American Civil War Engineer and Fortification Papers

USS ALASKA

Captain
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
UNF Digital Commons
UNF Graduate Theses and Dissertations Student Scholarship
1996

Brick Versus Earth: The Construction and Destruction of Confederate Seacoast Forts Pulaski and McAllister, Georgia
by David P. Eldridge

University of North Florida
This Master's Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at UNF Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in UNF Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of UNF Digital Commons. For more information, please contact Digital Projects.

ABSTRACT
The United States government created America's third coastal defense system during the early-to-mid nineteenth century based upon the recommendations of the Board of Engineers of 1816. The engineers of 1816 believed the most economical means of protecting America was the construction of large, permanent forts along key areas of America's coast.

Union forces under Brigadier General Quincy Gillmore seized Fort Pulaski in April of 1862. Pulaski was one of the most formidable forts built under the third system. Gillmore required two months to install the weapons used against Pulaski; most of the time was spent installing smoothbore Columbiads, the standard breaching weapon of the day. Yet the weapons that destroyed Pulaski were lighter, rifled guns. Gillmore attributed the fort's destruction to rifled weapons, and found the smoothbore guns practically worthless during the engagement.

All forts built by Southern engineers prior to the fall of Pulaski, prior to the proof of the superiority of rifled weapons over permanent works, were earthen forts. Masonry's obsolescence was not a factor in the decision to build earthen works. The South needed forts immediately, for it faced an enemy that had invaded its soil and established a base on its shores. The change in construction material from masonry to earth was not in response to the recognition of a new threat, the rifled weapon, but because the Confederacy lacked the time and resources to build forts like Pulaski.

Earthen forts like Fort McAllister, Georgia, were able to withstand repeated attacks by the United States Navy and emerged unscathed. The largest guns in Federal service, 15" Columbiads, were used on several occasions against McAllister. The fort did not fall until assaulted by a greatly superior land force.

Although the lessons provided by earthen forts did not change the immediate future of coastal defenses, they did have an impact later in the nineteenth century. Under the Endicott system of the 1880s, engineers constructed coastal forts as one-tier works with dispersed batteries. The materials used were earth and reinforced concrete. By the tum of the century the impressive forts of the third system were abandoned in favor of the Endicott forts.

https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1126&context=etd

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

  • Brick Versus Earth The Construction and Destruction of Confederate Seacoast Forts Pulaski and ...pdf
    2.4 MB · Views: 137
Last edited:
Another paper for our Engineer denizens... @Ray Ball @1SGDan and any others I may have missed...

University of Massachusetts Amherst
ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst
Doctoral Dissertations Dissertations and Theses
Spring 2014

Engineering Victory: The Ingenuity, Proficiency, and Versatility of Union Citizen Soldiers in Determining the Outcome of the Civil War
by Thomas F. Army Jr

University of Massachusetts - Amherst
This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations and Theses at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected].

ABSTRACT
My dissertation explores the critical advantage the Union held over the Confederacy in military engineering. The skills Union soldiers displayed during the war at bridge building, railroad repair, and road making demonstrated mechanical ability and often revealed ingenuity and imagination. These skills were developed during the antebellum period when northerners invested in educational systems that served an industrializing economy. In the decades before the war, northern states’ attempt at implementing basic educational reforms, the spread of informal educational practices directed at mechanics and artisans, and the exponential growth in manufacturing all generated a different work related ethos than that of the South. The northern labor system rewarded mechanical ability, invention, and creativity. The labor system in the South failed to do this. Plantation slavery generated fabulous wealth for a tiny percent of the southern white population. It fostered a particular style of agriculture and scientific farming that limited land use. It curtailed manufacturing opportunities, and it stifled educational opportunities for the middle and lower classes because those in political power feared that an educated yeomanry would be filled with radical ideas such as women’s equality, temperance, and, worst of all, abolition.

These differences in the North and South produced unique skill sets in both armies, and consequently, resulted in more successful and resourceful Union engineering operations during the war. Moreover, without the unique and astonishing engineering operations conducted by common laborers, machinists, shipbuilders, and both common school educated and West Point trained engineers, it was unlikely the North would have won the war. The outcome of the Civil War depended on the Union Army’s ability to improvise and take the war to the South. Northern armies operated on unfamiliar terrain, which included mountain ranges, swamps and wetlands, alluvial plains, forests, and rugged hills, all of which were difficult to access because of dismal road systems and poorly mapped landscapes. Union generals were forced to execute a strategy that demanded the control of 750,000 square miles of territory and the defeat of enemy armies, partisan raiders and cavalry constantly threatening long and tenuous supply lines. Between 1861 and 1865 the North engineered victory.


https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=dissertations_2

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

  • Engineering Victory The Ingenuity, Proficiency, and Versatility of Union Citizen Soldiers in D...pdf
    6.7 MB · Views: 45
I've read his book of nearly the same title and found in fascinating, I look forward to reading this as well. Thank you very much for sharing this.
 
Not a problem sir! Came across a few papers that I thought might be of interest.
108

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
Collection; Master of Military Art and Science Theses
Title; Engineer operations during the Vicksburg Campaign.
Author; Puckett, Robert M.

Abstract; This study investigates the role that Engineer Operations played in the Vicksburg Campaign of the American Civil War. A background study and description is made of the structure, composition, capability, and employment of engineer officers and units during the American Civil War. The Vicksburg Campaign is analyzed in detail to determine the contributions that Engineer Operations made to the Campaign's success. The Campaign is broken down into four phases: (1) the Confederate Fortification of Vicksburg, (2) operations in the Bayous, (3) the Campaign of Maneuver, and (4) the Siege of Vicksburg. Each phase is examined in an engineer context to determine what type of Engineer Operations were conducted and whether they were critical to that phase and the Campaign overall. The final conclusions derived from this study are that Engineer operations were critical to the successful outcome of the Campaign and without the engineering capability the Union Army possessed, it would not have been able to overcome the natural and man made obstacles faced in the effort to seize Vicksburg.

Series; Command and General Staff College (CGSC) MMAS thesis
Publisher; Fort Leavenworth, KS : US Army Command and General Staff College,
Date, Original; 1992-06-05
Date, Digital; 2008
Call number; ADA 255141
Release statement; Approved for public release; Distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)
Repository; Combined Arms Research Library
Library; Combined Arms Research Library Digital Library
Date created; 2008-10-16
135

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

  • Engineer operations during the Vicksburg Campaign.pdf
    2.8 MB · Views: 152
Collection; Master of Military Art and Science Theses
Title; Defending America’s shores: a historical analysis of the development of the U.S. Army’s fortification system, 1812-1950.
Author; Charlesworth, Timothy J.

Abstract; This study investigates the contributions of the U.S. Army’s coastal fortification system to execute the coastal defense policy of the United States, in view of the tremendous technological advances and developmental shortfalls it had to contend with over the course of its existence. The concept presented is one showing the ultimate failure of the entire fortification network to maintain its viability to defend critical harbors when individual fortifications underwent their baptisms of fire. Until the conclusion of World War II, the U.S. Army has traditionally been the instrument entrusted with executing the land-based element of American coastal defense policy. The overall challenge was to organize a coastal defense establishment properly resourced to meet any threat within the fiscal restraints imposed by the national leadership. The study explains the development of the coastal fortification system in relation to the Army’s concept of organizing and equipping organizations to conduct operations in support of its mission and the technological impacts influencing coastal fortifications. This study will promote the lessons from the Army’s failure to continually develop a system capable of adapting to technological changes and will serve as an example of the consequences of flawed policy decision making for future force developers.

Series; Command and General Staff College (CGSC) MMAS thesis
Publisher; Fort Leavenworth, KS : US Army Command and General Staff College,
Date, Original; 2000-06-02
Date, Digital; 2000-06-02
Resource Type Textual
Release statement; Approved for public release; Distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)
Repository; Combined Arms Research Library
Library; Combined Arms Research Library Digital Library
Date created; 2006-02-20
170

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

  • Defending America’s shores a historical analysis of the development of the U.S. Army’s fortifi...pdf
    2.6 MB · Views: 50
Collection; Master of Military Art and Science Theses
Title; Field fortifications during the American Civil War: a tactical problem.
Author; Chuber, David C.

Abstract; This study analyzes field fortifications and their effects on combat operations during the American Civil War. This study is divided into three areas. First is the instruction and practical training on field fortifications available to the future Civil War officers. Second is the construction of field fortifications including the different types of fortifications and their integration into defensive lines with obstacles. Finally, are the lessons learned in combat operations using field fortifications during the Civil War and how they helped to change and develop U.S. tactics creating new, usable doctrine. At the start of the war, commanders found that few officers had any first-hand experience with field fortifications. Although many of the regular army officers had studied engineer concepts at West Point, few had any experience other than with static defenses or coastal fortifications. When Union and Confederate armies conducted large-scale operations, defensive positions were built to protect supply lines. Small forces used field fortifications to multiply their combat power against any larger force. Commanders were forced to realize that the tactical manuals of the day were just parade drill manuals and could not help them when it came to using field fortifications.

Series; Command and General Staff College (CGSC) MMAS thesis
Publisher; Fort Leavenworth, KS : US Army Command and General Staff College,
Date, Original; 1996-06-07
Date, Digital; 2007
Call number; ADA 313032
Release statement; Approved for public release; Distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)
Repository; Combined Arms Research Library
Library; Combined Arms Research Library Digital Library
Date created; 2007-05-22

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

  • Field fortifications during the American Civil War a tactical problem.pdf
    3.6 MB · Views: 66
  • Field fortifications during the American Civil War a tactical problem photos.pdf
    2.7 MB · Views: 61
Collection; Master of Military Art and Science Theses
Title; Engineer battlefield functions at Chancellorsville.
Author; Weber, James R.

Abstract; This study investigates the significant effect of mobility, countermobility, survivability and topographic engineering on the American Civil War Campaign of Chancellorsville. The operations occurred near Fredericksburg, Virginia in April and May of 1863. In the battle, the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia decisively defeated the Union Army of the Potomac. Engineer-related considerations contributed immensely to the Confederate victory. Engineer battlefield functions influenced the operations of both armies. The Union Engineer Brigade constructed numerous pontoon bridges to overcome the river obstacles prior to and following the battle. This capability allowed the Union Army to initially surprise and envelop the Confederate Army. The natural obstacles of the rivers and forests and man-made obstacles of abatis hindered maneuver. Survivability was a significant factor during the fighting. At Chancellorsville, the Confederates used entrenchments for the first time in open operations. This strengthened their economy of force in front of the Union Army and gave 'Stonewall' Jackson mass during his successful enveloping attack. Finally, topographic engineering was important through map production and reconnaissance by engineers. This study concludes that the Confederate Army integrated the engineer battlefield functions more effectively than the Union Army. In part, this explains the decisive Confederate victory.

Series; Command and General Staff College (CGSC) MMAS thesis
Publisher; Fort Leavenworth, KS : US Army Command and General Staff College,
Date, Original; 1995-06-02
Date, Digital; 2007
Call number; ADA 300127
Release statement; Approved for public release; Distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)
Repository; Combined Arms Research Library
Library; Combined Arms Research Library Digital Library
Date created; 2007-07-20

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

  • Engineer battlefield functions at Chancellorsville.pdf
    2.5 MB · Views: 96
East Texas Historical Journal
Volume 33 | Issue 2 Article 7
10-1995

The Ghostly-Silent Guns of Galveston: A Chronicle of Colonel J.G. Kellersberger, the Confederate Chief Engineer of East Texas
by W. T. Block

Part of the United States History Commons
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by SFA ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in East Texas Historical Journal by an authorized administrator of SFA ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected].

After forty-nine years in America, Kellersberger, civil engineer, former Forty-oiner, San Francisco Vigilante, surveyor, town, bridge, and
railroad builder; and Confederate chief engineer for East Texas, bade farewell to a son and four daughters, his grandchildren, and the grave of his wife, all located at Cypress Mill, Blanco County, Texas. He then left the state he had grown to love and returned to his Alpine homeland for two reasons - to write his German language memoirs and to die in the huge stone house where he was born and had grown up, but had abandoned as a young man to seek his fortune in America. Although hundreds of Kellersberger's descendants in the Houston, Dallas, and Austin vicinities still spell the family name as "Kellersberger," its original Swiss spelling, the engineer enlisted in the Confederate Army as "Julius Kellersberg," which for purposes of simplicity, the writer will adopt for the remainder of this monograph. And although Kellersberg was promoted to lieutenant colonel early in 1864, he was a Confederate major of artillery, assigned to the engineering service, for much of the time span of this story.



Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

  • The Ghostly-Silent Guns of Galveston A Chronicle of Colonel J.G. Kellersberger, the Confederat...pdf
    739.3 KB · Views: 54
East Texas Historical Journal
Volume 33 | Issue 2 Article 7
10-1995

The Ghostly-Silent Guns of Galveston: A Chronicle of Colonel J.G. Kellersberger, the Confederate Chief Engineer of East Texas
by W. T. Block

Part of the United States History Commons
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by SFA ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in East Texas Historical Journal by an authorized administrator of SFA ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected].

After forty-nine years in America, Kellersberger, civil engineer, former Forty-oiner, San Francisco Vigilante, surveyor, town, bridge, and
railroad builder; and Confederate chief engineer for East Texas, bade farewell to a son and four daughters, his grandchildren, and the grave of his wife, all located at Cypress Mill, Blanco County, Texas. He then left the state he had grown to love and returned to his Alpine homeland for two reasons - to write his German language memoirs and to die in the huge stone house where he was born and had grown up, but had abandoned as a young man to seek his fortune in America. Although hundreds of Kellersberger's descendants in the Houston, Dallas, and Austin vicinities still spell the family name as "Kellersberger," its original Swiss spelling, the engineer enlisted in the Confederate Army as "Julius Kellersberg," which for purposes of simplicity, the writer will adopt for the remainder of this monograph. And although Kellersberg was promoted to lieutenant colonel early in 1864, he was a Confederate major of artillery, assigned to the engineering service, for much of the time span of this story.



Cheers,
USS ALASKA
A very interesting story.
 
Louisiana State University
LSU Digital Commons
LSU Master's Theses
Graduate School
2014

Danger Shelter Opportunity: The Coastal Fortifications of Nineteenth Century Louisiana
James F. Osborne, IV

Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected].

ABSTRACT
This document seeks to establish a contemporary record of the nineteenth-century masonry fortifications of the Third System whose continued existence in Southeastern Louisiana is in peril. Designed and implemented in the years following the invasion of Washington, D.C. during the War of 1812 by Napoleon Bonaparte's chief engineer, Louisiana's coastal forts represent the pinnacle of European, pre-modern-warfare military architecture. With their obsolescence secured by advances in technology in the mid to late nineteenth century, each was abandoned or decommissioned following the American Civil War. These historic constructed spaces that are each uniquely adapted to the land they occupy have never been formally or comprehensively photographed, though they have existed in varying states of ruin and decay for well over a century. Continued hurricane damage, neglect, lack of funding and public disinterest contribute to their impending non-existence. The series Danger Shelter Opportunity endeavors to preserve the physical appearance of these places and the nature of their entropy through photography.


Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

  • Danger Shelter Opportunity_ The Coastal Fortifications of Ninetee.pdf
    18.8 MB · Views: 18
Georgia Southern University
Digital Commons@Georgia Southern
Honors College Theses
2021

The Tide Is Coming In: Fort Pulaski's Historical Relationship with Water
Sadie Ingram

This thesis (open access) is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors College Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. For more information, please contact [email protected].

ABSTRACT
Savannah, Georgia is the fourth busiest port in the United States, processing approximately 4.35 million standard shipping containers every year. The port's protector Fort Pulaski towers among the coastal marshlands and estuaries of the Savannah River. Located on Cockspur Island at the mouth of the Savannah River, this strategic location allowed the fort to protect Savannah's vital harbor. Built as part of the United States' Third System plan to build fortifications along the eastern seaboard, construction of Fort Pulaski began in 1827 and finished twenty years later.

Water has played a pivotal role in the history of Fort Pulaski and Cockspur Island. Since its construction, the fort has been battling the Lowcountry landscape to remain on high ground. While water proved to be a military advantage before the Civil War, as weapons technology advanced, Third System forts were left behind. Following the war, Pulaski underwent changes to become a historic site. Instead of battling invading armies and navies, the fort faced growing problems from its environment that were detrimental to its preservation.



Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

  • The Tide Is Coming In_ Fort Pulaskis Historical Relationship wit.pdf
    2 MB · Views: 43
W&M ScholarWorks
Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects
Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects
1985

Efficient Action in the Construction of Field Fortification: A Study of the Civil War Defenses of Raleigh, North Carolina
Thomas F. Higgins

College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences
States History Commons
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected].

ABSTRACT
The study of field fortification from the late 17th century to the mid-19th century indicates that fundamental principles guided construction techniques and established a pattern of thinking in fieldwork design. The application of these principles were considered important in the eventual success of the work. The principles were based on the achievement of maximum benefit through minimal effort. Continual adherence to a plan of efficient action with least effort in fortification construction was essential as weapons became more effective and strategies and tactics more diverse. The examination of the construction techniques utilized in the building of the Civil War defenses around Raleigh, North Carolina demonstrate the basic principles common in fieldwork construction during the 18th and 19th centuries and provide valuable insight into a relatively unexplored event in Raleigh's history.



Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
W&M ScholarWorks
Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects
Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects
1985

Efficient Action in the Construction of Field Fortification: A Study of the Civil War Defenses of Raleigh, North Carolina
Thomas F. Higgins

College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences
States History Commons
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected].

ABSTRACT
The study of field fortification from the late 17th century to the mid-19th century indicates that fundamental principles guided construction techniques and established a pattern of thinking in fieldwork design. The application of these principles were considered important in the eventual success of the work. The principles were based on the achievement of maximum benefit through minimal effort. Continual adherence to a plan of efficient action with least effort in fortification construction was essential as weapons became more effective and strategies and tactics more diverse. The examination of the construction techniques utilized in the building of the Civil War defenses around Raleigh, North Carolina demonstrate the basic principles common in fieldwork construction during the 18th and 19th centuries and provide valuable insight into a relatively unexplored event in Raleigh's history.



Cheers,
USS ALASKA
calling @A. Roy
 
Efficient Action in the Construction of Field Fortification: A Study of the Civil War Defenses of Raleigh, North Carolina
Thomas F. Higgins

Thanks to @DaveBrt for pointing to and to @USS ALASKA for finding this 1985 master's thesis. I'm very familiar with this study, as it is well-known here in Raleigh in the Civil War enthusiasts' community. It is a very useful paper in some respects. However, it also has some serious deficiencies.

One problem is that the author claims a time frame and sequence for the construction of Raleigh's fortifications that is based on an old newspaper article from the Raleigh Register of 26 August 1863 titled "Our Defences." The author of the 1985 paper incorrectly asserts that this 1863 article refers to the defenses of Raleigh, NC. In fact, a reading of the article reveals that it is actually about the defenses of Mobile, Alabama. During the war, papers often cadged articles from other papers and published them to increase their volume of copy. In this case, the Register republished the Mobile article verbatim, even retaining the other paper's headline, but with no caveat that this was a borrowed article from Alabama.

The other problem is that the author has drawn maps of the Raleigh fortifications that significantly distort the original 1863 engineer's survey by Lt Col Henry T. Guion. (See Figures 16 and 17.) He has extended the track of the fortifications about 1/2 mile to the north of the city on his extrapolated maps. This extended map does reach far enough north to encompass irregularities on the landscape that could be earthwork remnants. However, they are not remnants from the 1863 fortifications designed and overseen by Col Guion. If they are Civil War earthworks, they are outworks possibly built to guard the nearby railroad track.

Those are the major deficiencies of this 1985 paper. These are, in fact, understandable errors, but they have misled local historians as to the construction and location of Raleigh's fortifications.

Probably the most useful aspect of this paper is its reference to a 1936 paper by William F. Marshall, who studied the Raleigh earthworks for the WPA's Federal Writers Project. This 1936 study made reference to remnants of the earthworks that still existed in Raleigh at that time. This in turn allowed me to identify what I believe are verifiable remnants on the ground today near downtown Raleigh. So the 1985 paper points to the 1936 WPA study, which has been extremely useful.

There are other interesting aspects of the 1985 master's thesis, but they are so intertwined with the paper's misconceptions that it is hard for me to recommend this paper now. I realize that the author did not have access to the digital resources that we have now, and I think this in part led to the errors I've mentioned here. I sent an email to the author asking to communicate with him about his 1985 paper, but he did not respond, so I have not been able to discuss these concerns with him.

A.R. Bredenberg
 
Research Design of Fort Anderson
Author; Hildebran, Daniel

Abstract
The purpose of this thesis is to produce a research design for Fort Anderson, a State Historic Site on the west bank of the Cape Fear River in Brunswick County, North Carolina. The thesis opens with the history of Fort Anderson, starting with a history of the Colonial town Brunswick, to provide a context for the site. A specific history of the fort begins with discussing the importance of Wilmington and the defenses of the Cape Fear River. Following this overview there is a summary of the construction of and capture of Fort Anderson. The research design uses the historical and archaeological background to formulate site-specific archaeological questions and uses cases studies of Civil War archeology to ensure that research at Fort Anderson is within the context of Civil War archeology. This research touches upon the following areas: previous archaeological research, the archeology of fort construction, a survey of the site, the fort's hospital, and the archeology of camp life. This research is designed to provide future archaeologists and the site manager of Fort Anderson with ways to better interpret the fortification and enhance the preservation of earthworks.

Date; 2017-05-03
Collections; Anthropology Master's Theses
Publisher; East Carolina University


Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
Clemson University
TigerPrints
All Theses
5-2012

Fort Drive: Reestablishing Its Significance Within Washington, D.C.'s Park System
Kathryn Kelly Finnigan
Clemson University

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Abstract
This thesis is an in-depth examination of Fort Drive, a 20th century proposed parkway connecting the principal Union Army fortifications which encircled Washington, D.C. The goal of the work is to determine if the landscapes acquired for Fort Drive are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. This paper answers two questions: what role did Fort Drive play in establishing the Nation's Capital's park system; and are the remnants of the Fort Drive endeavor significant? These questions were answered through analysis of the National Capital Planning Commission's records, a comparison of the standards set by current National Register designations, and consideration of the National Park Service's definition of a cultural landscape. Drawing from over sixty years of primary sources, this thesis showcases Fort Drive as an existing crown feature of Washington, D.C.'s parklands


Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

  • Fort Drive_ Reestablishing Its Significance Within Washington D..pdf
    12.1 MB · Views: 8
Collection: School of Advanced Military Studies Monographs
Title: Coastal fortifications and national military policy, 1815-1835.
Author: Brown, Clinton W.
Branch/Country: United States Army

Abstract
Coastal fortifications in the United States developed from the colonial practice of building temporary structures to a system designed to be permanent and enduring. Coastal fortifications became a focus of national military policy after the War of 1812. The First and Second Systems were evolutionary steps in fortification construction, but a lack of a national military policy providing guidance resulted in an incoherent system. The Board Report of 1821, based on policy guidance from presidents James Madison and James Monroe, provided a roadmap for the establishment of the Third System and coastal fortifications based on coherent policy. This monograph analyzes the history of American coastal fortifications from the colonial period to the Third System. From this perspective, it will show the evolution of coastal fortifications in relation to national military policy.

Series: Command and General Staff College (CGSC), School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) Monograph
Publisher: Fort Leavenworth, KS : US Army Command and General Staff College,
Date, Original: 2015-05-21
Date, Digital: 2015-05-21
Release statement: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency.
Repository: Combined Arms Research Library
Library: Combined Arms Research Library Digital Library
Date created: 2015-09-11


Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

  • Coastal fortifications and national military policy.pdf
    368.2 KB · Views: 20
Back
Top