Civil War Battle Ring

[RockyDig]

I will soon be posting pics of a gold ring that a relative of mine owns. It is a gold ring with 16 battle names etched in it. The ring was featured in the North South Trader Civil War magazine in the mid 80's and then was voted Find of the Century by the subscribers around the year 2000. It has only been displayed at 2 or 3 relic shows. The last one was the Northern Virginia Relics Hunters show in Chantilly, VA in 2002. There were some great reactions by the public.

Anyway, I was excited for the chance to have photos taken of this and I will share them as soon as possible.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Skrimpy]

I still think that a regular soldier could not have afforded this ring.

Doc

In that case...finding the owner of this ring is going to take a family story, journal, diary, news article about a missing battle ring. In other words...fat chance finding the owner. Or at least one with a true legal claim to it...
There is only one way I think that a reasonable list of names can be researched. The NARA soldiers and sailors database. If and when it ever inluces the information that you know about each soldier can a list of names be generated. Here is the info you need.

1. Survived the war (this is kind of a question...this could be a ring that was made for a son, or a brother but I doubt it, to get around it you could include those that died after the last battle listed on the ring)
2. All battles fought...the more battles listed the less soldiers there will be
3. Finally, where it was found. If it was found at an encampment...jackpot. What regiments were at this encampment, along a troop movement trail, or at a battle site. This will narrow down your list greatly. Also, if it wasn't found at an encampent, the town/property it was found on might lend a little info...what soldiers lived in that town? Or, a little bit harder to track, what soldiers had family in that town?

All that being said...I would start with the highest ranking officers that were at those battles. Especially the Generals. They tended to fight a lot of battles and stay alive. I don't know if this is because the highest ranking officers tended to avoid the fray, or if they were respected enough that boys never targeted them. I would think they avoided the fray for the most part. Now the big thing is you can't do this all on your own...it's going to take a big team of historians to do all that work. Good luck.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[RockyDig]

Thanks for the comments and the input. I haven't been on in a while, just wanted to comment on this. I haven't had time for much research but would like to get down to the local library soon. I will keep you posted on this one.

 

[DigDugNY]

That is a very nice ring........Thats like a once in a lifetime thing........congrats to whoever found that...thnaks for posting it

 

[brnn53]

My g-g-g-grandfather was killed at Fair Oaks. Really fantastic find!
Mike

 

[Skrimpy]

My g-g-g-grandfather was killed at Fair Oaks. Really fantastic find!
Mike

You mean one of your 16 "g-g-g-grandfathers"

 

[RockyDig]

Can't wait until the weather gets better to dig some more!!!

 

[potsy]

That ring is nice, Would love to hear the stories behind that one.

 

[ModernMiner]

Man, what a great find. Thanks for sharing.
-MM-

 

[Skrimpy]

Needless to say this ring is a priceless piece of American History.

My 6-times great-grandfather lived in Southern Arkansas. He had 3 boys and some girls (not sure how many) I believe. 2 of his sons were killed outright during the Civil War....fighting for the South. The other son fought for the Union, was wounded seriously, and died 5 to 6 years later for reasons supposedly related to the wound.

Fortunately, my 5-times Great Grandfather (one of the two killed fighting for the South) had some children before he died, which eventually allowed me to be born.

I saw the movie Cold Mountain last year, and it messed with my head, as there were some relatives in my family back then who were killed by rogue soldiers who accused the men of collaberation with the Union, and hung them in the front yard of their house, leaving the wife and daughters to suffer. Good movie, but I never want to see it again, as it was too depressing.

Too much suffering happened during that war. My family unfortunately had to bear some of it as well.

I think I read a stat that said that more americans died in the civil war than all other wars combined.

 

[{Sentinel}]

Yeah welcome to the club. My family and all their estate and belongings were totally wiped out by Sherman and his hellish legions. My family had quite an estate before the war with about 100 acres....ALL BURNED AND DESTROYED by marauding rogue invaders. I have a picture of my family at the turn of the 20th century (1901) and they are in shambles living in a shack! This was the legacy that Sherman and his "scorched earth" policy left my family!

 

[Skrimpy]

Yeah welcome to the club. My family and all their estate and belongings were totally wiped out by Sherman and his hellish legions. My family had quite an estate before the war with about 100 acres....ALL BURNED AND DESTROYED by marauding rogue invaders. I have a picture of my family at the turn of the 20th century (1901) and they are in shambles living in a shack! This was the legacy that Sherman and his "scorched earth" policy left my family!

I had an uncle in the 178th. They were in the south although I do not know if they were ever under Sherman. If it makes you feel any better, my family lived in shacks and subsistence farmed before the war and lived in shacks and subsistence farmed after the war too. Including the uncle. This is true with most of the soldiers. It was aweful. That war should never have happened. The CS should have just given up the slaves in favor of servants. There would have been no loss of life and nobody would have come out of the 19th century with a bloody nose and axe to grind.

 

[Skrimpy]

The CS should have just given up the slaves in favor of servants. There would have been no loss of life and nobody would have come out of the 19th century with a bloody nose and axe to grind.

Back to the history books with ya, Skrimpy. The war wasn't about slavery.

To help ya out with this touchy subject, research when the North freed their slaves, and when Gen. Grant freed his, too

Of course it wasn't! There is always more than one reason a nation goes to war. Most people did not own slaves. Most people lived on family farms and grew their crops the old fashioned way...using their kids as cheap labor. Most people didn't care. I bet some people didn't even know it was going on! They just wanted to survive! Slaves for the most part were property of the wealthy landowners who needed cheap labor to continue to profit as they did. If they had to pay for labor they would lose profit. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 shows that abolitionist politicians were trying to get rid of slavery quickly and the Kansas-Nabraska Act of 1854 set forth by Stephen Douglas (a wealthy northern landowner with a motivation to keep slavery) and the ensuing acts of violence in Kansas (and on the Senate floor by Robert Brooks) showed that the South wa snot so ready to give it up. It wasn't about slavery, but MONEY, ECONOMICS and the rich wanting to stay rich! It's just that the wealthy weren't going to continuing living in the other half if the influential abolitionist politicians got their way by turning slavery into a moral issue rather than an economic one. If the Southern economy and wealthy politicians profits (both Northern and Southern) were not based on slavery, the war would not have happened. So, in fact you are right that the war was not about slavery, but the fighting would never have happened if it weren't for slavery...and you are also right that Northern slaveowners didn't give up their slaves until they had to. Most of the Rebels fought because they felt the Yanks were an invading army of marauders (which there is a good argument that Sherman's men were). A very noble cause if you ask me. Not because they wanted to keep their slaves. If the wealthy had sucked it up and got their own hands dirty so many Americans would not have died. Like so many times throughout history many of the poor died horrible deaths while the rich that sent them off to the war to protect their own interests sat and spectated while sipping on the best wine and smoking the best cigars. In the end the worst part of the whole thing is that the North and South to this day are still a little divided just because resentment carrys generations. A friend told me that, being a "Yank" it would be very, very bad for my own well being if I mentioned "The War" in public during my visit to him in Charlston. To me all this says that most Northerns need to educate themselves to why individual soldiers fought and those Southerners that still harbor resentment need to pick a tissue up and dab the blood off their nose. Their ancestors thought they were fighting for their freedom convinced so by the wealthy who knew better. As far as Grant owning slaves...I'm sure he didn't want to see them go. The only reason he fought for the North was because he feared a divided nation.

 

[RockyDig]

It's strange that if my neighbor and I disagree over something and I punch him in the face I'd go to jail. When nations or parts of nations disagree they kill as many as the other guys as possible and whomever wins is 'right'. War is something that has been going on since the beginning of humans. It has been over food, land, and anything else that a more dominate force wanted. It will eventually be the end of us as well. Just putting in my 2 cents.

 

[Skrimpy]

It's strange that if my neighbor and I disagree over something and I punch him in the face I'd go to jail. When nations or parts of nations disagree they kill as many as the other guys as possible and whomever wins is 'right'. War is something that has been going on since the beginning of humans. It has been over food, land, and anything else that a more dominate force wanted. It will eventually be the end of us as well. Just putting in my 2 cents.

There are "just" wars and "unjust" wars regardless of who wins. Were the Allies "right" for going into Europe? Absolutely. Would they have been right if they had lost? Absolutely. All wars are started because one side has, wants, or wants to increase its money and power. Were we right in the wars we waged on the Native Americans? Absolutely not. We "won" those wars. State sanctioned killing is killing anyway you slice it, but killing is only just when it is used to stop a sociopath whos main goals are to commit genocide and take over the world.

 

[Hillbilly bread]

FWR has got it right. It was not about slavery. That is what you heard in school. History is changed by Yankee schools. Hillbilly Bread<><

 

[Hillbilly bread]

By the way realy nice ring. HB<><

 

[AOSDC]

Amazing ring!!!!

Names I see

FAIR OAKS
CHANTILLY
ANTIETAM
FREDRICKSBURG
WILLIAMSBURG
THE WILDERNESS
PETERSBURG
YORKTOWN
NORTH ANNA RIVER
PITTSBURG LANDING?
HANOVER CH= COURT HOUSE
C HA ROUR---- might be a name C. HA ROURKE? or charles rourke?

I found a charles rourke but don't know if thats the name

101st Penn volunteers
ROURKE, Charles - Corporal, Co. E. Enlisted 1 Sept `61 at age 22, a Farmer from Allegheny Co., PA. Mustered in 5 Nov `61. Re-enlisted. Captured 20 April `64 at Plymouth, NC. Held captive at Andersonville, GA. Paroled. Mustered out 25 June `65. Died 2 Oct 1922 at Crafton, Allegheny Co., PA.

 

[RockyDig]

WOW, never thought of that, we've always assumed the C HA ROUR was Cold Harbor but that a very interesting theory. It almost has to be Cold Harbor though because of where it's placed on the ring.

N A RIVER May 22-27 1864
C HA ROUR June 1-3 1864
PETERSBG June 9+ 1864

It fits chronologically and looking at some papers I have of participating regiments the 101 Pennsylvania Volunteers are not listed in these battles. Hopefully those initials fit another soldier's name from a regiment that participated in these battles. Thanks for looking that up and for thinking outside the box!!

 

[Skrimpy]

FWR has got it right. It was not about slavery. That is what you heard in school. History is changed by Yankee schools. Hillbilly Bread<><

I agree 100%. It wasn't about slavery. It also at the same time wasn't about "Southern Independence" or "Northern Agression". These are just the Southern counter parts for the Northern terms "slavery/states rights", and "preserving the union". It was about MONEY plain and simple. The Missouri Compromise, Kansas Nebraska Act, slavery, and secession were all underlying factors, and political tools used to get the poor to fight. Preston Brooks beat down of Charles Sumner was just a microcosm of what was happening in Kansas, and a foreshadowing of the fighting to come. The wealthy in the South wanted to secede because of the ECONOMIC problems that would result if they had to start paying people for labor...not because they "wanted to keep theirs slaves", or "to gain independence". Most of the common men did not own slaves, and most probably didn't care one way or the other. The North fought because of the ECONOMIC problems that would occur if it lost half of the country. It's all about the bottom line. Nothing more nothing less. The history books talk of the noble causes of "Southern freedom", "stopping Northern agression", "ending slavery", and "preserving the union". All false pretenses for Northern and Southern politicians to further their economic cause and convince the common man to fight for them. If you believe anything else, the Johnny Reb Schools have you as duped as the Yankee schools have duped everyone else. All wars are about money, power, or both. Not about human rights, or indepencence.

 

[Hillbilly bread]

Yes the north was taxing the south two or three times as much as they where there own north. That is where a lot of the money was coming in, from the cotton. I think this would be a good topic under politics. Hillbilly Bread<><