|
The National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Galvanic Action from Association of Zinc and Iron
[The following narrative is taken from Frederick W. True’s Semi-centennial history of the National Academy of Sciences, A History of the First Half-Century of the National Academy of Sciences 1863-1913, pp. 232-239.]
At the close of the Civil War and for some years afterwards the headstones which marked the graves of soldiers in the national military cemeteries consisted for the most part of wooden blocks, painted white, with the names of the soldiers, the numbers of the regiments to which they belonged, and other data in black lettering. It was felt both by the Government and by the general public that these perishable marks should be replaced by others of an enduring character before the records which they bore should become obliterated.
It was determined by the War Department, probably on the recommendation of General Meigs, Quartermaster-General, that the permanent marks should take the form of cast-iron blocks coated with zinc. It was suggested to the Secretary of War, however, that these blocks might be injured or destroyed as a result of galvanic action between the two metals. He, therefore, requested through the Acting Quartermaster-General that a committee of the Academy to be appointed to advise him as to the probability of such action in the metal headstones.
The letter was as follows:
“Quartermaster General’s Office,
“Washington, D.C., January 8, 1867
“Sir: It having been suggested to the War Department that the coating with zinc of the iron head-blocks, with which is proposed to mark soldiers’ graves, will produce galvanic action that will tend to a destruction of the iron blocks, the Secretary of War has directed me to submit the subject to the Academy of Sciences here with a view to obtain an intelligent opinion on it, and to ascertain if there be any good ground for the apprehension.
“In obedience to this direction, I respectfully submit the subject to you with a request that you will present it to the Academy of Sciences and advise me of their opinion thereon, that I may make report thereof to the Secretary of War.
“I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
“D. H. Rucker,
“Acting Quartermaster General, Brevet Major General
“The president of the Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.”
A committee consisting of Joseph Henry, J.H.C. Coffin and Joseph Saxton was appointed by the President on the same day. It reported on January 17, as follows:
“National Academy of Sciences,
“Washington, January 17, 1867
“Sir: In compliance with your request, the undersigned, a committee of the National Academy, appointed to examine, the proposed cast-iron head-blocks for soldiers’ graves, and state, whether, in their opinion, the coating of zinc will tend to produce a galvanic action destructive to the iron, respectfully report as follows:
“The head-block submitted to the committee is a hollow truncated pyramid of cast iron, on one side of which, in raised figures, is the No. 12,646, and on the top, also in raised letters, the name of a soldier, his regiment, and a date, probably that of his death. This block is entirely covered inside and out with a coating of zinc, a greater thickness n the surface containing the letters and figures.
“From well-established principles of galvanism, and from the direct experiments of the committee, it is certain that while the zinc coating covers every part of the surface of the iron, no other galvanic action will take place than that exhibited in the ordinary corroding of a single metal, but that as soon as the smallest portion of the iron is exposed to the liquid precipitation from the atmosphere, a galvanic current will be established passing through the liquid from the zinc to the iron, that the former will be more rapidly corroded than it was previous to the exposure of the iron, and that this action will go on until all the zinc is dissolved. The iron, during the process, will be protected from the action of the atmosphere, at the expense of the zinc. After all the zinc has been dissolved, the iron, being unprotected, will then be corroded in the usual manner.
“From this statement it is evident that the coating of zinc will tend to prolong the existence of the iron in its metallic state, though it will not afford a perpetual protection such as may be given by a coating of enamel like that used in covering the basins of iron sinks, kettles, etc.
“The experiment made by the committee consisted in attaching to one end of the wire of a galvanometer a plate of zinc and to the other end a plate of iron. These two plunged in a vessel of water slightly acidulated by sulphuric acid, gave rise to a powerful current of galvanism from the zinc to the iron. While the zinc was rapidly corroded the iron remained unaffected. By substituting for the zinc a plate of copper, a still more powerful current was produced in the opposite direction. The iron in this case was violently acted upon, while the copper retained its brightness.
“The committee may state, as a general rule, that when two different metals are placed in metallic contact, the one most readily acted on by an acid will be dissolved, while the other will be protected, and that the action on the metal dissolved will be increased in intensity by the association. Thus, iron in association with zinc is protected, while the same metal in connection with copper is more rapidly corroded than it is without such connection.
“Respectfully submitted,
“Joseph Henry,
“J.H.C. Coffin,
“Joseph Saxton.
“General D.H. Rucker, U.S.A.,
“Acting Quartermaster General.”
It will be observed that this report refers exclusively to the metals composing the headstones and that the opinion expressed was that iron blocks would not endure perpetually. While the report was pending, a discussion of another character regarding these headstones took place in the Senate. The House of Representatives had passed a bill (house Res. No. 788) for the marking of soldiers’ graves in the National Cemeteries, and this bill was reported from the Committee on Military Affairs to the Senate on January 18, 1867. It was in charge of Senator Wilson of Massachusetts, who, it will be remembered, introduced the bill for the incorporation of the Academy in 1863. The following discussion ensued:
“National Cemeteries.
“(Senate, January 18, 1867,)
“Mr. Wilson. I am directed by the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia to report back without amendment the bill (H.R. No. 788) to establish and protect national cemeteries; and I ask for its present consideration.
“By unanimous consent, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill….
“The second section provides that each grave shall be marked with a small marble or cast-iron headstone, with the number of the grave thereon corresponding with the number opposite to the name of the party inscribed on the monument….
“Mr. Wade. I have seen some of these iron monuments provided for by this bill, and I think it is not creditable to the country to have such monuments over the graves of our soldiers. They are small cast-iron slabs, not more, perhaps, than eighteen inches high.
“Mr. Ramsay. Not over twelve inches.
“Mr. Wade. Perhaps that is it; I did not measure them. They look more like a tin kettle than anything else, and are liable to be kicked off and kicked about and changed from one grave to another by any mischievous person. I think the Committee on Military Affairs cannot have seen a specimen of them. They seem to me to be totally inadequate for the purpose contemplated, and it s discreditable to the country to erect such things as monuments for its soldiers.
“Mr. Conness. A kind of solemn toy!
“Mr. Wade. Yes, a solemn toy or whatever you please. It is a burlesque rather than a monument. If we cannot do any better than that, I would much rather that nothing should be done. I think it is discreditable to us, and must be a means of wounding the feelings of the relations of the soldiers who may have occasion to visit the cemeteries where their remains are deposited.
“I hope the bill will not pass in this form. I think it had better lie over, and let the Committee on Military Affairs inspect these monuments and see if some better model cannot be adopted. I was assured by persons in charge of some of the cemeteries that they were entirely opposed to the adoption of any such plan or style of monument, and I agree with them most heartily. I think if the Military Committee will look into the subject they will come to the same conclusion that I have arrived at. There are other gentlemen here who inspected some of these cemeteries as the same time that I did, and who as I understand came to the same conclusion.
“Mr. Wilson. By existing law the War Department was authorized to prepare these monuments, and I am told they have agreed upon this plan. I have no particular reason for pressing this bill now if the Senate does not wish to act upon it at present. I am willing to take time to make further inquiries. The main feature of the bill, however, and the great object is to get possession of the land necessary for the sites of these cemeteries.
“Mr. Ramsay. I think if the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs would inquire of the Quartermaster’s Department in this city he would find a large number of protests there from all those who have charge of these national cemeteries in the South against the adoption of this plan, which seems to have met the approbation of the Department, of iron tombstones, so called. They almost universally object, and there are many representations on file upon the subject. I think the committee should take some steps immediately to check the further execution of the contract if it has already been entered into. It is unquestionably wrong.
“Mr. Wilson. I have no objection to the bill lying over, and I shall call it up after I have made the necessary inquiries.
“The President pro tempore. It is moved that the further consideration of this bill be postponed.
“The motion was agreed to.”
[Congressional Glove, January 18, 1867, pp. 539, 540]
On February 9, 1867, the bill was recommitted to the same committee and was reported back on February 13, 1867.
On February 14, 1867, it was taken up for discussion and the 1st and 2d sections amended and consolidated so as to direct the Secretary of War merely “to cause each grave to be marked with a small headstone, or block, with the number of the grave inscribed thereon,” etc., without specifying the material. The bill was then passed.
The Secretary of War had, in the meantime, received the report of the Academy, which he acknowledged in the following letter:
“War Department, Washington, D.C.,
“January 23, 1867
“Prof. Henry, Etc., Etc.
“Dear Sir: The report made at my request by the National Academy, relative to the subject of galvanic action on the iron head-blocks proposed for marking soldiers’ graves, has been submitted to his department, and I offer my thanks to the Committee for the valuable information it contains. I beg now to refer the case back again for report whether there is anything known to the Academy of a nature which would be more suitable on account of its durability, and at the same time not so expensive as to forbid its use for the purpose, than the combination of materials already submitted to your Committee for their opinion; and would be glad to have an opinion as to the fitness of these materials for the purpose designated.
“Very respectfully, dear dir, your obedient servant,
“Edwin M. Stanton,
“Secretary of War.”
[Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., vol I, pp. 61, 62]
There is no evidence in the records of the Academy that this second request was complied with, though in view of subsequent proceedings it is not unlikely that it was.
As indicated by the discussion in Congress, opinion in the War Department was divided on the subject of the headstones, some officials favoring the iron blocks and others regarding them as unsuitable. Quartermaster-General Meigs was absent from duty on account of illness during the year 1867 and a part of 1868 also, and on December 19, 1867, the acting officer, General Rucker, made a number of recommendations to the Secretary of War relative to the National Cemeteries, among which was the following:
“That proposals be speedily invited by the Quartermaster-General for cast-iron (zinked) head-blocks of the pattern enclosed, in quantities sufficient to mark all the graves not now supplied with proper wooden head-boards; and the contract for them be let, and the blocks erected without delay (provided it shall be deem too expensive to erect stone blocks, after definitely ascertaining the true cost of the same).” [Rep. Secr. War for 1868, vol. 3, part I, p. 908. Exec. Doc. No. I, 40th Congress, 3d Session.]
The paper was returned on January 3, 1868, with the following endorsement: “Erect the fences and lodges, but do nothing about the headstones. By order of the Secretary of War. (Signed) Ed. Schriver, Inspector General.” [Loc. Cit.]
Later, when General Meigs returned to duty, he submitted a report, dated October 20, 1868, in which he remarked:
“On Headstones in National Cemeteries
“No progress has been made in erecting, as required by law, permanent blocks at each grave.
“I am still of the opinion that the best monument for this purpose yet contrived is the small rectangular block of cast iron, galvanized to protect it from rust, and filled with earth or cement.
“This planted at the grave will last for many years. It is not costly, is easily transported, and not an object of plunder.
“With the wages of stone-cutters at $5 a day, the cost of 320,000 headstones properly lettered would be a very great charge upon the treasury.
“The wooden head-boards are now rapidly decaying, and to replace them is expensive.
“For the action of the department in this matter I refer to the detailed report of Colonel [C.W.] Folsom herewith.” [Rep. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster General, in Rep. Secr. War for 1868, p. 818. Colonel Folsom’s report occurs in the same document, pp. 894-916.]
No further action appears to have been taken in the matter until 1872, when Congress amended the Act of 1867, so that the Secretary of War was directed merely to “cause each grave to be marked by a small headstone, with the name of the soldier and the name of the State inscribed thereon..” [Stat. at Large, vol. 17, 1873, p. 345, 42d Congress, 2d Session, chap. 368. Act approved June 8, 1872.] The question of material, which is here omitted, as it was from the Act of 1867, was finally settled the following year, when Congress directed that, “the headstones… shall be of durable stone, and of such design and weight as shall keep them in place when set,…. and the Secretary of War shall first determine for the various cemeteries the size and model for such headstones, and the standards of quality and color of the stone to be used.” [Stat. at Large, vol. 17, 1873, pp. 545, 546, 42d Congress, 3d Session, chap. 229. Act approved March 3, 1873.]
Thus, after the lapse of more than six years the Government was committed to a course of action which was in harmony with the advice of the Academy, though it is probable that esthetic and sentimental considerations had more weight than that of permanence. 
|
|
Subscribe to e-newsletters |
Feedback | Back to Top