or if you go and you are seeing the signs on the train station or the wayside hospital and its destruction or the printing press that is now the grocery store. all these places have been impacted by the events. when you come back to the city, into thoset glimpse events. you also get to see the columbia is a city that is moving forward, that has a life of its own, that is an held back by its past and embraces some of the things and moves forward with a lot of new business and commerce . it is definitely a city filled with life to this day. >> this is american history tv

on c-span3. we are turning to our live coverage from gettysburg with the annual conference on the civil war. speaking next is professor john marszalek.

>> good morning, everyone. is the marszalek distinguished professor at mississippi state university, where he taught courses on the civil war, jacksonian america, and race relations. his phd at notre dame and joined the faculty in 1973. as the served directorate mentor of distinguished scholars and as the executive director or her

and managing editor of the ulysses s. grant association. grants papers in a house that mississippi state university. he is the author and editor of more than a dozen books and 250 articles. that's impressive. john marszalek received the richard wright literary award for lifetime achievement from a mississippi author and the historical society presented him the highest ward for national distinction in history. he is currently at work on a book on the development of the mythology surrounding robert e. lee and sherman. he will be sharing with us some of his more recent work on henry halleck. [applause]

john: i thought i was dead. what was i going to do? thank you for being here so early on a saturday morning. this is great. you --ng to talk to imagine scheduling a talk on henry halleck this early in the morning. i appreciate everybody being here. thats quite a while ago the henry halleck book came out. , it wasne to a meeting one of these history conventions. we exchange the usual pleasantries with people and then you get down to the usual question, what are you working on now? then you wait for response. i ran into a colleague. i told him i had just started working on a biography of henry w hallock.

it happened to be but robertson. he laughed and said john, you will never finish it. you will die of order him first. -- for him first. first.dom death was not high on my priority list. i really had more can create concerns and the concerns really i had finished a book on sherman and he wrote to everybody all the time during battle after battle. there is a huge amount of writing. he had written a memoir. he had written all kinds of articles. i had a ton of stuff use in that dorothy. the issue with hallock is different. he did not write memoirs. he never wrote any postwar

articles talking about what he had done during the war. i was unaware of that time of body of correspondence except for what was in the or. i knew that he had written or edited a series of looks, this was -- books, this was before the war. they were technical publications. they were about the intricacies of property rights, international law, military theory. our my going to get into the mind of this man, a great man of prewar accomplishment. he had served longer than anyone else during the civil war on either side. nobody had been commanding general that long. it he is an important person.

he was indeed the leading kins -- military thinker of that time. he was an important military figure in the civil war. hely in the war, orchestrated the union successes in the missouri, tennessee, kentucky area. opening union try amps up the western theater river system. he had something to do with the battle of the ridge. -- p ridge. property. sherman lost the same man who also u.s. grant to the union side because of his bureaucracy. took thetroops important railroad center of corinth, mississippi, that

achievement unlike what we think today, that was considered so important, he did such a great thing, that his soldiers gave him the nickname. he hardly lost any soldiers in the process. it was then that abraham lincoln called him to washington to become the commanding general. he was involved in one way or another with every major decision that was made in the american civil war, every major battlefield decision. he advised. encouraged, he rejoiced, or he picked up the pieces. when grant assumed overall command in 1864, hallock stayed

on. he became part of the military theme. he was the chief of staff. he was the chief of staff. he was like a general to grant. the burdens off grants shoulders. machined that military that finally overwhelmed the confederate forces. thatnk it's fair to say halleck played a major role both militarily and politically in the outcome of the civil war. he was a leading general, had an important influence on the political leaders, no other military man was as central to the civil war as was henry

halleck. that's nice. who cares? that's the usual response that we get. historians have not had a positive evaluation of this man. instead, i think it's fair to say that historians have come up with ingenious ways to denigrate henry halleck. we heard all about buchanan and the nasty things said about him. they can't compare to what was said about henry halleck. a british historian said was not onlyalleck stupid, jealous and ambitious. he was witless.

without fear of contradiction, he was throughout war worth more than that proverbial confederate army." book, williams said this about henry halleck. "hallock had the reputation of being the most popular man in washington. it was a title he worked hard to gain. because ofo the task his eyes, which williams described as paul jean, fishy, watery, and dell. -- dull. a lot of gossips in washington thought he was an opium eater.

i'm not sure we said that about you cannon. there are tons of these similar sorts of things by historians. they pale in comparison to what was said about him by his contemporaries. is negative view of halleck overwhelming. you really have to look hard to find anybody in american history who has had such ingenious contempt expressed about him. it's ironic, because during the war, the two leading figures on liked halleck. grant called him one of the greatest men of the age. sherman believed he was the directing genius behind union military successes.

fairness, by the end of the war, neither grant nor sherman liked halleck a great deal. they found out what some of the things he was doing. most other union generals were negative about halleck from the beginning. never was a friend of henry halleck, not in california nor during the civil war. could, heoker 'sdiculed his halleck unwillingness to take the field. you may have heard this quote did -- quote. halleck serving as commanding was like being a man who

got married but never intended to sleep with his wife. i didn't make that up. that's what hooked said. , you can'tclellan think of many people he really he had little good to say about anybody. lyrical inositively his disdain for halleck. i havethe men encountered in high position, halleck was the most hopelessly stupid. it was more difficult to get an idea through his head then can be conceived i anyone who never made the attempt. he ever had a

correct military well, those kinds of condemnations, when added with the condemnations of historians are bad enough, but they still do not reach the level of hisctive displayed by political contemporaries, the ones he dealt with regularly in washington. weighed -- ben wade. put halleck in front of 100,000 men, and he would not scare piece from their nest -- ."ese from their nests another description described

as affort in the war "strangling incubus." that says something. but that is not the two most inventive comments. i think these are better. you can decide. the two most inventive critics of how it -- halleck were another politician and this time a political general. namely, a navy secretary, gideon welles, and general benjamin butler. welles despised old brains with a passion. campaign,n this whole halleck originates nothing,

anticipates nothing, takes no responsibility, plans nothing, suggest nothing, is good for nothing. , andal ben butler agrees his prose is similarly inventive, i think. you may know that halleck a four volumeo , andaphy of napoleon butler used that him. when everya moment, true man is laboring to his utmost, when the days are ought to be 40 hours long, general halleck is translating french at nine cents a page, and sir, if you should put those nine cents in a box and shake them up, you would form a clear

idea of general halleck's soul. wow. wouldn't you love to have that set about you? didctual facts -- halleck not translate during the war, but in the 1840's, when he was on a ship going around the horn. he briefed himself and tied himself to a bedpost so he would slip, and was -- translating it at that time. halleck?s this henry he was born in 1815, he is the first of 13 children, of a farmer, and a daughter of a local magistrate. upstate newl from york, western bill, not too far from utica, new york. until he was 16, halleck lived a very unhappy childhood. was because heit

could not get out from under his workr, who wanted him to on that farm. that is all he wanted to do. halleck wanted an education. so what he had to do to escape this agricultural drudgery, he went to live with his maternal givefather who was able to halleck the education he so wanted. wente age of 20, halleck to west point, but while he was at west point, he is finishing his degree at union college in new york. he gets his degree while he is in the middle of his west point years, and he also gets one of teaserst phi beta kappa from the founding union college. during his third year at west , halleck gave the fourth

of july address, the fourth of july oration at west point. this was an honor that was left only for the best military and academic scholars. 1838, a merein twod in his class, and the people ahead of him did not do a thing during the civil war. he so impressed the faculty that even while he was still a cadet, henry halleck was teaching classes to other west point cadets. when he graduated from west point, he immediately was named assistant professor of chemistry and engineering. in 1841, he published what was his first of many books, wonderful title. "bicumen: its varieties, properties, and use."

very scintillating. i have never read it, but it most with a topic that military historians do not talk about it. asphalt and the importance to military actions. that book and the fact that he newthe one who fortified york harbor and served as an assistant to the federal government's board of engineers, that resulted in an offer from harvard university to become an assistant professor there. in the army.stay he received an honorary master's degree from union college. he made a trip to europe in 1844 , onespect french quarters of the few americans that went there. this in turn caused the lowell institute of boston, a group of

amateur people who would invite famous people to give lectures -- they invited henry halleck -- not to give one legally -- measly lecture, but to give 12, 1 night after the next, filling the hall every night. these lectures were later gathered together and published in his major book "elements of military art and science. that came out in 1846. keep in mind that when that book came out -- all these things that happened before, he is 31 years old. 31 years old. , stays in the army, the mexican war comes and he travels to california, and sherman is one of his bunk mates have,s terrible ride they waves going up and down, etc..

he said he did not waste any time. everyone else was playing cards and novels, but he is four novels about napoleon from french to english. he creates that four volume english version that you could spill -- still get, if you like. in the main part of the war, but he is in california, very important in the war. when he gets there, they are still fighting to be done -- ere is still fighting to be done, so he produced space in the small local fighting. he is a very good unit commander. he also serves as secretary of state for the entire territory of california after he becomes part of the united states, and serves under several military governors.

if that is not enough to keep him busy, he also is collecting spanish manuscripts, translating mexican law, relative to california landholding and publication, -- into publication, and forms a major law firm in california, halleck, y, and billings. he supervised the construction of a four story building that -- built out in the field of yield of san francisco harbor, and he came up with a brilliant ,dea of actually taking redwood making a platform, something like 30 feet deep, and building this four story building on top of it. you know what? when the great earthquake came in the 20th century, that building withstood the

earthquake. why? because it moved. ok untilding stayed about the 1920's, 1930's, when they had to inject cement to fine,ize it, which was but then, as only americans can do, in the 1950's it was leveled for a parking lot. it was leveled for a parking lot. if you want to know where it is sany, take a look at francisco, the transamerica tower? that is the spot where halleck's .uilding existed so he is an architect on top of everything else, and a major, major architect. but he is doing other things as well as he that is not enough to keep him busy. he also is an influential member , the influential member of the

california constitution convention. he became also the director general, the guy who ran the of a major quicksilver mine in california. we say that is a big deal, but without that quicksilver mine, the gold rush and the gold that was discovered could not be separated from the rock that was -- it was in. so this was an important role that he plays. he is also the inspector of california's lighthouses. he is the member of the first board of directors of the society of california pioneers, and it is said, although it is how it is is- wrote a 700but he page history of california, i guess in his spare time.

he resigned from the army in 1 and a lot of people did, but the main reason he resigned his so he could give attention to his law firm, and he is also president of the pacific and ranntic railroad, which .rom san francisco to san jose i remember going to the bancroft library at the university of california and looking through the old card catalog, which was still than being used. what did they have? they had a map of this railroad. i said this was great. i asked if i could have that, and they looked at me funny, crazy that. i know, one of the people is coming out with a piece of i know,-- next thing one of the people is coming out with a piece of plywood with a map glued to it, showing that particular railroad. i said big deal, it is not a

long-distance from san jose to san francisco, but that was meant to be of the transcontinental railroad. it never was, but that was the plan. halleck was involved in that as well. and for good measure, he published several more books on land law, wrote one on international law that was in textbooks and colleges and universities into the united's -- in the united states into the , and was the general of the california militia. that is not bad for one person to do in that short amount of time. problem, isis a there not? i have given you a lot of successes and told you about how many people thought he was a total loser. it did not take me long, even as dumb as i am, it did not take me long to figure out that there was a difference between halleck

in the pre-civil war years and halleck in the civil war years. matter of you with a success at one time, a failure at another time. of -- i amary guesting -- guessing about 2000 1999, but theyy have a symposium every year in you who i knowf -- many of you i know go there in sarasota. i confessed to the audience that i did not know much about and i did not understand why he had such contrasting -- such contrasting arsonality -- successful yet failure, it seems. i asked these people, and said

spread the word. i am lighting -- writing letters to the editor all over the place, asking for any information on henry halleck, particularly this question of why is he a success and then he is a failure? it did not take long. i just about finished, and in that audience, there will -- were several medical doctors -- at least four that i talked to, and others. several of them individually came up to me after the talk and asked had i thought about the halleck hadthat graves' disease? it is a thyroid gland problem. maybe this is why there is such a difference between success and failure, and i admit that i had never thought about that, the physical, medical stuff like

that. i said i will sure look into it. so what these physicians and these people at the conference urge me to do, and i did, was to onsider the impact of health halleck's behavior. what i started doing, as i was doing my research, i started making a list, making a list of symptoms that he talked about at various times. i also talked to some medical doctors, and got to thinking you know, maybe there is something oughtpsychological that i to be looking at. so i also spoke to some psychologists and people who worked with this kind of thing, and it was a big thrill because one of these people was my own son, who has a phd in this and teaches and all,

and it was great to listen to people talk about that. well, i learned pretty quickly that this man had a lot of physical problems. my wife is not able to be here with me, she always comes to these things, and always starts to cringe if i talk about halleck, because i know i am -- she knows i'm going to say this. one of the big problems he had was that he had hemorrhoids. don't talk about that, for heaven sakes. they called them piles in those days, but you know what i'm getting at. , they, in those days common, medical thing to do if you had hemorrhoids -- and if you went to a physician -- is that you would -- they would give you an opium suppository. i leave it up to your imaginations from this point on,

but in any case, that is what they did with halleck. he went to a doctor, and was so fit with hemorrhoids during the war, that he literally could not stand up. he had to lie down sideways on a couch for a week or so until he got over this stuff. opium suppositories. well, and i found other things as well, not as glamorous as that, but i found other things as well. so i consulted with these medical people and the psychologists and all, and several of them are mentioned in my book. if you really, really want to be bored, i have this that i wrote about my conversations with them and what halleck had and did not have and all the rest. no,what i came up with was he did not have graves' disease.

, atooks like he suffered the whole range of his physical background, he suffered from something known as hemochromatosis. hemochromatosis, as some of you know, is iron retention that can cause lassitude, a variety of --er innovating symptoms intervening symptoms. some of you know who jean baker is. he has been -- she has written many, many wonderful books. at the lincoln forum, i was talking to her, and her husband happened to be there, and he was chief of surgery at johns hopkins. we got talking about halleck, and he said i do not know anything about this, but i know some people who know something, and you want to look at mercury poisoning, because he was in charge of this mercury thing. i did. he sent me all kinds of learned articles, some of which i

actually understood, but the point was that i did not think it was mercury poisoning. hemochromatosis seemed to be the issue. and then another issue really struck me right between the eyes, a psychological issue. he suffered from terrible psychological problems because of his very bad relationship with his father and with his family. with his father, when he left to live with the maternal back,ather, he never came he wrote letters to his mother, but never mention the father, never came to his funeral. so there was a very, very big break. in any case, there were other issues. he was actually born a twin, but the girl, whose name was katherine, same name as his

mother, died in childbirth. some of the psychologists say there is a psychological trauma that develops in cases like that where people blame themselves for being -- why am i living, die, andhe died, -- her name is the same as my mother. all of those issues are involved . so halleck did not become a failure suddenly in the civil war, but the seeds of these wartime problems were evident, even during the times of his success. it is much more complicated, as you can imagine, so what i will do is shamelessly tell you, by the book, and read all about it. i will be happy, happy to talk about it any time. one of the things you want to do -- be sure you buy one for your neighborhood physician and psychologist, that would be nice

too. so what can we say, finally? who was this "old brains" halleck? and that is my interpretation. he was many things. he was a success in this life, but he was also a failure. he was a very brilliant man, but he was also stupid. we are not making some of these things up. he had very few friends, yet he had many important acquaintances , both in his military and business lives. he inspired the deepest animosity in people, ok? use a nasty human being, no question about this. -- he was a nasty human being, no question about this. that he never tried to adjust his behavior to mollify his critics.

one of the doctors i consulted, when we talked about the hemorrhoid problem, he said i do not think -- i would not say that hemorrhoids would cause him to be a failure in the civil war, but it could explain, and i quote him "could explain why he was such a mean son of a --. " me that he to certainly played a role in the union victory, no question in my mind, but he is a lot like rodney dangerfield -- or member him? he gets no respect -- remember him? he gets no respect, and that is too bad. we could learn a lot from this man, who is one of the major americans of the 19th century. thank you very much. [applause] as you know, i wear a hearing

aid, so i would love to answer any questions you might have come about if you yell them at me, i may or may not hear them -- have, but if you yell them at me i may or may not hear them. >> the floor mics are open for question. >> i have to ask this question -- who was hated more? braggs or halleck? thinkrszalek: i think, i that braggs was probably more hated, and even more hated by historians -- you know the story about a famous historian writing the first volume of his siography, and braxton bragg getting to hate him so much he never wrote the second volume, and getting his graduate student to do it. but what does that say about me? i do not know.

>> at the very beginning of your lecture, you mentioned that actor, how i came to washington, he was involved in every major decision. player --ink of any north or south -- that could have done his job almost as well or as well, or maybe even better than he did? dr. marszalek: good question? did everybody here that? hear that? is there anybody else who could have done that job? i am sure there was. but sometimes people say you know, lincoln really blew it when he pointed halleck instead of grant to be general back there in 1962. i do not think so. i do not think grant would have done the job.

i think he grew into that position. sherman could not have done that. the thing about halleck was that he was somehow able, even though it's steamed people because he would not make decisions -- he would say look, you are the commander on a batter field -- battlefield, you make the decision. i am far away and cannot do this. but the result was that oftentimes the decisions -- even when people asked him, like burnside did, he would not answer. there have been anyone else? i do not know of anybody. keep in mind that one of the wasiest days of his life when lincoln named grant to be commanding general. now he is free. he does not have to make these decisions. what he can do is -- and he does it -- is he writes letters to various generals, saying general grant says you better shape up, or we will get rid of you.

he was very happy to get to do that. but i really do not know of anybody, anybody else -- and that is one of the problems. it is easy for us, like it was said in the earlier session, easy for us to be critical, but we are not wearing those same shoes. book and enjoyed it, and i would like to check my understanding with you as far as his relationship with grant. it seems to me as though at first, he figured grant was not doing the paperwork correctly, and that is why grant was a lousy general in his eyes, and it seemed to me as though he thought that he had taught grant how to do the paperwork correctly, and that is why grant turned into a success. is that true? dr. marszalek: yes and no. your first part, i think, is correct. halleck cannot believe that grant can be so sloppy with his

paperwork. and it is true. only tried to teach grant, but all the other generals. it was a very famous letter that grant has his chief of staff send all of his generals, saying this is the way i want you to full letters when you send them to me. and you are right. he does not think grant is a good general because he is so sloppy. for example, halleck defends grant after shiloh, but he still calls grant on the carpet and said you really screwed up. not so much in the battle, i do not say anything about the surprise, but afterward you have been sloppy. look up the mess out here. you have done nothing to get things organized. and the interesting thing is that halleck, when he and mcclellan are talking about grant, brings up the fake news,

the fake news of grant posy being a drunk. and grant does not know this. he does not know this until his aid is writing his history, and grant is helping him, and they come across the letters that make this point. that is it. that is it. anything else? comment on his relationship with abraham lincoln and what lincoln thought about him? is there any thing public on that? >> good question. you have third -- heard this statement, he is in your clerk. he also said i have to like him, because if i do not, nobody will. lincoln gets very frustrated by halleck for this reason. he brings halleck on board because lincoln is smart enough to know that he does not know a stuff.ot about military

he knows a lot more than he thinks, and by the end of the war he is teaching his generals. but at this particular time, lincoln wants somebody learned in the military skills to be at his side, to help them organize the union war effort. i want you to tell me what i should do, and halleck will not do that. takes the position. he almost resigns. he offers to resign. you make me tell you what i think ought to be done, i will resign, and i think lincoln threw up his hands. this is that, this is the best i got. maybe i can teach him to say some things, but lincoln is not a great supporter -- he is a supporter of halleck, but i would not say they are close, and halleck had a very dour

personality, as we have talked about. i do not know. yes sir? i have an education in engineering, and i can see the engineer in halleck, all the way from what you said about his biography. fact that he had that hemorrhoid problem tells you that he would not have been a good general in the field, being in the army and trying to direct in combat. dr. marszalek: that is true. you do not see halleck in the saddle very often, let's put it that way. [laughter] dr. marszalek: as you probably know, and holter can tell you more about this -- harold holzer can tell you more about this, but there were stock images in the war with everything but a person's head of horses doing

all these wonderful things, so there is a picture of halleck in the saddle, but he is not a battlefield general. his campaign, for example, comes down to the fact that he is going to make sure there will be no surprise. he will make sure that everything he does is according to the book. and yet the interesting thing is by the end of the war, maybe it is sherman, maybe it is grant, maybe it is lincoln, have taught changed.hat war has you have to change. you have to take a different approach. so you have halleck saying things at the end of the war that he would never say at the beginning of the war. but no, there is not any relationship. yes sir? >> good morning. i just got to kabul menu on how much i appreciate your talk this

morning. it is nice to see somebody peel back the onion, look at a person posy entire life -- person's entire life, and so many of us are quick to be critical of people without knowing all the facts, and as time goes back, trying to find all the facts that contributed to persons life, their successes, and failures. i would like to comment you, and i appreciate it. dr. marszalek: thank you. i have often thought about it, you have often heard of the great theory of history and all, and i blame myself as much as any when i was teaching, but we tend to look for perfection. maybe a better thing for us to do would be to maybe look at ourselves. we are good at something. all of us have some skills that we are good at. what i do not know of any human being that is good at everything -- that will be absolutely perfect at everything. and i think with people like halleck, we expect that.

heexpect them to do -- and was probably one of the wealthiest guys in the united states. he was worth over $500,000 when the civil war began -- money he had made, and all of these other things. but we expect that. we expect somebody to be good at everything. and we do not expect our people, the people we study, to have flaws. and certainly he had flaws, lincoln had flaws, everybody has flaws. the question is what do we do with it? how do we overcome what flaws we have to make achievements, to do have been asked to do at a particular time? thank you very much, i appreciate your attention. [applause] >> we have a 20 minute break now. our next session will begin at

11:00. history tvamerican on c-span3. we are live from gettysburg, pennsylvania today for the annual civil war conference, hosted by pennsylvania college -- gettysburg college. we will be back with a pulitzer "custer's trial: a life on the frontier of new america." for the next 10 minutes of so, unionl tour the fort ward museum and historic site.

fort ward, which is a premier civil war site in the city of alexandria, and a major destination and orientation site for visitors who want to learn more about the civil war to fences of washington. we are the only site that has a museum or visitors center to help interpret. such is our job to illustrate for the public these important points about the defenses of washington. forworth was named commander james harmon ward, who was the first union navy commander to be killed during the civil war. he was a well-respected naval officer, an authority on naval ordinance, and helped found the naval academy at annapolis. if you go to the naval academy today, there is a hall called ward hall, named for him. we are standing in front of an

orientation map display that visitors very often find interesting because it sets the scene for a history of fort ward and wartime alexandria, and the history of this defense system. one thing i think this map really illustrates is how extensive this network of union force was. but it is more thought-provoking i think to imagine what the washington area was like in the spring of 1861, when the civil war began. if you saw this now, none of these forts would have been there. washington was essentially defenseless at that time, vulnerable. president lincoln and his officials in washington anticipated the eventual procession of virginia -- secession of virginia and prepared for it. in the early morning hours, thousands of union troops were dispatched into the area of northern virginia, pretty much

from where alexandria up through arlington was located. that was to begin getting a for the in that area protection and defense of the capital. at first, very few forts were built. no one anticipated this would be . four year war but things really changed during the summer of 1861, with the confederate victory at the battle of first manassas or bull known. it is also this puts everything in a different perspective, seen as more of a need to defend the capital. in the late summer of 1861, even more forts were built, and fort ward was begun at that particular time, along with a number of other forts on the virginia side. point about the defenses of washington is that it really transformed the whole a militaryarea into

city, in essence. you had the seat of the federal government here, but with this huge ring of forts and all the camps that also accompanied those forts, washington really becomes a logistical headquarters for the union war effort. it becomes a major camping and training ground for the union army ring the civil war. thousands of union soldiers passed through washington and alexandria during the civil war, which was such an important resource to the union because of this transportation facility, the support, and you can see how many of these forts, including fort ward, were built to surround the town of alexandria during that time. the earthwork remains of fort and are most significant the best artifact here. we have 90% to 95% of the original fort ward wall preserved.

some are in better condition than others in different parts of the fort, but there is not significantly preserved here to wear of someone walks the site are parts significant preserved here to wear a someone ifks the site -- where someone walks the site with a map, they can get a full picture of what the fort would have -- what other preserved sections of the fort would have looked like. we are standing at an orientation exhibit on the to get ourfort ward visitors a bit more of an idea of what the fort looked like and how it was documented in terms of restoring the fort. this model shows the design of the fort as of 1864 and 1865. this is the improved, expanded version of the fort, which made it the largest in the defense system.

this is a type of design that would have been called a bastian , star shaped. each one of these triangular areas protecting -- projecting outward with gun placements, and his whole projection of -- this whole idea of projecting and reentering annuals -- angles would have protected from gunfire. we also see documents that illustrate visually what the fort looked like and how it was designed in the national archives. there are important military engineer plans that document the design of the fort, and also the ceremonialhe fort's entrance gate. the restored bastion of the fort , the northwest bastion that we will be seeing, is this bastion directly over here, which would have faced out toward louisburg turnpike, present day route seven.

the fort is located on an important, strategic high point of ground between two major access routes to alexandria and the washington area. this is the ceremonial entrance gate to fort ward. it has been reconstructed from a period engineer plan from the fort, so it is an authentic pattern and situated on the original site, so it helps to give context actually to be preserved earthwork walls of the fort. this is the spot where soldiers would have entered the fort during the war years. we are standing now at the reconstructed northwest bastion of fort ward, and this is an excellent, authentic example of what the interior and exterior of one of these forts would have looked like. one of those important elements of any fort would have been an underground room called a powder

i amine, and right now standing in front of the entrance door that would have led underground to a long, narrow room where powder, bags and barrels of gunpowder, what have in storage. this is one of the most dangerous rooms in a fort. there were lots of rules and regulations about who could go in to one of these rooms, what they could carry with them, no arms, no weaponry, nothing that is metal, ok? that might scrape against something and get a spark. obviously no smoking, no candles, anything of that nature. or was, actually, in the summer of 1863, a powder magazine explosion at a fort that was located near alexandria, called resulton, and it was a of a careless accident that had occurred in one of these forts, the rules andres

regulations put in place for soldiers stationed at a fort like fort ward. magazine from the would then be taken over to , again,underground room typical of forts in the defense system and elsewhere called a filling room. here we can see another door that led down into an underground room where ammunition would have been filled with gunpowder, and loaded ammunition stored in a room like this. this is where artillery men would have come to gotten their light -- live charges to take out to the canons for either artillery practice or during battle situations. moving a little forward into the interior of the bastion, again, this gives our visitors a great

picture of what the interior of a civil war fort would have looked like. you would've had gun platforms with the various canons and guns located on them, in the northwest bastion, we are looking at replicas of the types of guns that would have been stored here during the civil war, so you can see these three 4.5 inch guns, also a couple of examples of 24 howitzers, and a six pounder here to the right of me. youeen the gun platforms, will see ledges, and these ledges are called ben caps -- van caps. this is where infantry or armed artillery trained in these tactics would have stood during battle situations to fire over the fort wall.