[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 12]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 16067]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          REMEMBERING THE COLUMBIA-WRIGHTSVILLE BRIDGE BURNING

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 15, 2004

  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, over a century ago, on a hot summer day, an 
event occurred of national significance that by some eyewitness 
accounts, altered history, as we know it today. This act of war 
produced an obligation on the part of the Federal Government that to 
this day remains unpaid and largely forgotten.
  The event I am referring to is known as the ``Burning of the 
Columbia-Wrightsville Bridge.'' Occurring on June 28, 1863, just 72 
hours before the Battle of Gettysburg, this catastrophic event did not 
just destroy an ordinary bridge--it destroyed an extraordinary bridge. 
Completed in 1834 at a cost of $128,726.50, it was the longest covered 
wooden bridge in the world, 40 feet wide with 27 piers, it spanned 
5,620 feet across the Susquehanna River.
  Ironically, this event and its impact on the region have lived in the 
shadow of the Battle of Gettysburg. Historians may debate whether or 
not this event had any impact on the Battle of Gettysburg. There is 
however, no denying the significant impact it had on preserving the 
loss of personal property throughout the region as evidenced by the 
following statement made by Colonel Jacob G. Frick, the man who gave 
the order to destroy the bridge. ``The object to be kept in view, and 
which was paramount, was the prevention of the enemy from capturing the 
bridge, and thus frustrate them in their evident purpose to cross the 
Susquehanna at that point, get in the rear of Harrisburg, and between 
that place and Philadelphia destroy railroads and ravage the rich 
counties of Dauphin and Lancaster.''
  In order to fully understand the importance of this bridge and the 
town of Columbia, one must first examine conditions as they were in 
1863 not as they may be today. First, how many of you are aware that 
the first place to be considered as the nation's capital was Columbia, 
Pennsylvania? It was an important travel artery for westward expansion, 
at times Conestoga Wagons would have to wait several days for their 
turn to cross the bridge. Railroads including the Philadelphia and 
Columbia, the Pennsylvania, and the Reading and Columbia all converged 
along the banks of the Susquehanna at Columbia.
  These trains would either cross over the bridge to connect with the 
Susquehanna & Baltimore Railroad or transfer their cargo to packet 
boats that then traveled Westward via the Union Canal through the 
interior of Pennsylvania to Pittsburgh or where pulled by mules across 
the river via a towpath constructed on the side of the bridge to the 
Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal that connected Columbia with the 
Chesapeake Bay and beyond. Columbia being at the epicenter of this 
vital transportation network made it a logical destination for 
industries consisting of iron furnaces, rolling mills, saw mills, flour 
mills, and railroad machine shops that were supplying goods to a 
growing nation. Columbia's strategic position would have made it a fine 
prize indeed for any invading Southern army bent on disrupting vital 
communications and supply lines in the North.
  Colonel Frick made this statement in a letter from 1892: ``I was 
fully impressed with the belief at the time that this bridge was 
General Lee's objective point, and that it was to become the highway of 
the Confederate army to reach the centers which enabled the Northern 
army to maintain its position in the field by cutting off the supplies 
by capturing the eastern ports and plant the seat of war in 
Pennsylvania instead of Virginia.''
  In a letter received by Colonel Frick from Major Granville O. Haller, 
dated Seattle, April 28, 1892, says that he and Col. Thomas M. 
Anderson, commanding Fourteenth United States Infantry, had been 
discussing the burning of the bridge, Colonel Anderson wrote to Major 
Haller March 30, 1892, as follows:

       All theories apart, I should say that it would have been 
     better to have burned twenty bridges than to have taken any 
     chances. If the burning of the bridge stopped Gordon, it was 
     as important as a battle.

  On the 10th of April Major Haller sent a letter that was submitted to 
Colonel Frick in February 1892 from General John B. Gordon, admitting 
to Colonel Frick that without question his order to destroy the bridge 
stopped him and his troops from crossing, to Colonel Anderson. Colonel 
Anderson accepted it as conclusive evidence of Lee's intention, and 
thus confirmed in his opinion as to the importance of burning the 
bridge.

       Who other than God of battles would know until the 
     afternoon of July 3, whether Meade or Lee would be victor?
       If Meade, then the enemy would be driven from our border. 
     If Lee then the seat of war would have located itself between 
     the Susquehanna and the Delaware and the Hudson. The Columbia 
     Bridge would have become the Confederate highway to 
     Lancaster, Philadelphia, and New York. In their onward march 
     an army of veterans would have met with no fortified towns or 
     cities; a practically unarmed and undisciplined militia, and 
     a panic-stricken community in its front and a broken army 
     sullenly following far in its rear; who can tell what awful 
     results would have been had Lee been victorious at 
     Gettysburg, yet who knew that he would not be until July 3, 
     1863?

  Now for some particulars on the chain of events that led up to the 
burning and what transpired after that event.
  On June 10, 1863 the Department of the Susquehanna was created under 
the control of General Coach to protect the area. Notices were put out 
for volunteers to serve. By June 24, 1863 it became apparent to General 
Coach a unit of approximately 2,500 veteran soldiers continued 
Eastbound to gain control of a bridge across the Susquehanna River 
between the towns of Columbia and Wrightsville.
  On June 24, 1863, General Couch under special order #14, ordered 
Colonel Frick to proceed to Columbia and take charge of all bridges and 
fords on the line of the Susquehanna River in Lancaster County, and 
will make such dispositions as will effectively secure these crossings.
  Colonel Frick: ``My duty in the premises was plain. Gen. Couch 
plainly indicated my duty in his orders, wherein he said: `When you 
find it necessary to withdraw your command from Wrightsville leave a 
proper number on the other side to destroy the bridge; keep it open as 
long as possible with prudence and exercise your own discretion in 
doing so.'''
  It must be remembered as we look at this dramatic and critical event 
in retrospect, that as a result of this most necessary and important 
cutting of the available crossing of the river at the time of the 
invasion, a private corporation suffered a loss of property of the 
first magnitude. So evident was the effect of its destruction in the 
public mind, that we find the following statement in the Lancaster 
Examiner and Herald of July 8, 1863, but ten days following the event:

       The burning of the bridge which spanned the Susquehanna 
     River at Columbia, has given rise to a rumor that its loss 
     would have the effect of impairing the credit of the Columbia 
     Bank. This now seems will not be the case, as the structure 
     was destroyed by order of the military authorities, thus 
     making the Government responsible for all loss. The following 
     note from the Cashier of the Columbia Bank fully explains the 
     circumstances.
       June 29, 1863. Dear Sir, The bridge at this place, owned by 
     the Columbia Bank, was burned by the United States Military 
     authorities to prevent the Rebels from crossing the 
     Susquehanna River.--Signed Samuel Schock, Cashier.

  It was not until 1868 that construction of a new bridge was started.
  Today the only remnants of this piece of history are the stone piers 
still standing in the River and the story of the bridge and its 
destruction being told by Michael and Nora Stark, owners of the little 
known, but highly significant First National Bank Museum. If it were 
not for this museum, this important piece of American history would 
certainly be lost forever.

                          ____________________