the 600 ritz in the garrison, 63 killed by bayonet alone. the bayonet is a primary weapon on the north american continent during this conflict. moving forward and number of decades to the mexican war, 1846

to 1848, that bayonet is still a primary decisive weapon on the battlefield. at the battle of palo alto, may 8, 1846, general zachary taylor wrote, quote, my orders was to make free use of the bayonet, which was done as far as it be or as the enemy would permit in that american victory. august 28, 1847, the united states engineer, isaac stevens, who will later be killed in action in the civil war during the battle of chantilly, wrote, quote, the enemy's entrenched works were carried at the point of the bayonet. winfield scott was the overall

during that period of time. he served the united states army from 1808 to 1861. we who study the civil war often look at scott a bit comically, perhaps. by that time he is overweight, quite aged, but he still comes up with a plan to choke off and blockade the southern ports. he still had a good mind, but he is sort of pushed aside when the war begins because of his age. but he wrote a manual. he was the author of rules for the exercise of maneuver of the

united states infantry, there remained a standard manual of arms in the united states military from the war of 1812 up until 1855. when scott wrote that manual, the weapons the united states army were using primarily consisted of smoothbore muskets. when you see there is a 69 caliber musket ball that would be used in a 75 caliber weapon. they made the round ball a lot smaller than the muzzle because black powder fouls quite badly when the gun is discharged or you need to be able to load rapidly. the bullet was made smaller than the barrel and it allowed for rapid loading, but it's not very accurate. when the guns discharge, the musket ball can actually bounce its way down the barrel. there are not very accurate beyond 60 to 80 yards. within 60 to 80 yards they are

not bad. i don't want to claim any sort of heroic military service. i've done living history with both these types of firearms and live fire them. i think within 60 yards these are little more accurate in the sense of knocking someone down. if you're not worried where the ball hits you and want to knock someone down, you can do it. scott's manual is based on the troops using a bullet like so and ignition system known as the flintlock, which actually used a piece of stone or flint to discharge the weapon. the cartridge would be torn open and the first thing a soldier would do would be to empty black powder in this part of the lock. the cock is pulled back. there's also a little powder in there. it was called the hammer in the manual at the time. the hammer is shut over the pan. when the weapon is at full caulk and the trigger is pulled, the trigger comes forward, the caulk comes forward, strikes the

hammer, creating a shower spark to drop into the pan, igniting it and setting off the barrel charge. there's a lot of things it can go wrong with this ignition system. the pan is susceptible to dampness straight you are exposing your priming powder to the outside elements. the powder burns and fouls quite easily. it can plug up that touch hold it runs through the breach of the barrel, plug it shut. the flint can get worn down and lose its edge. all of these have happened to me and i have not had to have my life depend on it, fortunately. every time i have fired a flintlock, whether in my backyard or a reenactment, at some point it misfires. moving forward, we have some important technological advances after the mexican war. one of the most widely talked about -- the french army officer, in 1849 he invented this new bullet.

a conical ball with a hollow base. how did this revolutionize warfare? it is also smaller than the boor in which it is inserted. he made a bullet you can use with rifling, the twisted groups carved on the inside of the barrel that when you fire the weapon, it gives the weapon a spin or twist that increases its accuracy. they couldn't issue them to the widespread body of truth. they could not be loaded fast enough. those round bullets had to be

wanted and packed so tightly to catch the rifling but it took a long time to load them -- wadded and packed so tightly to catch the rifling but it took a long time to load them. the base is hollow. the gases of the burning gunpowder expand the base, the rings catch the rifling, developing a twist and giving the bullet much greater accuracy. smoothbore muskets don't have sights. that is theoretically though. it was americanized as a mini ball and the version we are mostly familiar with was actually a tweaking of his bullet by james burton, and armor at the harpers ferry armory. it was adopted by the united states army in 1855, and you probably have seen in 1855 model bayonet. there's a lot of changes happening in technology right before the civil war breaks out. the other change and the one thing i'm really intent on researching is a new ignition system. i think the percussion cap is extremely overlooked when we talk about the changes that occur on civil war battlefields

and lead to a lot of bloodshed. people always refer to rifling and the mini ball as being the reason why casualties are so high when soldiers are fighting in mass ranks during the civil war. the gun is more accurate, you can fire it along the range. if you look at engagement, it's pretty easy to determine that most of the killing is done within 60 to 80 yards. that is the decent enough range of a smoothbore. i'm not sure -- i have to say no one has really jumped on the percussion wagon bandwagon yet. i think this is the biggest change that really occurs. this is the change of really changes things on the battlefield during the percussion cap -- battlefield.

the percussion cap -- we first start seeing them around 1814, some patents are applied for in england in the 1820's. there's really no set one person credited with inventing them. there's several people experimenting with them. basically the percussion cap gets rid of a lot of that stuff on the flintlock and cleans it up. you have this copper top hat with mercury in the top, and explosive compound. when you strike it it pops or sparks. the soldier repairs the

cartridge, loads the barrel, pulls the hammer back, please is the percussion cap -- places the percussion cap over, the spark drops through the cone into the barrel and discharges the firearm. percussion caps were around during the mexican war. winfield scott retarded their development. he did not care for percussion caps. he thought they were wasteful. in his mind, a flint could be used for a number of shots, where a percussion cap, one shot and it is done. he was hesitant to introduce this new technology because he thought it was wasteful and soldiers would run out of it.

as the war proceeded, more and more of them are issued out and you start to see this change take laced. one of the things that is really important about this weapon is it is really relatively waterproof. unlike the flintlock that can't discharge during rainy or even damp days in many cases, the percussion cap is amazingly resilient. in all my ridiculous years of doing living history, i've maybe had a percussion lock misfired twice out of all the rounds i have fired. so, these changes require new manuals. william hardy, who lived from 1815 to 1873 and served the united states army from 1878 to 1861, when he left to join the confederate army, wrote immanuel in 1855 with all these items that were released. he's the author of "rifle and light infantry tactics," published in 1855. once the civil war begins, the federals were not comfortable using a manual that was written by a confederate officer. so they essentially had this gentleman who lived from 1807 to 1882 copy his manual almost word for word. it's called casey's manual. one of the big changes between these manuals is a command called fire by file.

fire by file, basically a file is a front rank to man and a three right man. those two soldiers form a file. in command fire by file, this is a copy of a place taken from a reproductive manual i have. it one of these rectangles -- each one of these rectangles represents a company. when the command fire by file is given, the front and rear rank

to men on the right to bring up their weapons and discharge them. subsequently every man to the left fires. down the line. in scott's manual, fire by file is very stylized. the man that began the firing on the right march outside, about-face, march back to reenter the line, about-face to the front again, then the [indiscernible] by the time the hardee's and casey's manuel, the command has been sped up so when that command is given, as the way it's written in the manual, the men on the right discharge and in the men on the left listen. look out of the corner of their eye and when they see that gun is empty, they fire theirs. it even says in the manual, it

should not be systematic. it should be bang and pop down the line. the reason they do this -- i've seen this described inaccurately in a number of books. some people say, it is sweep the enemy with raking fire. that's not the purpose of it. the purpose of it is to stagger the unloaded weapons in your company so you always have somebody pulling a trigger. by the time these guys have discharged their weapons, the men on the right end of the line theoretically have reloaded and have fired. there's always somebody pulling a trigger. this command fire by file is given frequently. you read it all the time. i put a famous example up here. they attacked the unfinished railroad on july 1. he wrote in his official report, when my line had reached a fence on the chamber's return pike,

about 40 rods -- there is the real question -- about 40 rods in a line of the enemy i ordered a fire by file. he is staggering the empty muskets in his regiment and there is always somebody shooting at the enemy. that essentially means that will impact the use of the bayonet because bayonet charges in previous wars like in the mexican war, a lot of the command was given to fire by volley because these flintlock have inaccuracies and ignition problem.s -- problems. there'ss a volley, bang. that volley fire gives microseconds for an enemy to close on an opposition line. in a civil war, that dead air really doesn't exist. there's always somebody pulling a trigger at each other during these battles. it has nothing to do with the

rifle or the mini ball. it has everything to do with increased confidence in its ignition system that is allowing men to let their soldiers fire at will after that initial command because they know that guns are going to go off great i've got to get down in the national archives, and there's a lot of talk of someone who worked there for many years, there are papers related to the testing of the percussion cap. it will be interesting to see, but i just -- i really think that's a primary reason. percussion caps, mini-balls, rifling is around, and it affects how people view the bayonet. i found it interesting account -- the illustration doesn't really go with the account, but this is a cool illustration. this is one of the blueprints of the 1855 rifle made at harpers

ferry with a sword bayonet attached to it. i thought it was interesting, so i included it. the journal of the society of arts is an english publication, and there was an article in the may 17, 1861 edition written by john mcgregor, captain, london scottish rifle volunteers. the title of the article is on the school of musketry instruction in rifle shooting. they went out to the end field manufacturing. they went to the manufacture he

and testing them. mcgregor concluded, when soldiers are caused to fire with their bayonets, there is certainly a disadvantage. if the rifleman who seldom fix the bayonet shoot accurately without a bayonet it seems quite clear that the position drill ought not to be conducted with a fixed bayonet. i found that very interesting. the bayonet had been such a primary weapon on the battlefield and then right as the civil war is beginning, you see skepticism sort of "at least in europe, about the feasibility of it, and is it really worthwhile. on this side of the pond, civil

war soldiers are still issued and instructed in the use of the bayonet, mostly through mcclellan's bayonet drill. george mcclellan will go on to fame or infamy or notoriety during the civil war, but in 1852 he was a brevet captain and engineer when he published mcclellan's the natural, -- bayonet drill, which is really almost a word for word translation of a french manual written by a fencing master.

one of the moments described mcclellan's manageable, very stylized fencing drill the use the bayonet. in 1852 mcclellan's writing, the bayonet is more formidable than either the lessor the saber. -- lance or the saber. there is an instance on record of a french grenadier who in the battle of poland defended himself with his bayonet against the simultaneous attack of 11 russian grenadier's, eight of whom he killed. in a battle two soldiers defended themselves with their

bayonets against 25 spanish cavalry and after having inflicted several severe wounds, rejoined their regimen without a scratch. who knows if that is true or apocryphal. when there was the first and second battle of bullets could -- of the battle [indiscernible] he's looking back at some of these napoleonic battles.

he's going fairly far back even for the time, he's going back to the beginning of the 19th century defined examples of the use of a bayonet. the soldiers themselves, the bayonet drill actually came to be applied, we have a marvelous quote from charles hayden of the second michigan, july 10, 1861, bringing this to the civil war. hayden wrote, we have been drilling a little on bayonet exercise today. i was glad to see this, although our captain knew no more about the drill than the man in the mode. -- moon. on this dissing of the bayonet -- it's partially because i think these are volunteer troops and they are not being trained very well, but you don't see them recognizing this is a very important weapon, in my opinion. a new york soldier wrote about a bayonet drill, we look like a

line of beings made up equally of the frog, the sandhill crane, the sentinel crab, and the grasshopper, all of them rapidly jumping, thrusting, slinging, jerking every way and all gone stark mad. this guy was obviously a naturalist. he got a lot of animals in there. he gives a vivid depiction of these guys trying to use this stylized drill and not being very successful at it. officers like mcclellan -- i could present many examples of this, but i just picked some representative ones -- when you look at officers at the division level and higher, you see there is still a high regard for the bayonet during the civil war. the gentleman on the left's commander of the army of the mississippi, special orders number eight before shiloh, the battle in which he is mortally wounded. he wrote, quote, it is expected much and effective work will be done with the bayonet. gentleman next to him is major general daniel butterfield, not a west point graduate, but also gained very high rank and became chief of high staff. before the battle of gaines mill he exhorted his soldiers, your ammunition is never expended while you have your bayonets, my boys. use them as a socket. he will not have to use into the socket, so it sounds good. the next gentleman there a

division commander at fredericksburg. he wrote after the battle, the only mode of attacking successfully was with the bayonet. the gentleman on the far right is richard taylor. in his report he wrote, orders were given to rely on the bayonet. we see officers of a certain rank are still calling for the use of the bayonet and believe it is decisive in the battle. obviously, there are some times when bayonets to matter during the civil war. this is a picture of humphreys division going in at fredericksburg, and he did in fact order essentially a bayonet charge. humphrey's division was the last attack on mary's heights, and particularly interesting to me, and chris, because i just found out we both had relatives in this particular chart. my great grandfather and great uncle were part of tyler's brigade, and my great uncle was mortally wounded and hauled off the battlefield on a shuttered turn off a house used as a stretcher and he died two days later. humphrey's attack came as close to the wall as any of the northern attacks. i don't say that out of pride in my relatives. it's fairly well documented. he told his men not to stop and fire but to rush towards the wall with a bayonet. they did not make it. they had bayonets on their weapons, and he was advocating them after in his official report, but they did not get a chance to use them. they never made it to the wall. we have all heard about chamberlain, or his major. there was a bayonet charge.

not far from here, on this battlefield of spotsylvania, the week starting the assaults that week of may 10, there was reportedly tremendous bayonet fighting and along those entrenchments could there is an example of kennesaw mountain where soldiers engaged with the bayonet. but is not the primary weapon it was in previous wars. if we shift to look at how the rank and file viewed bayonets and shifting to that, we take a look at the army in tennessee, june 1863, lieutenant colonel arthur fremantle, the british observer, gained most of his fame because he's tagging along with the army in northern virginia at gettysburg. this is fremantle as he was dressed during his time in the united states. he did not wear his regimental uniform. this is how he generally dressed. he started his visit with the army of tennessee around the

time of the tennessee campaign, and he was shocked to see half the army of tennessee did not have bayonets, which is corroborated by the returns for the regiment at that time. he asked around about it and was told a lot of the guys got rid of them. they threw them away. they had never met any yankee who could wait for that weapon. by mid-war, the weapon is so disregarded at least in this army that a lot of these guys are just gotten rid of them. there's a lot of the upper echelon commanders ordering bayonet charges. the lieutenant colonel wrote after the engagement, i intended to have tried the virtue of the bayonet. i regret to say that the regiment failed. he orders the bayonet charge. his men won't engage. the giant pression that served on the staff of jeb stuart,

certainly a guy that loved edge weapons. he carried that monstrous saber at the museum of the confederacy. he fights at brandy station and wrote that he delivered the saber stroke so beautiful -- i'm paraphrasing here -- it nearly cleaved the head of a union soldier off his shoulders in one stroke. he wrote, these accounts of bayonet fights are current after every general engagement. as far as my spirits goes, rarely bayonet fights occur and exist only in imagination -- experience goes, rarely bayonet fights occur and exist only in imagination. he could not find any. one thing that the common soldier of the rank-and-file like to do is pose with bayonets, because it makes them look very warlike. when i was putting this together i realized -- i'm sure there's others. i can't think of anybody who is

documented to have bayoneted anybody during the civil war who we have a picture of. the member of the 11th the rush to protect the city, on may 24, 1861, he accompanied his colonel across the potomac into alexandria, where the enter the marshall house hotel to take down a large banner on the roof. they get sent to the roof and it's a huge flag. it takes them a while to cut it down. they are coming down the steps. ellsworth has this in both arms. james jackson meets them on the steps, discharges his shotgun in ellsworth's chest, kills him immediately. brownell pulls up his rifle, shoots jackson, and then runs

through with his saber bayonet and jackson tumbles down the stairs lifelessly. brownell became one of the early northern war heroes. he will get the medal of honor for this in 1877. one of those civil war medals of honor. he was rejected a couple of times and they finally gave it to him. this pose he has got not one but two bayonets. it is obviously showing off the weapon that he used to dispatch jackson, and he is standing on the flight that was torn down. -- flag that was torn down. symbolically here is a bayonet that made a difference, because many northerners heard this story. i have a theory about soldiers posing with their bandits. here are some early work and federate's using their socket bayonets like daggers, looking very warlike and odd in their

strange cocked hats as well, but they certainly give the impression that they are going to go out and drive those through somebody. you just see these guys when they go into the studio, the bayonet goes on, it really makes them feel military, i believe. here is a soldier with another saber bayonet. you can get a close-up view of it. i am going to go ahead and say, if you could go back to that guy, i had him as a joke labeled hipster. some people told me they did not like it and some people thought it was funny. here i am, telling you anyway. i was working on this and my photo editor said, he looks like a hipster, which made me kind of angry but i thought, hipsters look like him, the beard and everything. i thought maybe i would check and make sure everybody was awake after the cocktails, but

it seems like you are. then you have john lee. they and figure in horseplay. this is an odd photograph where we have an enlisted man miming he is by a netting his commanding officer who is shooting him with his revolver. maybe these guys are expressing some inner dark anger towards each other. but we see this bayonets. if you read into this a bit, the bayonet is really like a plaything. we go to charles hayden for another example of this. if every 21st, 1862.

hayden said -- we had a long bayonet and skirmish grill -- drill before noon. the second platoon under my command came near running the first platoon through this morning. i was coming in. he's coming in with his second platoon. i was coming in at a double quick. the first platoon had their guns stacked and was standing in line. i ordered, charge, supposing that they would stop or throw up their guns when they came to them or you orders a day on the other half of his company essentially. but they did not stop. he writes, instead they made for them on a dead run. i roared, halt, and they stopped within its not more than two feet from the rests. one man did get a bayonet . through his coat sleeve. again, you see what i think among these volunteer troops is a disregarding of the power of the bayonet. really what the bayonet devolves

into during the civil war is a multi-tool that is used for all sorts of purposes except what it's intended purpose is. this is a sketch and trading, digging and -- entrenching, digging in. you see a gentleman using a fixed bayonet to loosen the earth while other soldiers are digging in. many accounts of these guys holding, outcome the bayonets and they start working the earth loose. we have two great accounts, both written in 1887, by veteran soldiers. the first is hardtack and coffee, a recollection of common soldier life written by john billings, who served in massachusetts. it was illustrated by charles reed. charles reed served in a nice

massachusetts battery and one the medal of honor for bravery at gettysburg and truly did deserve it. as billings put it, the government provided candlesticks. they were supplied only to the infantry who simply had to unfixable a nets, stick the points to the same in the ground, and her candlesticks were ready for service. the bayonet shank was the candlestick of the rank-and-file. this formerly feared weapon is now a candleholder is depicted

by charles reed. the other book is not as well-known, was written by wilbur henman, who served in the 65th ohio infantry. it's a little different tone than hardtack and coffee. si klegg claimed that he, quote, had never been able to reach with his bayonet the body of a single one of his misguided fellow citizens. but he had stabbed a great many pigs and sheep. in fact, si got his ban at a most useful auxiliary. he could not well of along without it. he often came into camp with a ham or fresh pledge of bacon. in another passage he writes home to his mother very early in the war to say that his bayonet had been stained with southern blood. he had been out on forest detail. the actual uses he found for it, which shows you again, the view of the bayonets. he see the planet and paled through there. here it is being used as a candlestick for a card game.

this soldier is using the socket as a coffee grinder, another quite common use of it. si is running down this hapless pig to take it back to cap while the southern woman cries in distress. here he is with his bacon heading back to cap. it also had a gory function. many bayonets have been found excavated or even surviving in mint condition that were bent and used as body hooks on battlefields to drag the dead. it's documented by soldier accounts. if you go to the next slide, you see confederate dead, these unfortunate fellows, some of them have their legs down together by court or something. -- cord or something. that could then be grabbed by a body hook and poled along. the bayonet is used in that

manner as well. i find it fascinating that the weapons use is debated among scholars as well. it shows you how it was changing. 1982, attack and die -- a tack and die was released. the southern heritage part of this has been debated because they see the confederates had a celtic heritage that allow them to fight and do certain things. that is always been debated. they do really deconstruct and look at tactics. there's a passage in which they discuss the bayonets. the medical director reports, from a first, 1864 to july 1, 1864, a period that includes the wilderness, spotsylvania, cold harbor, early petersburg attacks, the first battle of the weldon railroad and the crater created 50,000 casualties.

only 50 of those were bayonet wounds. that is .01% casualties. they take into account some guys could have been bayoneted and died and are not going to make it to the hospital to get treated. even that they say was such a small amount that it proves the bayonet was useless as a weapon during the civil war. in 1989, an english gentleman

named paddy griffith released the book "battle tactics of the civil war." this is an illustrated abridgment that i picked up a number of many years ago that basically distills his discussion of tactics and 2 -- it's a pretty cool book, with the illustration. griffith uses the same statistics, but he says to argue that the unit was not effective based on casualties is missing the point. he said it was a psychological

weapon and by putting it on the end of a musket, a soldier felt stronger and was empowered and it gave him courage to charge across the deadly ground. many times, the opposing line is going to break and run before you get close with the bayonet -- however, they are not the classic bay in a charges of the pre-civil war era no matter how you look at it. close to the conclusion here, this is a photograph of the review taken on may 23, 1865. this is the army of the potomac, this is a brigade. you can make out the various regiments marching down pennsylvania avenue. the army of sherman's forces marched the next day, but i like

this quote. he said the glittering muskets look like a solid mass of steel moving with the regularity of a pendulum. you can see all these fixed bayonets. you do get a sense that if applied properly, the bayonet could be an intimidating weapon. it certainly helped make soldiers appear more like. i argue in a grand summation that the advent of the percussion cap really makes the battlefield to deadly to adequately use the bayonet. this is sort of my first putting my toe into looking at all of this, but if you take something -- and often times we neglect material culture -- when we study the civil war -- if you need to take something seemingly monday as a bayonet and you start looking into it, -- mundane as a bayonet and you can start looking into it, you can look into the process of the battlefield. the united states army still issues bayonets. this is the m-9 and at, and it is a multi tool. it is a knife more than a bayonets with an empty handle and it's pretty ingenious because there's a hole in the blade to slip over that lug and you can use the case as a wire cutter. i'm sure some of you may have used it and i now love the fact they have a danger, don't cut yourself on the actual bayonets. you would think that is self evidence. but they still put it on there. that is generally my talk about the civil war and the day and at and some of the conclusions i have came to. thank you. i will take any of your questions. [inaudible] chris mackowski: dana said that people who dismissed the bayonet

were missing the point. [indiscernible] dana shoaf: if you have any questions, if you're curious about the magazine, i would be happy to talk about those as well. >> when that is used, does it come out of the body that is been stabbed or does it stay? dana shoaf: some of the early muskets had flaring muscles to increase the service area. you notice there was a tapered to the plug. when they see it in there, the friction is pretty surprisingly secure. i would imagine that would also be a problem coming out, becoming disengaged. they did not stick around very long. i think they were pretty limiting. some of those really early

drills using the plug bayonet, they are very slow-moving, there is a point where they hold the planet over your head before you apply it to the musket. you are showing the enemy, i'm going to stab you with this thing, you can see me doing it. it's very stylized. the socket bayonet was much superior and came along pretty quickly, actually. [indiscernible] >> can you comment on the construction of the bayonet? it wasn't always round. dana shoaf: no, the bayonet was a trapezoid. it looked like a triangle. one of the developments between the 18th century and 19th century -- they are minor, but the shank or neck gets shorter and figure for strength, and they increase the length of the not very delicately named blood grooves, which are sort of -- inset rounded, concave so they

basically will slide in and out more efficiently. if they were flat, there's a tendency for friction to hold them in place in a body. but when you open that up a little bit, that's one of the biggest changes that was made. they go from fat, very wide, they get narrower by the time of the civil war. they are very narrow. >> i have a question about the magazine. the person who spends his day looking at civil war stories -- what is it like to be a guy who is spending his career telling civil war stories? dana shoaf: it's very interesting. i don't read civil war stuff anymore. i read so much at work -- i still love going out on the battlefield, but i got the first

issue when i was a kid, "civil war times" in january 1972. that was the first issue that my parents got me for my birthday that year. i did not go to college with a great plan. [laughter] that's one of the reason i like grant so much. he likes to travel. i kind of identify with that. i sort of stumbled through undergraduate and i like the civil war and i like history. i got back together and went and got a masters degree and i started a phd, did not finish that, my wife and i moved out east, and i got a freelance job with time life through living history because i knew the

recently deceased and lamented. he helps me get this job as a freelancer and somehow i ended up the editor of "civil war times." it's fascinating to see the changes that have taken place even since i have been on the masthead. one of the things -- there are more and more women writing. if you look at the table of contents even eight years ago, you don't see any women on the table of contents. now there is [listing names] --there was just a book on sherman's march. there is megan cate nelson. a lot of women are writing and i think that's great. that's a big change that i see. but i'm going to tell you something. i have seen even before this flag issue came along an uptick in angry letters that has been going on for the past couple of years. i have been accused of being politically correct, which is to

me a meaningless term, and i have been accused of being a southern sympathizer as well, so i guess i'm getting it from both sides. maybe i'm cutting it down the middle and doing something right. but it seems to me with the sesquicentennial, the civil war became more contentious again, i think. it was more of the news and some of the other changes we are experiencing in our culture brought out a lot of anger. a lot of that i don't end up putting in the magazine. i don't put that in the letters section because it's not productive.

but it's pretty interesting to be able to do that. one of the great things i have been able -- for me, it has been to get to meet people like you and john here in the foreground who has written for the magazine, and just how many people are out there working on diverse facets of the civil war. i can name 30 or 40 people who are really into the civil war.

now, are they experiencing it through print journalism? not so much at this point. frankly, magazines are challenged by the internet and other media where people can get civil warfare. there are a lot of younger people that i do see interested. that has been my experience. >> do you see a particular interest in military versus

social versus economic? dana: the people i am thinking of, there are a lot of women involved. using it, using reenactors. a lot of these people are into re-inaction. they are more socially history oriented than i was. i was all about the battles and the generals and the campaigns. they are a bit more diverse and what they do. they do military stuff but civilian stuff as well. emmanuel could weigh in on this because he gives tours at city point and know some of the same folks.

do you think i making any sense here at all? >> the representative for the young people dana was talking about, i think we are ok. i have young kids coming to the park who know a lot more than their parents know about the civil war. recently in the last year, i had a kid from australia who was 11. he dragged his mom across america. he spent four months in america to see the civil war battlefields. the interest isn't just in this country or pockets of this country but international. it has ranged from young people to elderly people. dana: there is civil war living history in germany and england. >> any wisdom or advice you would like to send folks into the world with? dana: thank you for saving me.

>> the different point of view that women and historians bring to the civil war. dana: i don't know of they bring a different point of view. a lot of the women i know are interested in the military aspects of the civil war. we have a facebook page. we have over 20,000 followers. i haven't looked at it for a while but we have a lot of women on the page. i will put up a post of a

cannon. the women are right along commenting on it. the women i mention, leslie gordon wrote a book on the 16th connecticut. how they dealt with this horrible incident. megan nelson has written about ruins and destruction in the south. it is not like every woman historian is writing about the home front. that is what i think is cool. to be honest with you, in this is being filmed so who knows if something will come back and haunt me, i think the male historians are getting a run for their money. maybe it is a mistake, i shouldn't even be looking at them as female historians, just historians.

but if we are going to use gender, there are a lot of women out there coming up with some interesting concepts. digging into the sources and seem passionate about it. if there is anything i want to leave people with, don't let controversies like this at all flag controversy is may you from your test like this battle flag controversy dismay you. it is unfortunately have them but it shows you, some of the people really don't care about the civil war that are in the controversy. i know a lot of people that do care about it. one of my friends who is mentioned in the article, lars, he had ancestors in the confederate army. he says i can't help but feel some sense of american pride when i look at the flag. i can understand it is offensive. i said, don't lose your passion for the history of the time or your ancestors. we will get through this.

it will work out. i have talked to people just frustrated. don't turn your back on this time you are interested in and care about. that is my overarching philosophical comment, to send you off in the night early while i go get a beer. [applause] ayers every war saturday at 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. et. for more, visit our website c-span.org/history. next, deborah hansen and art history professor

talks about images of george washington and the u.s. capitol rotunda, and explains how they convey sense of unity and power. the u.s. capital historical society hosted this 50 minute program. >> as the restoration of the dome advances toward its , thected completion date temporary alterations to its iconic appearance provoked reflection on the varied meaning within the realms of american political, cultural, and aesthetic discourse, past and present. despite the current political discord, a structure that has long visualized aspiration,

whether in a civic or religious context, conveys a sense of national unity and shared historic memory. these ideas are reiterated within the expense of the dome's exterior, a rotunda that functions as a ceremonial site, a public hall of the people, a vestibule leading to -- and a home of art and history. before examining the interaction, review of the dome is in order. while modest domes were known in the middle east, the large domes that symbolized power, authority, unity, and permanence in the west originate from roman prototypes such as the pantheon.