A gravestone carving from 1862

Are all of these graves in a cluster, or are there other graves with "normal" headstones interspersed?

When the Texas Rangers were formed, they didn't have any regular uniform, but many of them wore a badge made by putting a Mexican five peso piece into a setting, and pinning that to their shirt or coat. That coin had a five-pointed star on one side, and that is the origin of small town sheriffs and cops wearing a star as a badge.

The Texas Rangers were originally a military organization, and not police. At the outbreak of the Civil War, one of the early "heroes" of the Texas Rangers, Ben McCulloch lead several regiments of "Texas Rangers" into Arkansas and Missouri at the beginning of the war, before being killed at the battle of Pea Ridge in 1862. The Texas Rangers as a police force was formed after the war. It is possible that the gravestone to which you refer is that of a Texas Ranger who fought with McCulloch in Arkansas or Missouri.

I've found literally thousands of hits for "Texas Ranger badge," but none dating from the 1830s, 1840s or 1850s. If i can come up with something, i'll post i here.

The image below is of a Texas Rangers, Company A, "Peso back badge"--but it is modern. If i can find an old, "true" five peso badge, i'll put up the image.

No joy . . . this site says that the earliest authenticated badge dates from 1889. I'm going to try searching for Mexican coins.

Earliest Authenticated Texas Ranger Badge circa 1889

Ah, you're already there.

I can't find any reliable image of a Mexican silver five peso piece--i found lots of images of Cuban five peso pieces, but not Mexican. However, as i read further, i begin to suspect that the use of the "peso back" badge dates from after the Civil War. How do you know this stone dates from 1862? I'd read the rest of the thread to find out, were it not for the fact that this lame web site won't let me load any other page of the thread.

Set, Shewolf said that the guy in charge of the place told her that. She said surrounding ones were 1850 to 1890, I think.

If you haven't been able to see the rest of the thread, maybe you didn't see this:



The date in question was 1862.

I went down that road because a 5-pointed star was a Union symbol in the Civil War, evidently.

In the American Civil War, a five-pointed star was the rank insignia for a Brigadier General in Federal service; it was the rank insignia for a major in Confederate service, and two five-pointed stars was the rank insignia for a lieutenant colonel. I don't think it can necessarily be seen as symbol specific to the United States Army, or to regiments of United States Volunteers.

Do all of the gravestones to which she referred have "138" on the stone?

Edit: Of course, a "lone" star is a symbol for Texas--and was used on their earliest flags.

By the way, when i first saw this thread, i searched for a Texas Ranger Badge, or a five-peso piece, to see if the old ones had a star like the one on the headstone image. One of the images i found:



--has a small "lozenge" in the center, which is actually an outline of the Texas "lone star" flag. That was something else which lead me to wonder if the gravestone commemorates a Texas Ranger, because there appears to be some sort of rectangular lozenge inside the star in that image of the headstone.

Soz, the 138th were made up of Illinois resident's who never fought in Texas.
(I found while digging).

Perhaps it is Masons afterall... dating all the way back to Templars?
Source

Also chased the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints, but their use was always inverted.

The fact that the pentacle isn't filled in makes me doubt that it's Rangers... but an early Congressional Medal of Honor does look similar.

History of the 138th

Most intrigueing.

Yes PD, they are in a cluster. About 10-15 all together.

I did not make it there today as it was pretty cold and the graveyard I was assigned to was a bit of a task as I had to map the sinks as well as the marked graves.

Much fun though.

Strange how that stuff just flips my lid.

Anyway.. on the freemason ideas.

Were they not considered 'oddballs'? Going against most popular religions at the time they were popular?

Are freemasons still around?

or am i smoking something?


I dont truly think that the headstone pictured is a Texas Ranger.
I could very well be wrong though, and i will take sometime and look closer to the ones that surround it to make sure.. but..
There are texas rangers buried there and they have carvings similar to the ones that Set posted. Filled in stars.

having a star with the unfilled center is a bit diffrent.

but, again.. I need to get out there and get some more pictures of the neighboring headstones.

I will try to get a rubbing from it too like DD suggested. That will probally be the best route all together.

Odd thought... as I am full of them but...


family crest?

Odd that a crest would have what appears to be a precinct number in it.. but.. eh.

"Are freemasons still around? "

yes , plenty of them !
hbg

what exactly IS a freemason?

This focus on the number 138 and a military (or 188, as someone has suggested--i can read the entire thread now, although going to the beginning of the thread logs me out--damned web site) is, to say the least, naive.

Note that the inscription reads: "No 138 (or 188)"--that abbreviation of No. for number is not going to appear in military nomenclature. Sozobe has mentioned the 138th New York, and O'Bill has mentioned the 138th Illinois. Now, to do this research correctly, one has to pay attention to where such units served--no New York regiments served west of the Mississippi, and the 138th Illinois, as can be seen from the site O'Bill linked, served in Missouri and Kansas, but not in Texas. Furthermore, no Federal unit ever used the abbreviation "No." in it's unit designation. No militia units were used (except in limited examples of being called out because of a Confederate raid, or as in Pennsylvania, an invasion), and all units were either Regular Army or they were United States Volunteers. Therefore, for example, the regiment to which O'Bill referred would have been known officially as "the 138th Illinois Regiment of United States Volunteer Infantry." Only Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois recruited sufficient numbers of infantry for regiments to have had numerical designations over one hundred. No Confederate state raised more than one hundred regiments--and certainly there were not that many in Texas.

Referring to "division numbers" is also out of the question--United States Army tables of organization did not include permanently numbered divisions until the Great War. In the Civil War, divisions were only informally numbered--therefore, at the battle of Shiloh, McClernand's division was called "the first division" simply because it was the first organization of brigades (brigades are formed by joining regiments and independent battalions) formed into a division. In the Army of the Potomac, McClellan organized his army into divisions, but they were known by their commanders name--it was not until Joe Hooker reorganized the army in the late winter of 1863 (February and March) that permanent division organizations were formed, and then, the First Division of the First Corps was not the unique first division, there was a First Division in the Second Corps, the Third Corps, the Fifth Corps, the Sixth Corps, the Eleventh Corps and the Twelfth Corps (and, by the way, corps were designated with Roman numerals--I Corps, II Corps, III Corps, V Corps, VI Corps, XI Corps, XII Corps). Only corps (a formation of two or more divisions--usually, in Federal service, three divisions) had permanent designations which transcended the parent organization (meaning that there was only one First Corps, and only one Nineteenth Corps, etc.).

Confederate organization was even more ad hoc. In Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, the corps organization was ad hoc, and depended upon the available commanders--thus, originally, the first corps was commanded by Longstreet, and the second corps by Jackson. After Jackson died of wounds, the army was reorganized into three corps. All divisions were designated by the name of the Commander--so, at Gettysburg, Longstreet's First Corps consisted of the divisions of Lafayette McLaws, John Bell Hood and George Pickett. Confederate divisions usually were formed from four or more brigades, and most regiments were brigaded by state (all Texas regiments in Lee's army, for example, would be packed into one brigade), so although Confederate regiments were usually smaller, their brigades were larger, and their divisions were usually as large as a Federal corps. So, for example, when Harry Heth's division of Alvin Powell Hill's Third Corps marched toward Gettysburg, at more than 7,000 men, it outnumbered the two divisions of Reynolds First Corps and the three divisions Howard's Eleventh Corps of the Army of the Potomac, combined.

In the far west in the Civil War (operations east of the mountains were in the eastern theater, west of the mountains and east of the Mississippi were the western theater, and west of the Mississippi was referred to as "the Trans-Mississippi), you will find almost no regiments from states east of Ohio--and Ohio troops would be very rare indeed. It is doubtful if any troops who served the Federal army in Texas were from east of the Mississippi, although it's not impossible. Keep in mind that the one attempt to invade Texas (at Galveston) was a dismal failure, and Federal troops did not occupy the state until after the war had ended.

Confederate forces were even less well-organized in the west than in the east. At Pea Ridge, where Ben McCulloch was killed, there was no organization of division and corps, and even brigades were notional. Basically, Van Dorn's army consisted of McCulloch with his Texas Rangers, and Arkansas Mounted Rifles--a few regiments of each, and Stand Watie and Albert Pike's Creeks, Choctaw and Cherokee from the Indian Territory tagging along (as long as there were not cannon--the Indians just didn't do "fire-wagons"); and Sterling Price and the Missouri State Guard. The Missouri State Guard was organized into regiments, but not brigades. That "army" was commanded by Earl Van Dorn, because McCulloch and Price not only cordially hated one another, but announced it on an almost daily basis, usually in a loud voice. Van Dorn proved breath-takingly incompetent, and after the death of McCulloch at Pea Ridge, the army he was commanding disintegrated, largely, because so many of the Texas and Arkansas boys deserted. Van Dorn crossed the Mississippi with the remnants of his army in 1862, and at Corinth and Iuka (state of Mississippi), demonstrated that incompetence on the battlefield was no fluke, but a positive talent of his. Sterling Price left in disgust with his Missouri boys, and never crossed the big river with his boys again. He also refused to fight in Louisiana or Texas, because he intended never to allow anyone else to control his troops again.

Enough rambling around the halls of Civil War incompetence and disorganization. Wolfwoman is very unlikely to find the graves of any Federal troops in Texas, unless they happened to die there of misfortune or boredom after the war. Any Federal troops who made it that far during the war were likely prisoners, and would likely have been from Iowa, Kansas or Missouri. Confederate troops in Texas would have been from Texas, Arkansas or Louisiana. None of those states has regimental designations of more than two digits, and all the numbers would have been low. I am certain to about 99.999% that the "No 138" inscription has absolutely no reference to any military designation, especially if the tombstone is from 1862 (something i consider now to be unlikely).

Even if it does refer to the Texas Rangers (which i now suspect is not the case, if the 1862 date is correct), they were only ever organized into a handful of regiments in the Civil War, and companies were given letter designations (Company A, Company B, etc.) which was universally observed by both armies. If it were later, much later, than 1862, it might refer to the badge number of police officer or Ranger, or a firefighter.

Therefore, i suggest that "No 138" precludes this being a tombstone for a military burial--the suggestion earlier that this may refer to a fire brigade makes more sense, although i'm not saying that's what it means. It might also, as someone has suggested, refer to a lodge number of a fraternal organization, such as the Masons. The problem we have is that we don't yet know if that same number appears on the other, similar tombstones.

Drew Dad (i think it was) had a very good idea with suggesting a rubbing (although one would use block artists' charcoal, and not a pencil), which is a standard technique for reading tombstone inscriptions--i recommend that Wolfwoman pursue that course whenever she investigates a graveyard. Very often, rubbing reveals features which are not immediately evident to the naked eye, or in a photograph. My final word is that i don't think this is a military grave, i don't think it refers to a Texas Ranger or firefighter (unless 1862 is very wrong) and i'd say check out fraternal organizations such as the Masons.

I suggest that you contact Masonic Lodge #12, Austin to see if they can help you identify the marker. A quick stroll around the Texas Masons' web ring shows that lodges in Texas number over 1000 (although i don't know if the numbers are consecutive), so Lodge #138 is an entirely reasonable proposition.

answering my own question, I have been lost in wiki for almost 45 minutes.

gotta love that site.

I think we all agree that the biggest problem and question is if 1862 is correct..

from what I read on Sets post, and what I see in wiki, I think the graveyard keeper might be off his rocker a bit.

And, because of the pattern of weathering, it could very well be a weaker , or cheaper piece of stone as some of the others in the graveyard.

i WILL do a rubbing.

I will post a picture when I am done.

I will also take a good picture of the entire group of them as well..


but im thinking FreeMason's

Well, that's why I thought you should weigh in, Setanta.

Just trying to figure out what the number could mean since it's one of the only things to go on.

Do they ALL say "No. 138" (or 188 or whatever it is), Shewolf, or does each one have a different number?