VIRGINIA
`
`
`
`Richmond, Virginia
`
`
`
`
`Published quarterly by the DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES
`Natural Resources Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22903
`
`VOL. 47
`
`NOVEMBER 2001
`
`NO. 4
`
`GEOLOGY AND HISTORY OF CONFEDERATE SALTPETER
`CAVE OPERATIONS IN WESTERN VIRGINIA
`
`Robert C. Whisonant
`Department ofGeology
`Radford University
`Radford, VA 24142
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`During theAmerican Civil War, Confederate military forces faced shortages ofmany critical materials, but gun-
`powderwas rarely among them. Thanks to its abundance ofsaltpeter caves, the South built a first-rate niter and
`gunpowderindustry almostfrom the ground up. Even atthe end ofthe war, powdermills were still operating anda
`supply ofgunpowderwas on hand. This article, one in a series concerning geology andthe Civil War in southwestem
`Virginia (Whisonant, 1996a; 1996b; 1997; 1998; 2000), looks at the geology ofcave niter deposits, and the use of
`this invaluable strategic material to keep alive the dream ofsouthem independence.
`In the 1860s, the principal ingredient ofblack gunpowder waspotassium nitrate, derived from niter or
`saltpeter as it was called (Figure 1). Each powdergrain contained about 75 per cent niter, together with
`charcoal (15 percent) and sulfur (10 percent). When war began between North and South inApril 1861, the
`Confederacy did not possess an adequate supply ofgunpowder. Planned importation ofpowdercouldnot
`meetall ofthe South’s needs,as the Union blockade ofConfederate ports quickly proved. Thus, the need for
`astrong, home-based gunpowder supply, and consequently a steady source ofniter, became evident. Among
`the potential providers ofniter were the numeroussaltpeter cavesin the limestoneregions ofthe Southeast.
`Virginia has an abundance ofsuch caverns in the carbonate rock masses westofthe Blue Ridge (Figure 2), and
`these contributed substantially to the Old Dominion’s unsurpassed role in the production ofniter. Eventually,
`Virginia (along with parts ofeastern WestVirginia) provided moreofthis strategic resource than any other
`Confederate state (Schroeder-Lein, 1993a).
`Butniter was notVirginia’s only important mineral contribution to the Confederacy (Boyle, 1936). Besides
`this mostbasic necessity for mid-nineteenth century warfare, the Old Dominion provided massive amounts of
`lead,salt, iron, and coal. Virginia was,in fact, the major mineral-
`during the Civil War (Dietrich, 1970). Saltpeter manufacturedi
`eG
`ee
`:
`mined materials in Virginia in that it was highly decentralized (a tra
`
`Human Power of N Company
`EX1044
`Page | of 12
`
`Human Power of N Company
`EX1044
`Page 1 of 12
`
`

`

`COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
`PARTMENT OF MINES, MINERALS AND
`Richmond, Virginia
`
`Published quarterly by the DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES
`
`VOL. 47
`
`NOVEMBER 2001
`
`NO. 4
`
`GEOLOGY AND HISTORY OF CONFEDERATE SALTPETER
`CAVE OPERATIONS IN WESTERN VIRGINIA
`
`Robert C. Whisonant
`Department of Geology
`Radford University
`Radford, VA 24 142
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`During the American Civil War, Confederate military forces faced shortages ofmany critical materials, but gun-
`powder was rarely among them. Thanks to its abundance of saltpeter caves, the South built a first-rate niter and
`gunpowder industry almost fkom the ground up. Even at the end of the war, powder mills were still operating and a
`supply of gunpowder was on hand This article, one in a series concerning geology and the Civil War in southwestern
`V i a (Wlusonant, 1996a; 199th; 1997; 1998; 2000), looks at the geology of cave niter deposits, and the use of
`this invaluable strategic material to keep alive the dream of southem independence.
`In the 1860s, the principal ingredient of black gunpowder was potassium nitrate, derived fiom niter or
`saltpeter as it was called (Figure 1). Each powder grain contained about 75 per cent niter, together with
`charcoal (1 5 percent) and sulfur (10 percent). When war began between North and South in April 186 1, the
`Confederacy did not possess an adequate supply of gunpowder. Planned importation of powder could not
`meet all of the South's needs, as the Union blockade of Confederate ports quickly proved. Thus, the need for
`a strong, home-based gunpowder supply, and consequently a steady source of niter, became evident. Among
`the potential providers of niter were the numerous saltpeter caves in the limestone regions of the Southeast.
`Virginia has an abundance of such caverns in the carbonate rock masses west of the Blue Ridge (Figure 2), and
`these contributed substantially to the Old Dominion's unsurpassed role in the production of niter. Eventually,
`Virginia (along with parts of eastern West Virginia) provided more of this strategic resource than any other
`Confederate state (Schroeder-Lein, 1993a).
`But niter was not Virginia's only important mineral contribution to the Confederacy (Boyle, 1936). Besides
`this most basic necessity for mid-nineteenth century warfare, the Old Dominion provided massive amounts of
`lead, salt, iron, and coal. Virgmia was, in fact, the major mineral-producing state in the South both before and
`during the Civil War (Dietrich, 1970). Saltpeter manufacture differed significantly fiom the other principal
`mined materials inVirginia in that it was highly decentralized (a trait common to niter production throughout the
`
`Page 1 of 12
`
`

`

`34
`
`VIRGINIA DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES
`
`VOL. 47
`
`Figure 1. The Last Confederate Cun at Gettysburg (courtesy of the Library of Virginia). This typical smoky
`battle scene illustrates the importance of gunpowder, and thus the saltpeter from which it was derived, during
`the Civil War. Southern armies were generally well-supplied with gunpowder throughout the was-.
`
`Confederacy). For example, the lead and salt came
`exclusively h m Austinville and Saltville respectively, iron
`mostly from well-defined belts in the Valley and Ridge,
`and coal nearly entirely from the Richmond coal fields.
`Virginia's saltpeter caves are scattered over numerous
`western counties and, like many caverns, not easy to
`locate. Consequently, the niter cave operations were
`never the principal target of Union attacks, although
`several such facilities were threatened and even destroyed
`fiom time to time during Federal invasions.
`
`GEOLOGY OF NITER DEPOSITS
`
`The connection between caves and nitrate-rich de-
`posits has been known and exploited for centuries. For
`most of this time, organic material (primarily bat guano)
`was assumed to be the source of cave nitrates (Hill,
`198 1). Hess (1 900) challenged this belief and asserted
`that the saltpeter sediments of Mammoth Cave and other
`eastern caverns formed through the activities of nitrify-
`ing bacteria in surface soils above the caves. There, he
`suggested, waters percolating through the soils &ssolved
`thenitrate afldcarrieditundergr~undtobe re~reci~ibkd
`where water dripped from cave roofs into floor sedi-
`ments.
`
`Figure 2. Photograph of the entrance to a ni-
`ter-producing cave in westem Virginia. Cav-
`ems such as these produced massive amounts
`of saltpeter for Confederate military forces.
`Photograph courtesy of Karen M. Kastningand
`Ernst H. Kastning, Jr.
`
`Page 2 of 12
`
`

`

`NO. 4
`
`VIRGINIA MINERALS
`
`3 5
`
`Although not entirely correct, Hess's basic idea of cave saltpeter originating through the interaction of
`nitrate-rich surface soils, groundwater, and nitrogen-fixing bacteria has drawn strong support (e.g., Hill, 198 1,
`1992; Hubbard and others, 1986; Hubbard, in review). Hill's (1 98 1) work presents the most detailed model,
`and is based on a comparative study of southeastern saltpeter caves and western caverns rich in organic bat
`guano deposits. Her study showed clearly that, although bat guano can enrich cave earth in nitrate, it is not the
`only source and in the southeastern caves not even a major source. Hill's model begins with nitrifying bacteria
`in surface soils oxidizing organic nitrogen to nitrate (NO -)which is then dissolved by percolating groundwater
`and carried downward to anaerobic soils and rock int&stices where it is reduced to ammonium (NH +). If
`caverns are present, the infiltrating waters move toward the caves due to a moisture-density gadient widm the
`bedrock created by evaporation at the cave air-bedrock interface. Upon reaching the cave boundary, the
`ammonium in solution is oxidized to nitrate with the help of nitrifjmg bacteria. Ifporous cave sediment is in
`contact with the bedrock, seeping groundwater will be drawn to the surface of the sediment where evaporation
`and bacterial action cause nitrate concentration.
`This theory explains a very interesting aspect of cave saltpeter deposits, namely the well-documented
`observation that nitrate content can be regenerated in very short time scales (within a few years or even much
`less). For example, saltpeter miners in 18 12 evidently shoveled earth leached of nitrate onto the wall ledges of
`Dixon Cave in Kentucky for the express purpose of regeneration (Hill, 198 1). During Civil War times, Craig
`(1 862, cited in Hill, 198 1) suggested that dirt be carried into caves so as to become continuously charged with
`nitrate. Hill's "seeping groundwater" model described an ongoing chemical process wherein saltpeter earth
`leached of nitrate could be placed back in the cave and new nitrate precipitated.
`Hubbard (in review) noted that the question of "what is saltpeter" is confusing. Saltpeter is a synonym of
`niter, a nitrate mineral containing potassium (ISNO ). Potassium nitrate is the key ingredient of gunpowder, but
`is far from the only nitrate compound in the cavd sediment commonly referred to as saltpeter. Part of the
`problem of studying the chemistry and mineralogy of saltpeter is that the nitrate minerals contained therein are
`notoriously deliquescent, meaning they absorb moisture from the air and dissolve. Hence, nitrate compounds
`such as magnesium nitrate and calcium nitrate may rarely crystallize into their naturally-occurring mineral forms
`(nitromagnesite and nitrocalcite, respectively) in the humidities found in Virginia and other southeastern caves.
`Given the difficulties noted above, Hubbard and others (1 986) attempted to shed some light on the miner-
`alogy and chemistry of saltpeter earth in six Virginia caves. They found that the only actual nitrate mineral in
`these caves was niter, but it occurred in only a few samples. Leachates from the cave samples were rich in
`calcium and magnesium (as well as nitrate), leading them to conclude that the composition of cave saltpeter in
`the cases studied can be considered a mixture of nitro-magnesite and probably nitrocalcite with local concen-
`trations of true niter. They also postulated that the nitrate compounds evaporated from cave leachates may
`occur seasonally in some Virginia caves because of summer-winter variations in cave humidities.
`Recent work such as Hill's (198 1) and Hubbard and others' (1 986) helps to explain why most of the
`saltpeter caves in the United States are located in the southeast. Theories of origin that involve transportation
`of surface soil nitrate into caverns by slowly moving groundwater and biochemical precipitation by bacteria
`require certain conditions of organic content in surface soils, temperature, humidity, cave air circulation, and
`various aspects of ground- and cave water chemistry and movement. For instance, dripping or flowing water
`in cave passages is especially detrimental to the formation of saltpeter because such water will leach away the
`very soluble nitrates. Using these factors, Hill (1981, p. 11 5) summarized succinctly why American saltpeter
`caves are located primarily within the boundaries of the Confederate states: "the northward extent of saltpeter
`caves may be limited by lower temperatures or by the wetness of northern caves; their southward extent may
`be limited by higher temperatures and less highly organic soil types; their westward extent may be limited by
`h e r climates and nitrogen-retentive soils."
`In the 1860s, the southern war machine benefited immeasurably from the conditions of climate, vegetation,
`and geology that gave it the greatest concentration of saltpeter cave deposits in North America.
`
`Page 3 of 12
`
`

`

`1
`
`VIRGINIA DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES
`
`VOL. 47
`
`HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY OF NITER PRODUCTION
`
`Knowledge of saltpeter extends back to the earliest times of recorded history (Lewis, 1989). Sumerian
`writings from about 2200 or 2 100 B.C. refer not only to saltpeter but also to black saltpeter, suggesting that
`refking of th~s material was already accomplished. Alchemists in Europe knew of saltpeter in the first century
`B.C.; Chinese workers mixed it with other ingredients to make fireworks in the seventh century C.E. and
`military explosives in the tenth century. Gunpowder (made from saltpeter, sulfur, and charcoal) appeared on
`European battlefields for the first time in the battle of Crkcy in 1346. The first modern book on mining and
`metallurgy, De re metallica, in 1556 described the extraction and refining of saltpeter in great detail. Appar-
`ently, artificial niter beds had been developed by then also. As the gunpowder age continued to develop
`rapidly in Europe, niter became a crucial resource not only to supply the national armies but also to ensure the
`survival of colonists in the hostile new world.
`As noted by Faust (1 964, p. 32), almost from the time of arrival at Jamestown, Virginia settlers were
`concerned about a reliable source of saltpeter for gunpowder. In 1629- 1630, the Viginia colonial government
`passed an act "for the better fiuherance of and advancement of staple commodities, and more especially that
`of potashes and saltpeeter (sic). . . (cited in Faust, 1964, p. 32). This early legislation contained specific
`directions for the production of saltpeter from wood ashes and plant and animal refuse. In 1745, the Virginia
`General Assembly passed an act for the encouragement of saltpeter making in which a bounty was offered on
`the precious material.
`As war between England and her colonies loomed in 1775, the Continental Congress advised the Colonists
`to "collect the saltpeter and sulfur in their respective colonies. . .to be manufactured, as soon as possible, into
`gunpowder.. . (cited in Faust, 1964, p. 33). A national Committee on Saltpeter was formed; and Richard
`Henry Lee represented Virginia on this body. Production records from the Revolutionary War period are poor,
`but western Virginia caverns, which had been producing niter for several decades prior to the conflict, likely
`produced a considerable amount of this strategic material.
`Following the surrender of Cornwallis, the demand for saltpeter did not abate; indeed, frontier fighting,
`hunting, government military uses, and the expanding use of black powder blasting in mining and construction
`drove the need upward (Faust, 1964). The War of 1 8 12 only exacerbated this trend. During the early 1800s,
`caves in western Virginia (which then included present-day West Virginia) contributed substantially to the
`young nation's saltpeter supply. Faust (1 964, p. 36) provides an interesting statistic in this regard. "The 18 10
`(3rd Federal Census) reported that 447,174 pounds of saltpeter valued at $80,434.00 - of which Virginia
`provided 59,175 pounds, valued at $16,243.88 -were produced during this report period. Virginia's share of
`this came from Bath, Botetourt, Lee, Montgomery, Pendleton, Russell, and Tazewell counties." Another
`feature of these times was the Old Virginia Saltpeter Route, a network of at least 12 caves in western Virginia.
`This route wound from Pendleton County, West Virginia, through Highland, Bath, and Alleghany Counties,
`Virginia, ending in Monroe County, West Virginia. At the same time, other niter caverns were active farther
`south, including Buchanan Cave in Smyth County. Here, saltpeter production can be traced back to about
`1750, making it one of the oldest niter producers in North America. Thus, by the mid- 1800s, the caves of
`western Virginia had established a long history of niter production and stood ready to supply the Confederacy
`withthis crucial resource in the coming struggle.
`The actual production of niter from cave earth was a relatively simple process that could be done on a small
`scale using fairly common implements (Faust, 1964; DePaepe, 198 1 ; Powers, 198 1). Workmen (sometimes
`called "peter monkeys") excavated the nitrate-bearing earth (''peter dirt") using various tools such as shovels,
`mattocks, wooden scraping paddles, hoe-like scrapers, and chisel-shaped bars, the latter needed to obtain
`material from ledges and cracks and to serve as pry bars. Faust (1 964, p. 44) described excavations of 16-20
`feet depth in one of Virginia's large saltpeter caves in Bath County. Miners constructed footpaths, stone steps,
`ladders, and sometimes tramways or bridges to transport peter dirt from the dig site to the leaching hoppers
`(DePaepe, 198 1). In large operations, mules, donkeys, or oxen carried cave earth from excavations to the
`
`Page 4 of 12
`
`

`

`NO. 4
`
`VIRGINIA MINERALS
`
`37
`
`processing sites, wlvch were commonly located in the caves. Cave illumination was very important, and light
`sources included iron lard-oil lamps, candles, and (most commonly) faggot and bark torches. Tally marks,
`essentially vertical scratches on the cave walls, were extremely common features in saltpeter caves; however,
`the purpose of the tally record is not clear (Figure 3). The marks may have been a record of the number of days
`worked or one man's production in bags of peter dirt (Faust, 1964).
`Leaching the peter dirt to con-
`centrate the nitrates was the ma-
`jor processing procedure. Cave
`earth was placed in vats or bar-
`rels containing fksh water (Fig-
`ure 4). Commonly, three bar-
`rels were used, and water
`leached fiom the first barrel was
`poured into the second and then
`into the third (Powers, 198 1).
`The nitrate-rich leach water was
`treated with potassium salts
`which had been produced usu-
`ally by leaching wood ashes.
`This removedundesirable mag-
`nesiumand calcium ions, replac-
`ing themwith potassium. Next,
`through Figure 3. Tally marks are found in many of the caves worked for saltpeter in
`was wed
`in Virginia and elsewhere. These mxks are fi-om a cave W h e n a n d o a h Valley.
`and then
`Evaporation Notice the name and date (Samuel Baker, 1862) inscribed on the cave wall.
`'pen jron
`of the water left behind
`Photograph courtesy of Karen M. Kastning and Ernst H. Kastning, Jr.
`of potassium nitrate (niter), and
`the used water was recycled back to the first leaching vat. Using h s technology, three men in Civll War times could
`produce 100 to 200 pounds of saltpeter in three days (Powers, 198 1).
`The ultimate destination of the niter was the gunpowder
`mill. Here, the saltpeter was fhther refined by additional leach-
`ing, and the resulting solution boiled down. S u l k and char-
`coal were added to the purified niter, at which point the rnix-
`ture became highly explosive. At the Confederacy's largest
`powder works in Augusta, GA, powder was mixed in 60
`pound batches according to this recipe: 45 pounds saltpeter,
`nine pounds charcoal, and six pounds sulfur (Melton, 1973).
`This mixture was dampened and pressed into solid cakes,
`which were then cooled and broken up into grains. Vibrating
`wire screens separated the grains into different sizes - smaller
`ones for rifles and smoothbores, larger ones for cannons.
`
`Figure 4. Photograph of remains of a typical
`leaching vat used to extract saltpeter fiom cave
`"peter dirt." In some instances, a series of such
`vats was used to progressively concentrate the
`Despite the niter industry's early development in the south-
`leached saltpeter. Photograph courtesy of Ernst
`ern states, the Confederacy did not possess an adequate sup- H. Kastning, Jr.
`ply of saltpeter at the outbreak of hostilities (Powers, 1981).
`The long years of antebellum peace and emphasis on agculture at the expense of industrial development left
`
`NITER AND THE CONFEDERATE WAR EFFORT
`
`Page 5 of 12
`
`

`

`38
`
`VIRGINIA DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES
`
`VOL. 47
`
`the South with reduced niter operations and few gunpowder-making facilities. At the time of secession in
`1861, the new nation possessed barely a month's supply of powder. For the rest of that year, importation
`provided most of the niter consumed by domestic powder mills.
`In addition to importation, the South possessed three major sources of niter. First, as noted above, numer-
`ous saltpeter caverns had long supported gunpowder manufacture in the eastern part of the country. In the
`1860s, the states of Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, and Arkansas became the most important cave
`niter producers for the Confederacy. Second, niter could be recovered from dirt under houses and outbuild-
`ings. Many private individuals entered into contracts with the government to provide niter from these sources.
`Third, niter could be produced in "nitriaries" or artificial niter beds. In these operations, heaps of various kinds
`of plant, animal, and human waste were set up, especially near large cities, and niter eventually extracted.
`According to Schroeder-Lein (l993a, p. 1147), at least 13 "nitriaries" were established in the eastern Con-
`federacy, including some near Richmond. Most of these did not come on line with significant niter production
`prior to the war's end in 1865.
`Realizing that imported niter sources could not be relied upon, the Confederate Congress acted in 1862 to
`ensure an adequate domestic niter supply (Schroeder-Lein, 1993a, 1993b). Legislation passed in April cre-
`ated a niter corps within the Ordnance Department. The main function of the corps personnel was to obtain
`niter to feed the South's rapidly growing gunpowder industry. A year later, the Congress made the niter corps
`an independent agency and renamed it the Niter and Mining Bureau. The new Bureau was given a larger staff
`and responsibility not only for acquiring niter, but also for procuring iron, copper, lead, coal, and zinc for use by
`the military. June 1864 legislation added more staff, including a maximum of six chemists and six professional
`assistants to aid in the scientific aspects of mineral collection. Among the employees of the Bureau were John
`and Joseph LeConte, and Nathaniel Pratt who produced geological maps as part of their work:
`The Confederate government's operation of the niter and gunpowder industry was very successful, thanks
`in no small part to the selection of extremely able leaders. Chief of the Niter Corps was George W. Rains, a
`West Point graduate and experienced administrator, who moved quickly to exploit the South's abundant niter
`caves and other nitrate sources. Rains brought on line many of the South's powder mills, but his masterpiece
`was the giant Augusta Powder Works, a technologically advanced operation that produced high-quality gun-
`powder until war's end. Another important individual was Isaac M. St. John, a civil engineer chosen to head
`the Niter and Mining Bureau in 1863. Under men like St. John and Rains, Confederate niter (and gunpowder)
`produced expanded enormously during much of the war. The success of the Confederate munitions industry
`stands out in glaring contrast to the general inadequacy of the Confederate supply system (Powers, 198 1).
`Over the course of the conflict, the Confederacy was divided into 14 niter and mining districts, most of
`which were east of the Mississippi. Districts One, Two, Three, Four, and Four and a Half were in Virginia, and
`included the niter producing counties in present-day eastern West Virginia. Surviving records suggest that
`Confederate niter production to September 1864 was 1,735,53 1.75 pounds domestically and 1,720,072.00
`by importation (Schroeder-Lein, 1993a). Of the domestic production, the five districts in Virginia accounted
`for 505,584.25 pounds (about 29 per cent), making the Commonwealth the leading niter producer among all
`Confederate states.
`One very interesting aspect of the Confederate niter story is the connection between the geography of the
`saltpeter cave regions and the political temperament of the people who lived there (Schroeder-Lein, 1993a).
`Most of the niter caves occurred in the Paleozoic carbonate belts in mountainous areas. The high-relief
`topography of these regions had given rise to a small farm, non-slave holding economic system that contrasted
`sharply with the much larger plantation operations in the low-relief Piedmont and Coastal Plain provinces
`found in most of the South. Thus, the mountain folk tended to have very different political and social outlooks,
`rendering many of them only marginally loyal to the Confederacy, if not outright Unionists. This resulted in a
`notoriously unreliable workforce where absenteeism and desertion were common. Because many of the other
`major mineral industries were in the same mountainous areas, these problems plagued Confederate mining
`operations throughout the war.
`
`Page 6 of 12
`
`

`

`VIRGINIA MINERALS
`
`CIVIL WAR CAVE NITER OPERATIONS IN WESTERN VIRGINIA
`
`No one knows precisely how many western Virgma caves were active niter producers during the Civil War.
`Records were lost or poorly kept (if at all), especially by the scattered private contractors who sold directly to
`the government. Another major problem is that cave names have changed, or several local names have been
`used for the same site over the years. Approximately 100 Virginia caves have been worked for saltpeter at one
`time or another (Hubbard, oral commun., 2000), and a considerable portion of these must have been active in
`186 1 - 1865. Powers (1 98 1, p. 25) stated that 25 caves in Virginia produced saltpeter during the war. Faust
`(1 964, p. 47) quoted a July 1,1863, Niter and Mining Bureau report concerning active operations in western
`Virginia as follows: ". . .one large cave in Tazewell, one in Giles, and six small caves in Wythe, Smythe (sic),
`Pulaski, and Montgomery. These caves are in good working condition and are beginning to yield.. ." Ex-
`amples of specific Civil War saltpeter cave operations in Virginia are given in Faust (1 964), Hauer (1 968a,
`1968b, 1968c, 1970a, 1970b, 1970c, 1971), Holsinger (1975), Powers (198 I), Smith (1 987), Hubbard
`(1 996), and Hubbard (in review).
`What were the day-to-day activities like at a wartime saltpeter cave in western Virginia? Much is known
`generally fiom the tools and other artifacts left behind by the peter monkeys, but detailed descriptions of the
`daily activities are not abundant. Of the latter, two excellent portraits are provided by Faust (1964) for
`Buchanan Saltpeter Cave in Smyth County and Smith (1987) for Homer's and Heaton's niter works in Bath
`County. The following material is taken largely fiom these works.
`Buchanan Saltpeter Cave is located in the valley of the North Holston River in northern Smyth County.
`Geologically, the formation containing the cave is the Beekmantown, an Ordovician limestone and dolomite
`unit that occurs virtually throughout the entire Valley and Ridge province in westernViginia. These caverns are
`particularly interesting because they have an extraordinarily long history of saltpeter production that includes
`connections to another famous mineral resource in the region, the salt operations at Saltville.
`In 1748, John Buchanan belonged to a party of men surveying property along the North Holston River for
`a real estate development company. This group included Charles Campbell, who recognized the value of the
`salt deposits in the region and settled the site that became Saltville. Buchanan surveyed and claimed large
`holdings in the nearby Rich Valley area, then established his home there and began farming.
`A large cave existed on Buchanan's property, which he investigated and found to contain significant depos-
`its of cave earth rich in saltpeter. Large boiling kettles were fiequently used in the production of saltpeter to
`concentrate the solutions, and Campbell was using these very same kinds ofkettles to make his salt. Thus, the
`two operations very likely cooperated. Faust (1 964, p. 49) quotes nineteenth century writer J. Leander
`Bishop accordingly: "Salt was made by boiling at Campbell's Salines.. .and in 1795, several tons of saltpeter,
`collected fiom the nitrous caves in the county, (and processed at the salt works) were sent to the Atlantic
`market." Because Buchanan's cave was the only major source of cave peter dirt in the county, it is most
`probably the main source of the Saltville niter.
`Buchanan Cave was one of the largest western Virginia cave saltpeter sources during the Civil War; it was
`part of the Niter and Mining Bureau's District 7, headquartered in Wytheville. John Buchanan and his two
`brothers were active in the wartime operations at the cave. John, also a professor at Emory College in
`Abingdon, was consultant and evidently the local representative to the Niter and Mining Bureau. The niter
`works at Buchanan Cave were never raided or captured by Union forces in the war years; however, work was
`suspended during the Battle of Saltville in 1 864.
`The niter operations at the cave were extensive and efficient. Faust (1 964, p. 50) described a very clever
`"cascade system" of leaching vats arranged so that the leach water from one vat would drain into the next
`lower one. This had a number of advantages over single vat operations, including less water needed, improved
`leach-brine concentrations, and reduced amounts of fuel (and the labor to provide it) needed to evaporate the
`leach brine fiom the boiling kettles. No information is available concerning the amount of saltpeter produced
`
`3
`
`3
`
`Page 7 of 12
`
`

`

`at Buchanan Cave, but evidence indicates that it was a considerable quantity.
`Smith's (1 987) exhaustive research provides many details of daily activities at two wartime saltpeter cave
`operations in Bath County. Homer's and Heaton's niter works were located in Niter and Mining Bureau
`District 4 ", headquartered in Staunton. There were at least five government operations within the bounds of
`this district, four of which were in caves (including Homer's and Heaton's). Individual citizens were also
`contracted to produce niter, which many did from dirt beneath houses and outbuildings; a few probably mined
`cave earth also. Contractors in District 4 " were paid $1 .OO to $1.50 per pound for niter. Workers in the
`operations were exempted from military duty (this being about the only to keep them), but were subject to
`military discipline and could be used to repel Union incursions.
`Homer's works were located at Douglas Cave, a name not currently used for any Bath County cave. Faust
`(1964, p. 45) and Hubbard (1996, p. 4) believed that the cave associated with Homer's works was Clark's
`Cave, but Smith (1 987, p. 22) contended that Williams Cave, less than a mile from Clark's Cave, or perhaps
`a combination of the two, was the niter source. Clark's Cave is developed primarily in the Licking Creek
`Limestone, a Devonian carbonate common in this part of western Virginia (Hubbard, 1996).
`According to Smith (1 987, p. 17), 70 different individuals are listed as employees of Homer's works between
`November 1 862 and July 1 864. On a month-to-month basis, workers varied from 45 in January 1863 to 18 in
`October 1864. The pay per day was 60 cents, and desertions, sometimes called "French leave," were common.
`Evidently, there was some makeshift housing available to the labom, and flour, beef, and bacon were purchased to
`feed them. At least two horses and one or more wagons were used for daily work.
`The total of saltpeter produced at Homer's works is not known, but some figures are available. The niter
`refinery in Lynchburg, in a second quarter report of 1864, credited the operation with 89,724 pounds of
`saltpeter. The same refinery noted 2,160 pounds received for October 1864.
`A second major Bath County niter operation, called Heaton's works, existed at a cave known as Kirkpatrick's
`during the war. Smith (1 987, p. 22) believed this to be present-day Mountain Grove Cave, but ~ a u s t (1 964,
`p. 45) identified it as Starr Chapel Cave. Hubbard (in review) noted the presence of plentiful evidence of
`saltpeter mining in Starr Chapel Cave, including many names dated from the Civil War era. This cave is also
`formed primarily in the Licking Creek Limestone.
`Working conditions and the labor force were much like those at Homer's operation (Smith, 1987). At
`Heaton's works, 60 different men were on the payroll from April-June 1863 to October 1864. During this
`time, the number o