Fort Scott VA Civil War Relic .52 Sharps Bullet Dug Near White House Bill Gavin

Description: Please visit our eBay store for a complete list of in-stock Civil War relics organized by recovery location. We are working as partners in conjunction with Gettysburg Relics to offer some very nice American Civil War relics for sale. The owner of Gettysburg Relics was the proprietor of Artifact at 777 on Cemetery Hill in Gettysburg for a number of years, and we are now selling on eBay. FORT SCOTT ~ ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA ~ THE DEFENSES OF WASHINGTON ~ NOT FAR FROM WASHINGTON D.C. AND THE WHITE HOUSE ~ A VERY RARE SITE TO FIND RELICS FROM (AS IT HAS BEEN A PROTECTED PARK FOR A VERY LONG TIME) ~ RECOVERED PRESUMABLY FROM THE PROPERTY OF THE 'PARK HOUSE' (OR A HOUSE SITE NEAR THE PARK) ~ FROM THE WILLIAM 'BILL' GAVIN COLLECTION ~ This interesting Civil War relic, a dropped .52 caliber Sharps Carbine flat-base bullet, was owned by renowned metal-detecting pioneer William 'Bill' Gavin. This artifact was recovered many years ago at a house (on private property and with permission) at the site of Fort Scott, in Arlington, Virginia. The tags that Bill had accompanying these relics (not included, however copies will be provided to the buyer) in his own display case # 107, read 'Fort Scott', on a yellow tag in Bill's own handwriting, and two additional tags that read 'Fort Scott' and 'Park House'. We assume that there is a chance that Bill acquired these from another digger or collector as the tags are in different pens and handwritings, but he may have had permission to hunt there as well. These two pieces of melted lead weigh 0.8 of an ounce, so slightlyless than the weight of a standard Civil War rifle bullet. The largest measures 1 1/8" by 7/8" and the smallest measures 7/8" by 1/2". These artifacts were a part of the collection of the famous relic hunter Bill Gavin and was in a group of relics that were identified in his original display case # 107 as having been found at the site of old Fort Scott in Arlington, Virginia. Bill Gavin was the first relic hunter to use a metal detector to search for Civil War artifacts (back in the 1940s following his graduation from West Point - the first location was Cold Harbor in 1946) and amassed a huge collection of items in the decades that followed. Gavin wrote four books, including the well-know "Accoutrement Plates North and South, 1861-1865" and several articles and was well respected for his knowledge in the field. He passed away in 2010. A provenance letter will be included with this relic. The following excerpts are a compilation of details about the Fort Scott including a book transcription that did not quite copy perfectly, so please ignore any errors. Fort Scott (Arlington, Virginia), Interestingly, this Fort site is just a 4.6 mile, or a 12-minute drive from the White House in Washington D.C. Fort Scott was a detached lunette constructed in May 1861 to guard the south flank of the defenses of Washington during the American Civil War. It was named for General Winfield Scott, who was then General-in-Chief of the Union Army. An historic marker and a small remnant of the fort are the only evidence of the site of the fort on the grounds of what is now Fort Scott Park in Arlington County, Virginia. The fort was one of the ring of Union Army fortifications that the Union Army constructed as part of the Civil War defenses of Washington (see Washington, D.C., in the American Civil War). It was one of 33 forts on the Virginia side of the Potomac River that made up a defense line (the Arlington Line) for the national capital city. The fort was built with a perimeter of 313 yards enclosing emplacements for eight guns, two magazines, a guard house and bombproof. Armament at one time included five 24-pounders, one 8" howitzer, one 30-pounder Parrott rifle, one 6-pounder and two 10" mortars. A May 17, 1864, report from the Union Army's Inspector of Artillery noted the following: Fort Scott, Major Trumbull commanding.–Garrison, one company First Connecticut Heavy Artillery–4 commissioned officers, 1 ordnance-sergeant, 137 men. Armament, two 12-pounder mountain howitzers, two 6- pounder James (rifled). Magazines, two; dry and in good condition. Ammunition, full supply and serviceable. Implements, complete. Drill in artillery, fair. Drill in infantry, fair. Discipline, fair. Garrison sufficient for the work." Construction of the defense of Alexandria to the west subsequently reduced the importance of the fort. The fort was abandoned in 1865 at the end of the war. The fort is located in the Arlington Ridge community. Historical Site Defenses of Washington 1861-1865 Fort Scott Here stood a detached lunette constructed in May, 1861, to guard the south flank of the defenses of Washington and named for General Winfield Scott, then General-in-Chief of the Army. It was subsequently relegated to an interior position by the construction of the defenses of Alexandria about 1¾ miles to the west. The Fort had a perimeter of 313 yards and emplacements for 8 guns. A remnant portion may be found immediately to the west. All, that is, except a square ( the equivalent of two small lots) saved from developers by the County. In this area ran the two shoulders of the fort to its point. All the contours are softened, the parapet round ed to a gentle mound about five feet above the fort's floor and the ditch filled in to within about five feet of the outside ground level. There is no sign of the raised earthen gun platforms , nor of the matching embrasures that had been cut down into the parapet. All evidence of structures within the fort is gone , the barracks, officers' quarters, magazines, guard- and well-house, well and flagpole. The entire area of the fort is grown over with several varieties of oak, some up to 18 inches in diameter. There is a thick undergrowth of cherry, locust, beech, tulip, maple, dogwood, hickory, sassafras, persimmon , pine, burnum, and black gum. With only a short length of the embankment and ditch remaining , and these deeply erode, how could the various features of the fort be located on the ground? TWO VERSIONS First, there were two drawings of the fort on file at National Archives, both with the same date (Jan. 1866 ) but differing in scale and in some detail (number of platforms / gun positions, number and type of armament, number of interior features, over-all dimensions of the fort's circumference and width of parapet and ditch). Which represented some stage in the fort's planning or development and which represented its final form? Our first reaction was to choose that one with the greater number of gun positions as depicting the completed installation. Also, its larger scale permitted more accurate measurements. Number and type of armament was not determining since at least seven different listings are noted in the records, varying up and down from a total of four pieces to eleven. Let us then bring each old drawing to a scale matching that of the present plat maps and then see how these, overlaid, would match out in elevations (high point of mid-parapet and low point of mid-ditch). But current plat maps showed contours only of the relatively short sections of perimeter now remaining, in sufficient to firmly fix the entire circumference. Through courtesy of the County Surveys and Highway Divisions, as well as local surveyors, it was possible to obtain some older plat maps. A mosaic of these now reconstituted contours of the fort as it existed some twenty years ago, happily delineating the embankment and ditch for well over half the fort's total circumference. Drawing A (Civil War drawing of the fort with the greater number of gun positions ) overlaid on our contoured plat map should now match out . But does it? Not quite. Oddly, there is found a greater distance (averaging 4½ feet ) between the high point of mid-parapet and the low point of mid-ditch on contours of the plat map than that corresponding distance on the original drawing ( displacement of 1'4" inward and 3'2" outward) . Then we overlay Drawing B ( Civil War drawing of the fort with the lesser number of gun positions) and here the match is better. Yet it varies slightly and in both directions. Were we wrong in our first choice? Someone mentioned the possible effects of erosion and we think long about that. By measuring a cross-section of the existing embankment and ditch and comparing differences in elevation with those shown in the Civil War drawings, we find that height of the embankment above the floor of the fort has decreased over the years by almost four feet. Likewise, the bottom of the ditch now is slightly more than four feet above the original level. So, a lot of earth has worn away from the parapet's top and a lot has fallen into the ditch; that could have been expected . But why the subsequent and lateral displacement of the high and low points? Another look to compare the original and existing cross-sections and we evolve a nice theory that makes Dr a wing A fit again: there is spill into the ditch from both sides but more fr om the inside ( the higher bank ) , thus leaving the outside of the ditch to fill a t a slower rate; the original top of the parapet peak ed toward the in side and, although weathering would round off both corners, the high point would end up inward from the original mid -point. Still only a theory, and how could we confirm it ? By courtesy of Colonel Joe Mitchell, Museum Curator of the restored Fort Ward in neighboring Alexandria, we read the report of the archeologist who was their technical advisor. In his work of preparing a sample restoration for the City's guidance, Mr. Larrabee excavated a cross-section of parapet and ditch to comp are w ith that of th e 1865-reco rd ed survey. And, lo and behold , he found a subsequent and lateral displacement between the high point of mid-parapet and the l ow point of mid -ditch totaling five feet (one foot inward and four feet outward) . Let us stop there! Satisfied that our choice of Dr aw in g A best fitted the existing contours of the fort ( allowing for erosion ) , could we ignore interior detail shown only on Drawing B? Guided by the doctrine that it was better to h ave too much rather than too little, we went back and borrowed w hat seemed like important things missing from Drawing A ( we ll and guard-house and flag- pol e). This gave us a composite, incorporating features of both drawings, and only considerable digging can prove us wrong. Someone is sure to point out that , with latitude and longitude of the flagpole given in Barnard's data , and with bearings of ea ch segment of the fort' s sides recorded in the Civil War drawing, why no t work these figures against a presently surveyed point in the area? True, the location of the fort' s flagpole was given as Latitude 38 ° 50' 48.24" and Longitude 77 °03' 17.0" , and that app ears quite specific. But 0.1" of latitude turns out on the g round and in this area to be a distance of ten feet and of longitude to be eight fee t. More Over, it was found that the transfer of co ordinates given on the Civil War maps unaccountably requires a constant correction of plus 1459' in longitude and plus 271' in latitude to match current U.S. Geo logical Surve y d ata for an identifiable feature common to both maps. Ev en the item " Flagstaff 3.996 miles from Capitol Dome" left us, in the last significant figure, no closer than five feet to the flagpole's position. Bearings of the fort's segments, recorded in readings to only the nearest one-half degree, would permit in that range a divergence, within the distance of one segment's length (206' ), of an arc 1'10" in width. This much possible error , if additive for each segment, could give us a fort whose sides would not close. Doubts thus cast on old survey data led us to depend on the method of overlay where high and low points were match ed by eye. This procedure is known as the "Sanders-Brewer Orientation by Flotation." plot map, is most soundly based on the principle d matching high and low contour lines / elevations. FUTURE? Efforts to preserve Fort Scott go back many years. Of record we nave action in 1959 to secure that eastern portion of the earthworks still remaining. Slightly more than half ( the western portion) had been obliterated in the development of homes and streets during the 40's. In June of 1959, County officials reported that, to acquire the then remains of the fort (approximately four sizable building lots) would cost an estimated $30,000 to $35,000. Moreover, the property owner refused any exchange of land with the County and could be expected to go to court to prevent any division of the area that would hazard his prospects with developers. In July of that same year the Arlington Historical Society wrote to the County officials restating its views . It expressed the desire that the County secure whatever it could of the property, preferably the best-preserved portion of the earthworks lying adjacent to the playground , hoping that the area could be developed as an historic site which would prove of educational value and interest to Arlington residents and visitors. The letter further stated: "We believe that citizens are more likely to take pride and inter est in their community if they feel that it has links with the past than if it appears to have sprung full-panoplied from the head of Jove. We are dedicated • to the objective of encouraging research into Arlington's history, and preservation of what tangible evidence of that history which remains, to the end that those links with the past will be soundly anchored. Too few of those tangible evidences remain because insufficient knowledge of their existence or indifference to their significance has prevailed hitherto in Arlington." Subsequent act i on of the County acquired roughly a square area, ap- proximately 123 feet on the side, adjoining the Fort Scott play ground area, and encompassing the apex of the fort. This leaves standing today about 140 linear feet of the original embankment within the County area and an extension of the left wing some 50 feet into the lot of an obliging property owner adjacent. By initiative of the Arlington County Cultural Heritage Commission, the County has recently approve d funds for the placing of historical markers at each of Arlington' s Civil War forts. That for Fort Scott will be erected on Fort Scott Drive a t the entrance to the playground and is expected to be in place by the time this article is published. In July of this year the Arlington Historical Society proposed to the Cultural Heritage Commission minor restoration of the remains of Fort Scott as a historic site ready to receive visitors. This plan would provide appropriate recognition for the site but short of any formal ( expensive measures of restoration (i.e., reshaping of slopes to original contours) and included these recommendations: a. County acquisition of property from adjacent home owners sufficient to include location of the flagpole base. b. Erection of fence along two boundaries of the area to protect adjacent property owners from inadvertent damage by visitors. c. Resetting of old unearthed brick at ground level to form flagpole base in original location and pattern. d . Mounting of weather- and vandal-proof plaque in fort's interior showing Civil War drawing of fort and with notation "You are here." e. Procurement of Civil War cannon (or replica) of type actually used in the fort and placement in position in the fort' s apex. f. Erection of footbridge to provide easy entry from the playground area into the fort's interior, providing aid for the elderly and preventing further wearing down of the em bankment. g. Erection of signs to l ea d visitors off the street (For t Scott Drive) into the playground parking area, to indicate direction of the fort's access, and to show route int o the fort. The Arlington County Cultural Heritage Commission is sympathetic toward these proposals. It ha s communicated with Captain Robert C. Giffen, Jr., U.S.N., and Mr. Edward H. Sanders, adjacent property holders, on whose land the base of the flagpole extends. Captain Giff en has offered to don ate approximately 200 sq. ft. to the County and Mr. Sanders ap- proximately 57 sq. ft. so that the flagpole base can be included in the site to be developed. Action to accomplish these conveyances is now in process. The Commission will submit to the County Board its recommendations with respect to the other proposals of the Historical Society in time for pro vision to be made for them in the next County budget. The small part of Fort Scott which exists today is one of the few rem- nants of the extensive Civil War fortifications in Arlington to survive our progress in home .. business and street development. It is the only one on the south side of the County. The District, Maryland, and other municipalities of Virginia have restorations of these historic sites in some degree. With the bare trace of a fragment of Fort Scott remaining to us, steadily being worn down by erosion, surrounded on three sides by private property, our challenge today is what Arlington can do to further preserve this link with our past. As the Arlington parks program expands, might it not tomorrow be possible to full y r es tore the preserved remnant of this fort- fosse and parapet, gabion and embrasure, abatis and platform , banquette and scarp, all these rich details in the original magnitude of their materials, lines and grades?' We include as much documentation with the relics as we possess. This includes copies of tags if there are original identification tags or maps, as well as a signed letter of provenance with the specific recovery information. All of the collections that we are offering for sale are guaranteed to be authentic and are either older recoveries, found before the 1960s when it was still legal to metal detect battlefields, or were recovered on private property with permission. Land on Battlefields that is now Federally owned, or owned by the Trust, was acquired after the relics were recovered. We will not buy or sell any items that were recovered illegally, nor will we sell any items that we suspect were recovered illegally. Thank you for viewing!

Price: 45 USD

Location: York, Pennsylvania

End Time: 2024-09-23T23:03:50.000Z

Shipping Cost: N/A USD