January, 2000

January 21, 2000

Thanks for all the replies.  There may never be a satisfactory answer, but if there is, its in some remote reference somewhere.

As you look at the Schukart (sp) photo, see if  (and I know this is
probably tough to do) its the oval or diamond-topped bayonet.  Also, is it possible to get an electronic (i.e. scanned) version of your colorized photo?

I asked the other members of my company about what our unknown Second Wisconsin soldier was wearing around his midriff, and I don't think we came to a definitive answer.  BTW, is the color guard photo you're referring to the one attached to this Powerpoint slide?  If so, I'm assuming you're talking about the "belt" the soldier in the middle is wearing.

(See attached photo file: 2nd Wisconsin Color Guard below) 

Thanks again,

Rich Pytel

January 21, 2000

I understand your questions, I just haven't seen enough evidence to give an intelligent answer. I don't think the Schukart(sp) photo shows a foreign scabbard, but I'll take another look tonight.  I have a color blow-up made directly from the original tin-type at home.
Thanks for the photo.  That's one photo Bill B. used in the "Return of the Second" brochure.    Has anyone figured out what he's wearing around his waist?  The Color Guard photo also has a soldier wearing one of whatever it is.

Gary Van Kauwenbergh


January 21, 2000

From the photographs I have seen, I have only seen the long-range sights on the Lorenz rifle.  The best picture I have is in the attached file.  It was given to me by the curator at the Wisconsin Veterans Museum (Mr. Brewster, I believe).  The name of the individual is not known, but he claims its a Second Wisconsin soldier in 1863.  Looking at a blow up of the picture, it appears this individuals is wearing a brass "2" on an I Corps badge.



The other picture I have looked at closely is the group photograph of
Company C taken in the May/June, 1862 time period.  I have a blown-up copy of the picture, and under the magnifying glass, it appears that from what I can discern, the Lorenz rifles the company received had the long-range sight.



The Schucart (sp?) picture is one of the best showing the bayonet/scabbard
for the Lorenz.  From my examination, it appears to be one of the wooden, Austrian-made scabbards.  I have an original of that scabbard in my possession, and it looks like the one in the photograph.  I have to reexamine the picture again against the new info I received on the American-made scabbards earlier this week to be absolutely positive. Hopefully, I'll get to it this weekend.

What I need to know is two things:  What was the design of the frog for the Austrian-made scabbard?  You're correct in that the Austrian scabbard looks a lot like an Enfield scabbard.  I have also trial fit an Enfield frog to my Austrian scabbard, and it fits (the Austrian scabbard has a metal clip on it just like a modern-day pen does).  But was that how the unit was equipped in 1861?  If you have any info on the frog used for the Austrian-made scabbard, I'd appreciate it.

The other question is the rifle sling.  Did the imported rifles already
have slings with them?  Did the US government outfit the Lorenzes with slings themselves.  Again, any info would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Rich Pytel


January 21, 2000

My impression, from the few photos I've seen, is that the Second had both the long-range and fixed sight model Lorenz's.  If you look at the picture of Ernst Schucart, I believe he's wearing an Enfield style scabbard.  i.e., one with a separate piece between the scabbard and the belt.

Gary Van Kauwenbergh



January 20, 2000

Knight's Ferry Press Release for Courier

March 25-26, and Friday arrivals are encouraged.

Once again it is time to dust off your traps and take the field. Many say it is about time we settle this business once and for all. No President is gonna tell us'ns what ta do.
 No State shall leave the Union. 

Knight's Ferry is our first event of the year. This year the organizers are trying something a little different. A state of war shall exist between both Confederate Camps and Union Camps from the beginning of the first battle each day to the end of the second battle each day. This means that pickets should be posted at each side of the bridge during these times and that any member of the opposite camp found outside of those bounds is liable to be taken and not patrolled until after the second battle. All men out side of camps must have a signed pass from their respective headquarters units (That's job's for you Joe Adjutants!). This will allow for maximum living history (for you extreme hard cores!), and a schedule of such to boot. 

The camps will be reversed this year in an effort to begin an honest effort towards fairness in camp arrangements. The Confederates will hold the south bank of the Potomac and command the heights above Harper's Ferry, The Union Army will be quartered on the north side and in position of the mill. 

Sutler's will be quartered near the Confederate Camp on the south side of the river near the public entrance in an effort to give them as much visibility as possible. It is advisable to all Yankee's that once the war begins you should have already made your trip for niceties, as if you are found on the south side of the river before the end of the second battle, you may not make it home for Christmas (can you say Andersonville). 

Battles will begin promptly at 11:00a.m. and 3:00p.m. on Saturday, and 11:00a.m. and 2:00p.m. on Sunday. Yes the battles are at the early times again this year, these times have already been advertised and cannot be changed. It is a three hour drive from the Bay Area, please plan accordingly. The reason for the times is so that much living history can be performed in between the battles and to give the public a sense of continuation, not the old stand up it's all over after recall program. 

Public demonstrations shall include (but are not limited to, picket duty, a picket trading program, a ladies tea at the Mill Office, an artillery duel/demonstration and any other program that you wish to perform. If you have a program that you wish to present, Steve Bechtold is putting together the program. Please contact him with a time and presentation title as well as where you would like it to occur. He can be reached at (209)586-2497 or blackhat@mlode.com

For a change of pace, a dinner will be held like last year downtown by the Knight's Ferry Historical Association and will cost only $3 per head. You must contact Susan Lovett or Ray Bober with an expected number for dinner so that food will be plentiful. Following the dinner, there will be wonderful live period music hired by The Consortitium for Blue/Gray Relations. It is hoped by the CB/GR that all ladies bring their men folk, and those men who have not ladies, bring other men (with bandanas tied appropriately of course). If weather is cooperative, it will be held in the streets below the Mill Office by lantern light, if weather is uncooperative we hope to secure the building where the dinner will be held. 

One change that will be happening this event will be the mandatory participation by all units in public safety provost. As our civilian population dwindles, participation by the military is essential. Each infantry unit and each artillery group (north and south) will provide one ADULT body to provide public safety. Those units not providing personnel will not be permitted on the field. Safety has been a concern this past year when big burly public push the women and children, historically performing this function, around. This will not happen this year. The event coordinators will be meeting with the brigade officers to ensure that group participation is understood. 

We hope to see y'all out there this year as the event is shaping up to be one of the grandest in the state. Good luck and may God protect the right.


January 20, 2000

Thank you very much for passing on this information to me. I have accumulated some other information, and I have a few questions:

1. According to the book, "American Socket Bayonets and Scabbards" (page 158), there were two know variations of scabbards produced in the US for imported Austrian Lorenz pattern muskets. The first pattern shows the scabbard body being oval in the cross section. The body measures 20-1/8 inches overall, including its 3-1/8 inch brass finial. The second variation is very similar to the first, but it includes a definite diamond shape in its cross section in order to accept the cruciform blade. It measures 20-7/16 inches, including a 3-1/4 inch brass finial.

Both of these variations are of the Type II configuration, with the belt loop being held by two copper rivets which reinforce their stitched components. In the first (oval) type mentioned above, the rivets enter from the rear. In the diamond-shaped type, the rivets enter from the front. The book notes this was a feature apparently of little concern at the type of manufacture.

Do you know which type of scabbard was issued to the Second Wisconsin and when? Also, was a Lorenz scabbard issued that had more than two rivets later in the war? If so, when?

2. The other item I'm looking at is a rifle sling for the Lorenz. Do you have any specifics on this? Was there one that was unique to the Lorenz?

If so, do you have any information, dimensions, pictures, etc. on this?

3. Can you recommend a firm or an individual who could reproduce the Lorenz scabbard/frog and an appropriate rifle sling for the Lorenz? I have had very good luck with Historic Clothiers in New Jersey--they made me an excellent two-rivet scabbard/frog for a Springfield bayonet.

Many, many thanks for your help and assistance.

Rich Pytel
Private 
Company C
Second Wisconsin


January 19, 2000

Hi 

I lost your original post RE: Lorenz muskets.  I believe someone bought a
kit, and was looking for information.  Please forward this to anyone
interested.  Here's some information on my Lorenz. 

The original bayonet and scabbard (Americanized) I own are as pictured on
this web site:

http://www.hayestech.demon.co.uk/REF1/page6.html

My original .54 cal Lorenz has the long range ladder sights, as pictured in
the photo of the Second Wisconsin soldier in the Wisconsin Veteran's Museum
promoting the Return of the Second Wisconsin to Camp Randall event.

Gary Van Kauwenbergh


January 19, 2000

Hello,
MY name is John Rawdon , I'm a Ohio resident. You may or may not know about Buffington Island, Ohio's only civil war battlefield. It is in great danger of being destroyed by gravel mining.
I am trying to spread awareness of this problem at Buffington by getting in touch with any and all people interested in the civil war. Not only will we lose another piece of our history to "progress" , Ohio will lose her only civil war battlefield. The greatest loss will be on the shoulders of the 60+ men buried there that will be relocated to a " safer" place, and the ones that are not found will probably meet a worse fate at the blade of a bulldozer.
 I have prepared a report on the battlefield & those that were in attendance, there are links to rosters of all the units I could find online, I hope with this , that someone might find that their granddad might be on the field at Buffington. The more faces that can be put to these men , the better chance they have.
There is also, a battle description, civil war links to JH Morgan and other civil war sites, a list  of folks to contact on the matter and other articles. I also have a copy of the commanders report form the union land forces involved in the battle that is interesting.
 If you are interested in the report , it is 2.5 megs large, I can break it down for those with a size barrier on their email.
SO, if you are interested , please email me & I will send it out to you. If you feel strongly enough about this issue, please show your support for these men at the petition below.
                                                                      Thank You For Your Time
                                                                         John Rawdon
  Sign The Petition To Save Buffington Island   http://www.petitiononline.com/Buff/petition.html


January 14, 2000

Thanks to a phone call from Andy Seymour and quite a little research, I
have had to back peddle from my conclusion that it was the summer issue
cottonade uniform worn at 1st Bull Run.  Per "If This Is War" by Gaff, page
165, the troops wore the wool state issue frock and trousers.  Due to the
cool nights that had been experienced and the order to leave all additional
baggage in camp, the wools were chosen to keep the men warmer at night.
This reference is too general to indicate this is what all the soldiers did
and of course more research is necessary.

Attached is an estimate of what we need for a reasonably accurate 1st Bull
Run impression.  Due to the regiment leaving most of its gear in camp, and
later leaving haversacks and blanket rolls near a stream before entering
battle, the list of items needed to acquire is down to four!  All that is
needed is a grey state issue shako, grey state issue nine button frock,
grey state issue trousers with black trim, and a green state issue canteen.
 Without considering bulk purchase discounts, this could be done for about
$300.  With the regiment receiving arms at Harrisonburg and/or later from a
federal issue in early July, black leathers are appropriate.

Let me know what you think of this or have to add to conclusions.

Your Obediant Servant,

Jeff Alderson
aka Private Charles Hayner


I recently purchased a .54 calibre Lorenz rifle kit with the variable-range
rear site from the Bridesburg Armoury out of Eton, Ohio.  Their website is:
http://members.aol.com/Andrew4244/index.html
I also have an original quadrangular Lorenz bayonet.  What I need
information on is the scabbard, frog, and rifle sling that was used with
the Lorenz by the Second Wisconsin so I can have these items accurately
reproduced.  If anyone has any diagrams, drawings, references, etc. that
they can send or advise me about, I would appreciate it.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Rich Pytel
Company C
rpytel@erols.com
301-352-3303


January 13th 2000

Medical Research

I have just joined The Second in this past year and have a historical research need that members may be able to answer; particularly Mark Storch, whose name has been mentioned to me by his old friends here in Maryland. I am researching and hopefully (someday) writing a medical history of the Iron Brigade. I am in need of information about the regimental surgeons that is not already published in the well-known, books-in-print written about the Iron Brigade. Any members having medical staff information should contact me at my e-mail address or by calling my office at (301)496-6455,daytime east coast, 0800 to 1630. I am a native Badger, born and raised in Watertown, Wis., attended Carroll College and am currently a research physician at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland.
Lance Herdegen and I have discussed the merits of this project and he has been gracious with his advice. I hope to get "home" for some of the Wis. events as time permits, but will participate with Co. C this season, so I can be reached at the eastern events as well. 
Thank you.

Robert Neuman MD
rn12u@nih.gov


Here is message that we have received, that we thought all would find of interest Ed.

January 9, 2000

HERITAGEPAC ALERT   1/9/2000
A REMINDER: THE THREAT TO MILITARY HISTORY IS SPREADING

Now that we're all past Y2K, and settling in to the last year of the Second Milliennium, let us take this opportunity to remind you of the biggest threat to battlefield preservation ever to threaten destruction of our Civil War past.
Without an appreciation of *battlefield history* there is no need to preserve those battlefields.
If the "meanings" of the Civil War can be imparted in a museum, or, even more likely, in a video, why do we need to spend millions of dollars each year to preserve battlefields.
Why can't those lands be turned into something "useful" by today's mercenary standards?
Why "save" those battlefields if they, of themselves, don't contribute to our understanding of and appreciation for our Civil War heritage?
Who *needs* battlefields?
Kate Stevenson, associate director for cultural resources in the National Park Service, and the bureaucratic head of the NPS historical parks, doesn't need them.
She has said that publicly-- "I do not want to hear about battles when I go to a Civil War park.  I am not really interested in battles."  April 8, 1999 If we don't *need* battlefields to interpret the history of those battles, and The War, why have them?
Why not just let the "approved interpretation" of The War be presented at strategically-located NPS Civil War museums--and on the History Channel--and save millions of dollars.
Why, many of those battlefields are in commercially valuable areas, and would probably bring a pretty penny into the Federal treasury.  Maybe even help fund the woefully underfunded NPS maintenance fund.  Hey, that's an idea.
If some people in the government have their way, the *need* for Civil War battlefields will diminish and even vanish.  "The message" about The War can be spoon-fed to the American public in other, cheaper ways.
This is what *could* happen if we, as students of the Civil War, do not defend "battlefield history" just as zealously as we have defended "battlefield preservation."

If you haven't responded yet to last month's HERITAGEPAC ALERT (below) by writing your Senators and your Member of the House of Representatives, please take the time during this year's beginning to do just that.
This is the most important battle we will fight in the last year of the Second Millennium.
Will the end of the 20th century see the beginning of the final erosion of "battlefield history" in the National Park Service? It might.  If YOU don't do your part.

Happy New Year!

Jerry L. Russell
Civil War Round Table Associates
HERITAGEPAC
We Who Study MUST Also Strive To Save!

Please read on...as a reminder...

HERITAGPAC ALERT  12/14/1999 
THE THREAT TO MILITARY HISTORY IS SPREADING

We've told you before about plans to expand the socio-cultural history interpretation at Civil War battlefields, thereby diminishing the military history interpretation which has, traditionally, and as was intended, focused on the *battle* and the men who fought there.

Herewith a portion of the NCC Washington Update for December 13, 1999, as published by the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History:

2. Section On Interpretation of Slavery At National Park Service Sites In Interior Appropriations Legislation - The Interior Appropriations Bill, which has detailed information on the National Park Service's budget, includes also a section on the
interpretation of Civil War battlefields.  The provision expresses concern that Civil War battle sites are not always placed in the proper historical context and that at some battlefields there is "missing vital information about the role that the institution of slavery played in causing the American Civil War."
The Interior Appropriations Bill thus directs the Secretary of Interior "to encourage the National Park Service managers of Civil War battle sites to recognize and include in all of their public displays and multi-media educational presentations the unique role that the institution of slavery played in causing the Civil War and its role, if any, at the individual battle Sites."  The statutory language makes clear that the National Park Service has done an outstanding job in explaining the different battles, but it goes on to say that the Park Service "does not always do a similarly good job of documenting and describing the historical social, economic, legal, cultural and political forces and events that originally led to the larger war which eventually manifested themselves in specific battles."
Last year the superintendents of many of the Park Services' Civil War sites met to discuss mutual concerns and identified at that time the need to expand interpretations to include the broader context of the war.  In commenting on the legislation, Chief Historian Dwight Pitcaithley underscored the need to present the larger historical context.  He said that the "National Park Service needs to tell people what happened, why it happened, and answer the question 'so what?'" This provision, which was introduced by Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) who is a member of the House Appropriations Committee, calls for the National Park Service to prepare a report by January 15, 2000 on the education information currently included at Civil War sites that is related to this issue.

As stated in the "headline," the emphasis is being shifted from "the interpretation of the battle" to "the interpretation of slavery" at Civil War battlefields.  Apparently, the perceived and purported lack of interpretation on the "social, economic, legal, cultural and political forces and events" which caused The War can be made up for by the simple expedient of interpreting "the unique role that the institution of slavery played in causing the war."

This simplistic solution to a complex problem is something that should raise the ire of every student and teacher of military history in America, because it greatly diminishes the emphasis on the *battle* and the men who fought there, the intent with which Congress established these Civil War battlefields over the past several decades.

While we would agree that Park Service historical interpreters need to tell people *what* happened, in view of the many and varied views as to *why* it happened, a politically-correct "party" line view of "*why* it happened" is the only possible approach that could/would be taken.

(Can't you hear it now?: "Oh, it would take TOO LONG to present those many and varied views, so we'll just pick the one WE like and present it to the public?  How about slavery?  Couldn't we just focus on that *one* and let the others go???")

Obviously, in an ideal situation, where you had visitors with unlimited time and unlimited interest, you *could* present the "many and varied views" as to "why it happened," but when you have visitors with, in the great majority of cases, limited time and limited interest, the interpreters can't possibly cover the territory.  So the reasonable solution would be to just stick to the facts of "what happened," and forego the opinions as to "why it happened" for another forum.

However, we do also agree that the interpreters should be trained to answers *questions* about "why" and "so what"--but the basic programming should stick to "what happened here," we believe.  Remember, only a small percentage of visitors to the national battlefields ASK those questions, and it is *not* the Park Service's obligation to educate everyone about everything.

(U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. [D-IL] is responsible for the wording of the legislation which mandates this broadening [and, we believe, weakening] of the interpretation program at NPS Civil War battlefields.)

How about you?  How do you feel about this?

If you agree with our position, or with Rep. Jackson's position, please let the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History know how you feel, at <pagem@capaccess.org>.

And, of course, we hope you will write your Senators (c/o U.S. Senate, Washington DC 20510) and Member of Congress (c/o House of Representatives, Washington DC 20510) to let them know that you disapprove of (Rep. Jackson's) language in the Conference Committee bill, and ask them to begin the process to get it changed.

Ask them to contact the Park Service and get a report on how the front-line interpretive troops feel about this obviously politically-motivated propaganda ploy.  (We have already begun hearing from them--off the record--as to their strong and deep-seated objections to this approach to interpretation.)

If you care about how our Civil War battles are interpreted at the NPS Civil War Battlefields, take a little time during the holiday season to give a gift to Civil War history--write and express your opinions on this latest assault on military history--an assault launched for political reasons, and not out of a regard for Civil War history.

Jerry L. Russell
Civil War Round Table Associates
HERITAGEPAC
We Who Study MUST Also Strive To Save!


January 7, 2000

Cathi Nelson informs me that there is a bowling tournament in Watertown the
same week as our conclave.  Rooms at the Holiday Inn Express are going fast.
Look in your last ACWSA newsletter for contact information.

Also:  The 8th Wisconsin skirmish mentioned in the last news letter, will
now be held at Lake Mills, and co-hosted by the 29th Wisconsin.

Hope everyone had a nice time over the holidays

Gary Van Kauwenbergh


January 4th, 2000

Information for the 24th Michigan

A little back round information, this coming year there will be an
official change in the ACWA showing the Iron Brigade Guard. What has
happened over the pass year is the 2d Wisconsin Company H, 24th Michigan
Company C and 19th Indiana Company E have combined our members under one
leadership under the Iron Brigade Guard. This has been done in order to
keep the Black hats together on the battle field (we still maintain our
own identity). So, as it stands the commander of the Iron Brigade Guard
for the year 2000 is from the 24th Michigan unit. Lt. Steven Bechtold is
presently enjoying the life of a slick sleeve for the coming year.
Thanks again,

Capt. David Mascitelli
24th Michigan, Company C
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/24thmich/index.html