The "Hall of Valor" - Part 1

Any visitor to New Market Battlefield State Historical Park and its “Hall of Valor” museum/visitor center is bound to notice the, shall we call it, “unusual” architectural design of the HOV. Few folks today know it, but today’s HOV was not the original design – the original created a storm of debate when approved in 1966 by VMI and then was subsequently rejected by the Virginia Art Commission, which led to the eventual adoption of today’s HOV.

The Hall of Valor (seen above in an architect’s rendering reprinted on the front page of the New Market Shenandoah Valley of November 3, 1966) was to commemorate not just the VMI Cadets who participated in the battle, but “to honor the courage of all American fighting men throughout history,” according to an un-named VMI spokesman [Shenandoah Valley,11-3-66]. The design was approved unanimously by VMI’s Board of Visitors in late October 1966, with construction expected to begin in the Spring of 1967 and the building to open to visitors in the Summer of 1968. Designed by Meathe, Kessler and Associates of Grosse Pointe, MI, the 2-story, $500,000 building was designed to be eye-catching. Perhaps the architects were a little too successful in that.

VMI Superintendent Maj. Gen. George R.E. Shell stated that the architects had been charged with designing something “arresting, unusual, and a memorial to the strength and courage of the cadets” [qtd in Staunton News-Leader, 12-18-66]. Perhaps part of the thinking behind a modernistic building was, as one local newspaper editorialized, that with the building being highly visible from nearby Interstate 81, something so highly unusual and out-of-place was bound to draw attention, and by extension, visitors [Woodstock Shenandoah Herald, 12-29-66].

Immediately detractors questioned why such a modern architectural style was used. Some compared it to a bunker of the Maginot Line – the fortifications constructed in the 1930s along the border between France and Germany - the “Maginot Line Memorial” they called it [Staunton News-Leader, 12-18-66]. To some it looked more like something from “outer space” [Strasburg Northern Virginia Daily, 11-8-66]. The Woodstock Shenandoah Herald declared the design “looked a little like something borrowed from a World Fair, and damaged in shipping” [12-29-66]. The Winchester Star declared “the design proposed to honor the VMI cadets engaged in the Battle of New Market…ludicrous. It is about as fitting as the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier of World War I sporting a Green Beret or the monument aboard the USS Arizona in the mud of Pearl Harbor being used as a platform for a Titan missile” [qtd in Staunton News-Leader, 12-18-66]. One Front Royal writer voiced the sentiments of many in the Valley: “It might be very appropriate for a space-age factory or World’s Fair science center, but it certainly is incongruous as a memorial to the VMI cadets and the events which the site is to commemorate. The proposed building appears to be a replica of the Virginia Civil War Centennial Center erected in Richmond, which was equally inappropriate for the State’s observance of that Centennial” [NVD, 11-16-66].

That is not to say the building didn’t have its supporters. The VMI Board of Visitors unanimously approved the design, and it did have some support in the community although apparently few were privy to the design before its approval. Ironically, even though newspapers across Virginia condemned the design, New Market’s own paper thought it “ideal:”

“The building as proposed is ideally suited for the purpose it is supposed to serve. Functionally it is remarkably well arranged to make it easy for the traveling public to see the various features of the building, display relics of the Battle of New Market, giving a dramatic re-enactment [sic] of the historic episode that made the engagement famous, and make the most of the magnificent panorama to the north, east, south, and west that can be observed from the point the building will occupy.

“There are those who would like to see the structure follow the general motif of Colonial architecture. While they agree that such should be the case, few have the same idea of what Colonial architecture really is…

“The individual, who goes whole hog for a Colonial treatment, has in mind the impression that the exterior makes. To him that is interesting, indicative of something and important. There is a question if the millions that travel nearby Interstate 81 will react favorably to such an exterior image. To many it will be just another musty Civil War Museum, and old soldiers’ home or something from the moldy past.

“The proposed exterior appearance is ultra modern. It is very striking. It is attention compelling. It stimulates interest. It would be sufficiently provocative to cause many to slow their pell mell rush and take time out just to see what it is and what it stands for.

“It’s not enough to have a handsome structure in the best tradition of the Colonial period for the passing motorist to admire. It must stop him in his tracks, stimulate him to take a peek and actually visit the place. We feel that the proposed treatment will insure much more traffic through the visitor’s center to see its unique features and the matters of historic interest.” [New Market Shenandoah Valley, 12-29-66]

The building’s detractors seemingly got their way when the Virginia Arts Commission rejected the design, just before Christmas 1966. (Yet the Commission did not give their reason for rejecting the plan, nor did they initially suggest any changes or alternatives. While their reasoning was unknown, it was not because of the futuristic appearance of the building, as the commissioners were known to favor such architectural style over something more conservative or classical – such as the Colonial theme some wanted.) This threw plans for the development of the Battlefield Park into some confusion, as the overall timeline for the Park called for groundbreaking on the Hall of Valor to take place in the Spring of 1967. With the design for the HOV all but approved, Institute and Park officials had been ready to put out a request for bids for the actual construction of the HOV – having to come up with a new architectural plan for the HOV at that stage of the game simply had not been anticipated. While dealing with this hurdle, Park Director James Geary was able to continue with plans to restore the Bushong House and other aspects of park interpretation.

Although there was some debate as to whether the Commission even had jurisdiction in the matter – the argument being that the funds to construct the HOV were not “public” funds but rather part of the bequest to VMI from George Collins specifically for the creation and interpretation of New Market Battlefield, which was countered by the fact that the Park was administered by Virginia Military Institute, a state-supported school, thus the funds were now indeed “public” even if they did not originate as tax dollars – the “Maginot Line Memorial” was scrapped, and eventually today’s Hall of Valor was constructed (which will be examined in a future post).

New Market Battlefield, part 1 - George Collins

Over the next few weeks I’m going to examine the establishment and development of what is today called “New Market Battlefield State Historical Park.” Our story begins during the Civil War Centennial with a West Virginia man named George Collins…

Like all cadets at Virginia Military Institute, George Randall Collins learned of the Battle of New Market. Only a few years before Collins’ matriculation at the Institute in 1907, “New Market Cadet” Moses Ezekiel’s Virginia Mourning Her Dead – a tribute to his comrades who fell at New Market – was unveiled on the edge of the parade ground, a dedication ceremony attended by many of the surviving “New Market Cadets.” Perhaps during his time at the Institute, Collins may even have met some of these cadets who fought at New Market. Regardless, at VMI Collins learned the special place the battlefield at New Market held in the Institute’s history.

After his graduation in 1911, Collins went on to a distinguished career as a coal executive in West Virginia, including president of Smokeless Fuel Company, general manager of Superior Portland Cement, and several other companies in the Ohio River Valley. During World War I, Collins served as an artillery captain with the American forces in France.

During the early 1940s, news of battles in Europe and the Pacific dominated the newspaper headlines, so it likely was not front-page news in 1942 when a roughly 200-acre farm just north of the small town of New Market, Virginia, was sold by the family which had owned it for more than a century. The family name was “Bushong.” Nearly 80 years before, Federal and Confederate forces met in battle on their farm – their small orchard was nearly destroyed as both sides jockeyed for control of the tactically important ground there. About 225 cadets from VMI secured the orchard for the Confederate forces. After the battle, the Bushong house, barn and all the outbuildings became a massive field hospital complex for the vast numbers of wounded from both sides.

The former Bushong farm was sold again in 1944. This time the buyer was George Collins. It seems that Collins intended for some time for the Bushong farm to be preserved by his alma mater. He sold off many of his business ventures in the late 1940s and early 1950s, living in semi-retirement in Charleston, West Virginia. At the time of his death June 27, 1964, at his home in Charleston, at the age of 74 George Collins had no immediate survivors.

Collins’ estate was valued at more than $4 million dollars. His Charleston home he left to his nephew and more than $1 million was divided among several other relatives. The 175 acres Collins owned at New Market, including the Bushong Farm, were left to Virginia Military Institute, along with a $3 million endowment “to be used as a trust to perpetuate and maintain as a memorial of the Battle of New Market and to place improvements thereon for educational purposes,” according to his short hand-written will. [Richmond Times-Dispatch, 9 Dec 1964] (The “improvements…for educational purposes” shall be examined in future posts…)

Even though Collins had hinted before his death that VMI would be the recipient of the Bushong Farm, and a copy of his will was probated and placed on file in the Shenandoah County courthouse within days of his death, news of his gift to VMI was not made public knowledge for six months. Once the information was released, it was front-page news throughout Virginia. Wrote a reporter for the Roanoke (VA) World News: “It is especially fitting that his gift should be accepted by the Institute during the period of the Civil War Centennial. The courage that was shown by the VMI cadets of 1864 will stand forever as an inspiration for the cadet corps. Mr. Collins’ gift insures permanency of the battlefield as a historic shrine, to be visited and appreciated by Virginian, cadet and tourist.” [Roanoke World News, 11 Dec 1964]

Today the approach road to New Market Battlefield State Historical Park is named “George R. Collins Parkway,” and a large bronze plaque inside the Hall of Valor (the history of which will be examined in a future post) honors him, as does an interpretive sign on the park grounds.

[George Collins photo courtesy VMI Archives]

CWPT

Civil War Preservation Trust will be running an article in Hallowed Ground this summer by me about New Market. More or less an excerpt from Valley Thunder and possibly short interview as well.

In a semi-related note, I'm also working on a "discussion guide" of sorts to VT. Savas Beatie has these available for some of their other titles on their website, so mine will be similar.

Website

My how the world of html has changed since college...and I'm not overly convinced it's for the better yet. I ran several webpages for my Civil War reenactment unit in college, nothing fancy, just free sites through geocities - actually it was more like that was my excuse to teach myself html. I could do all sorts of fancy stuff back then - of course, about as complicated as one ventured to get in those days (mid-90s) was the little color bearer dudes whose flags fluttered so magestically in the breeze...That was then (of course I was surrounded by computer geeks then, that may have helped, now that I think back...)

The last few days have witnessed me fighting with this supposedly user-friendly and any-idiot-can-do-this webpage designer...I think I've finally figured it out now, and the result is: www.newmartketbattle.com The new webpage for Valley Thunder. It's just got the basics up there now, but eventually I'll add bios of some of the key players in the battle, photos both old & new of the battlefield, reviews of the book as they come in, and maybe even a mention about the park's ghosts...Well, all of that assuming of course the webpage designer is in agreement with my plans.

www.newmarketbattle.com

All for now...

Interview

An Interview with Charles Knight, author of
Valley Thunder: The Battle of New Market and the Opening of the Shenandoah Valley Campaign, May 1864


Valley Thunder is the first full-length account in nearly four decades to examine the sweeping combat at New Market on May 15, 1864—the battle that opened the pivotal 1864 Shenandoah Valley Campaign. Charles R. Knight recently discussed his upcoming book with publisher Savas Beatie LLC.

SB: You’ve received some nice advanced praise for Valley Thunder. Why do you think it is striking a chord with readers?

CRK: Even though it was a very small battle by Civil War standards, basically only a small division per side, New Market has always been a popular battle among Civil War buffs. I think the main reason is because of the participation of the Cadets of Virginia Military Institute. Over the years, their role in the battle has been greatly exaggerated, but nonetheless their being plucked from their classrooms in Lexington and coming under fire alongside veteran Confederate units and losing 10 of their number killed makes New Market somewhat unique. The fact that the battlefield is one of only two currently operated as fully interpreted parks in the Valley and hosts an annual reenactment of the battle on the original ground gives it quite a bit of visibility as well. As to my book, it has been about 35 years since the last scholarly treatment of New Market appeared, that being William C Davis’ The Battle of New Market. In the decades since Davis’ work appeared, many new sources have come to light which were unknown during his time. Some offer great detail into the battle, others change some of what has been accepted as “fact” for years.

SB: Can you provide an example or two?

CRK: Sure. It has long been thought that the 23rd Virginia Cavalry fought dismounted with the Confederate infantry. However, a closer examination of the accounts left behind by John Imboden’s cavalrymen show that not to be the case. As another example, the editor of the local newspaper witnessed much of the action at New Market, including a preliminary cavalry engagement several days prior to the main battle at New Market. In the account published in his newspaper, he mentions in passing a local “reserve” company of boys too young to join the Confederate army. Yet even though their participation was documented right there by a reliable witness, this particular unit was never mentioned as being part of the New Market campaign, as hardly anything was known of their service in 1864 until a local historian, John Heatwole, was given access to a literal treasure trove of materials which belonged to the company’s First Sergeant, which he then used to write a history of the company, including their role at New Market. To me, the recent trend not just in Civil War historiography, but in basically all aspects of military history, is not solely to focus on the command decisions made by the generals, but to incorporate how those decisions affected the men in the ranks. I have tried to place New Market in its strategic place in the Spring 1864 campaign and to analyze the command decisions, but also to show what the soldiers themselves - both blue and gray - were thinking in the days and weeks leading up to the battle, what they saw of the fighting itself, and how they chose to remember it.

SB: How did weather impact the Battle of New Market?

CRK: New Market was one of those rare engagements that was fought almost entirely in the rain. And not just a slight drizzle, but at times a very intense thunderstorm. Which of course could cause a few problems as black powder and water are not the best of friends. (Laughing.) Although there are very few accounts which mention wet powder or damp cartridges being an issue, many accounts from the VMI Cadets mention the adverse effects of the rain. The Cadets were armed with Austrian Lorenz rifles which, unlike the more prevalent Enfield or Springfields which had metal ramrods, had a wooden ramrod. Several cadets complained that the constant wet weather caused their ramrods to swell to the point of them becoming useless and their owners having to discard their rifle in favor of other weapons they picked up off the ground. A more prominent effect of the weather was the mud, which hampered troop movements, and may have helped lead to the capture of some of the Federal artillery. Also the rains caused the local streams to rise well above their usual levels, rendering them impassable. What would be the battlefield at New Market is actually a peninsula formed between the Shenandoah River’s North Fork on the west and Smith’s Creek on the east. Both sides found that these flooded waterways offered a number of advantages and disadvantages. For instance, the flooded streams anchored both flanks securely, but severely limited the options for a retreat. When the Confederate cavalry crossed Smith’s Creek (by bridge) in an effort to flank the Federal army, they were unable to find a passable ford back to the western side of the creek and thus spent the majority of the battle as mere observers.

SB: Your book Valley Thunder contains a lot of primary accounts from soldiers, civilians, and politicians. Why do you think these are important to include in a battle history?

CRK: In telling of an event, no historian can fully capture or convey the emotion of someone who was actually there as witness to that event, so first-hand accounts are vital not just to battle studies, but to a study of any historical event. Often the after-action reports by the higher-ups ignore some aspects of the battle which they thought to be inconsequential or maybe were even unknown to them completely. Going to lower levels you find interesting personal anecdotes, and in some cases even humor on the battlefield as the bullets were flying thick and fast. And one must beware too of the all-too-present “spin” put on these reports by the commanders to paint themselves in as good a light as possible. When you look at accounts left by those who really had nothing at stake in the larger scheme of things, you do not find this restraint. And the closer to the event a memoir is written, usually the more accurate and detailed it is. And speaking of primary accounts, the official reports from both the Confederate commander, John Breckinridge, and his Federal counterpart, Franz Sigel, somehow did not find their way into the Official Records after the war, nor were they included in Broadfoot’s more recent Supplement to the ORs. Both reports exist: Breckinridge’s among his Chief of Staff’s papers in the New Market Collection in the VMI Archives, and Sigel’s in his extensive papers housed at the Western Reserve Historical Society in Cleveland. Yet because they were omitted from the ORs, they are very seldom cited. So they are both included verbatim as appendecies in Valley Thunder.

SB: You mentioned some of the previously accepted “facts” of the battle being called into question by new sources. What are some of these?

CRK: As I mentioned before, I think the biggest is the role of the 23rd Virginia Cavalry. Source material for John Imboden’s brigade at New Market has always been sparse, so earlier writers have not had much to work from. Edward Turner and his 1912 book The New Market Campaign could have answered this question very early on, since Turner spoke and corresponded with many veterans of the battle, primarily Confederates. Yet he provides no definitive answer, indeed may not even have thought the question needed answering, since Imboden had addressed it in his own writings years earlier. Yet for more recent authors there were enough conflicting and confusing sources out there to make it possible that the 23rd fought dismounted during the battle. This is the conclusion Davis reached, and has been used by many subsequent authors based on Davis’ book. However, looking closer at the “old” sources as well as comparing them with “new” ones, it seems that the 23rd did not fight dismounted, remaining instead with Imboden and the 18th Virginia Cavalry. The confusion seems to arise from the fact that since Confederate cavalrymen were responsible for providing their own mount, unlike their Northern counterparts who received government issued horses, a good number of Imboden’s men were without horses in early 1864 - both in the 18th and 23rd regiments. Horseflesh was so hard to come by in fact that the 62nd Virginia Mounted Infantry was entirely dismounted in early 1864. The troopers without horses from the 18th and 23rd were formed into several temporary companies attached to the 62nd, and as these troopers acquired mounts they would rejoin their own regiment. Thus when a casualty report published in the Staunton newspaper a few days after battle included men from the 23rd, without other sources, it could be interpreted to mean the 23rd fought dismounted. But again, taking all known sources from Imboden’s brigade together, it shows - to me at least - pretty conclusively that the 23rd remained mounted. Of course, all the maps on the brochures and signs at New Market Battlefield State Historical Park show the 23rd in line with the infantry . . .

SB: Previously you worked at New Market Battlefield as a Historical Interpreter. What sort of insight does that give you that other writers might not have?

CRK: I actually lived for a summer on the park grounds in the original farmhouse there, which dates to about 1817. This has always made me feel a sort of connection to the battlefield. I spent many evenings wandering the park grounds, so I am intricately familiar with the terrain, especially the “not on the regular tour” parts of the park. In giving tours to school groups, visiting military VIPs, bus tours, and regular park visitors, I noticed quickly that many of them had some of the same questions, and most of these were not addressed anywhere in writing. The two most frequently-asked ones concerned the family whose farm comprises the core of the battlefield park today and was at the center of the hottest fighting during the battle, the Bushong family, and the other the history of the park itself. So one of the appendices in my book addresses in some detail the Bushong family, their farm, and how it came to be owned by VMI and operated as New Market Battlefield State Historical Park. Although the amount of literature about battles is in some cases legion, the story of the battlefields themselves is almost forgotten. Some recent works, Tim Smith’s books about Shiloh and Chickamauga in particular, have begun to look at how the land itself was preserved and interpreted, which is an important part of the historiography of the battle.

SB: Thank you for your time, we appreciate it.

CRK: You’re welcome.

(All copyright laws apply to this interview. However, this interview may be posted digitally on the Internet or printed for use in newspapers, newsletters, magazines, and other similar uses, provided it appears in its entirety and that notice of its use is provided in advance to sarahs@savasbeatie.com. We allow partial edited use, with advance permission. Please inquire. Include our website www.savasbeatie.com and email address sales@savasbeatie.com with use. Thank you.)

Galley!!

The galley of Valley Thunder arrived in the mail yesterday!! I'm sure most, if not all, first-time authors must experience the same weird feeling that I did of holding an actual book in their hands and seeing THEIR NAME on the cover...having that, "Wow, I wrote this!" moment.

But the thing came close to being a drenched envelope of ruined paper, since it arrived during one of the worst snow storms to hit Virginia in years - of course it's nothing but RAIN here in Hampton Roads, so much so that my back yard is underwater AGAIN...Anyway, my beloved mail carrier apparently has yet to learn what that flap on his actual mail bag is for so the outer envelope it arrived in was literally falling apart, leaving a trail of cardboard mush across the floor...luckily the book itself was wrapped in plastic so it survived the ordeal, but for a moment I had my doubts...

Upcoming Events

I've got two book signings coming up, although the details have yet to be finalized. I'll be at the 2010 reenactment of the Battle of New Market, May 15 & 16, on the original battlefield, and also will be having a book signing at the MacArthur Memorial, in Norfolk, VA, probably some time in May as well. Stay tuned for more info...