The 'Bloody Gate' at Fort Fisher - Crucial infantry assault through a sally port at the 'Gibraltar of the South'

I have been away from the site for several weeks due to a life-threatening illness, but thankfully am getting back to normal now after a successful surgery. I have some physical limitations for another week or so, but I can research and type again!

So sorry to hear about this! Glad you're better, and I hope you continue to improve!

ARB
 
Duffy and Hogg disagree. Perhaps European and American terminology differs; most of my fortress library was written by Europeans.

Has Fort Pike reopened?
The terminology I use relates to the American Third System. The terminology changes as we move to Endicott Period fortifications, and differs from the terminology used by other countries/schools of design. I take my terminology primarily from what Mahan taught at West Point and from Scott's Military Dictionary (also 19th Century American).
 
I have been away from the site for several weeks due to a life-threatening illness, but thankfully am getting back to normal now after a successful surgery. I have some physical limitations for another week or so, but I can research and type again! :smile:
The sally port/entrance to a fort is considered a weak point, and is generally - at least in masonry forts - well defended to compensate for that fact. Early Third System forts often used multiple wet ditches with outworks between the ditches to defend the landward faces of the fort, and almost always had some significant outwork in advance of the sally port. While the idea of multiple ditches fell away as time progressed - it was found that even relatively simple outworks would prevent a land attack short of a siege - the sally port continued to be a well-protected point of a fort throughout the system. It was only toward the end of the system when funds were being cut off (after the war) that these defenses were abbreviated, though the original drawings still showed the extensive defenses of the sally port.
Here is a good example of an early-Third System sally port and its defenses: Fort Pike at Pass Rigolets to the northeast of New Orleans. The defenses of the sally port comprised two wet ditches with outworks between the ditches. Entrance to the sally port included a curved pathway that prevented direct artillery fire on the main gate of the sally port, with that passageway traversing a demilune that provided a strong defense. The outer ditch was crossed via a causeway defended by the demilune, with the inner ditch crossed by a combination of a causeway and a drawbridge. On either side of the sally port were casemates with embrasures for howitzers (firing cannister) providing forward fire down the causeway and drawbridge. Additionally, bastions to either side of the sally port provided flanking fire on the causeway and drawbridge. Even though it was a relatively small fort, the land defenses were formidable. This was true for all Third System forts of this time period.

While Fort Fisher was indeed designed for seacoast defense, so were all the permanent fortifications of the Third System (except one). They each had, however, extensive land defenses for self-protection. I'm surprised by the lack of strong land defenses for the sally port of Fort Fisher.

When I think of the defense of a sally port, Alcatraz really comes to mind. They still have a gun there on display at the guard house that illustrates how easily a single shot loaded with canister could have mowed down troops assaulting that part of the fortifications.

That, coupled with the fire from troops above and any naval support that may have been present, like Confederate defenders of Fort Fisher assumed would be present on the Cape Fear River, would have rendered that area unapproachable.
 
When I think of the defense of a sally port, Alcatraz really comes to mind. They still have a gun there on display at the guard house that illustrates how easily a single shot loaded with canister could have mowed down troops assaulting that part of the fortifications.

That, coupled with the fire from troops above and any naval support that may have been present, like Confederate defenders of Fort Fisher assumed would be present on the Cape Fear River, would have rendered that area unapproachable.
The sally port at Alcatraz had a very effective design, and was based on the terrain at its location. It was designed for three howitzers, two providing forward fire up the road from the dock and one providing reverse fire outside the scarp. It was also equipped with loopholes for flanking fire along the ditch. A drawbridge crossed the ditch, providing another obstacle to an attacker.
Alcatraz sally port interior with labels.jpg
16-13 Alcatraz Sally Port.jpg

IMGP9482.JPG
 
I just read the Wikipedia page for Fort Fisher and was surprised that no mention was made concerning General Lee's 1861 orders to fortify the coast in the south. It says Lamb was there in 1862 when he did not like the rudimentary works and asked for it to be better fortified. Didn't General Lee also visit the Wilmington area as well as Charleston Harbor? I thought he would surely have made recommendations for the defenses at Fort Fisher.
Lubliner.
 
I just read the Wikipedia page for Fort Fisher and was surprised that no mention was made concerning General Lee's 1861 orders to fortify the coast in the south. It says Lamb was there in 1862 when he did not like the rudimentary works and asked for it to be better fortified. Didn't General Lee also visit the Wilmington area as well as Charleston Harbor? I thought he would surely have made recommendations for the defenses at Fort Fisher.
Lubliner.
I'm unsure of Lee's visits but you must remember that Lee was a West Point educated, US regular prior to the war. He was used to surveying and helping plan permanent fortifications. It's probably a hard habit to shake in terms of wanting to plan things.
 
The sally port at Alcatraz had a very effective design, and was based on the terrain at its location. It was designed for three howitzers, two providing forward fire up the road from the dock and one providing reverse fire outside the scarp. It was also equipped with loopholes for flanking fire along the ditch. A drawbridge crossed the ditch, providing another obstacle to an attacker.
View attachment 403952View attachment 403951
View attachment 403953
To help clarify the sally port at Alcatraz, I drew a sketch of the plan.
Alcatraz sally port plan color with lables.jpg

Here is the larger plan for context
Alcatraz plan Color.jpg
 
The gate appears badly sited, with no flanking fire covering it. I think it would have been better placed in the center of the wall where the approach could be covered by flanking fire from both sides.

The trace of the fort, with its lack of flanking fires and ditches, seems poorly designed to repel an infantry assault, which the actual event bears out. The bastion like work where the land front and sea front meet appears poorly designed with no line of fire down either front.
Fort Fisher's land face runs at about a 35 degree angle north of the gate, this allowed a decent amount of flanking fire. Not to mention that the gate was flanked by multiple field guns and rifle pits which all worked in tandem to earn the title: The Bloody Gate. Fort Fisher was rather genius in it's design, construction and simplicity. However, none of this could overcome how critically undermanned her garrison was. A fault of high command and Richmond.
 
View attachment 402267I took this photo earlier this year during a walkaround of the north ramparts (the land face of the fort) at Fort Fisher on Federal Point at Kure Beach, N.C. This shot shows the route that Union infantry forces took during the Second Battle of Fort Fisher, when they broke through a sally port and subdued the Confederate earthen fort on 15 Jan. 1865. This location became known by veterans of the engagement as the "Bloody Gate." Although the defenders put up a fierce fight, the Federals' successful entry at this spot makes me wonder whether a sally port might often be considered a weak point in a fort, and thus the target for an attack.

This sally port for the fort was located at the extreme west end of Fisher's land face, next to the Cape Fear River. It seems like an awkward place for a sally port: It's in a marshy area close to the river, where it might have been difficult to build effective defenses against attack. I understand that this point was chosen as the entry in part because it was the end point of the only road leading north to Wilmington. The gate was protected by abatis and palisades, and was overlooked by Shepherd's Battery just above it.

This photo from inside the fort shows Shepherd's Battery between the two westernmost traverses, down at the end toward the left, with the sally port below to the left:

View attachment 402285

This U.S. War Department map (by Lt. Col. Cyrus B. Comstock, 1865) shows the overall plan of Fort Fisher, with Shepherd's Battery and the sally port at upper right next to the river. (This map is oriented with the northwest toward the top.)

View attachment 402290

And here's a detail zooming in on the area of The Bloody Gate:

View attachment 402297

From this layout, it looks to me as if the Wilmington Road just comes right into the fort on pretty much a straight shot. You can see that the area is marshy, and the road seems to cross over a water obstacle on a bridge. I know that Fort Fisher was more of a coastal fortification and wasn't exactly conceived to withstand a ground siege, but I might have expected to see that road taking a more pronounced zigzag path, with a protective traverse in front of the gate running parallel to the main parapet. Maybe other members here might know more about the rationale for this design. (@NFB22 or @jrweaver?)

It could be that Maj. Gen. W.H.C. Whiting, who oversaw construction of the fort, just didn't anticipate the fierce assault that would be directed at that point on 15 January 1865.

On 13 January, Union Maj. Gen. Alfred Terry landed three divisions on the peninsula north of Fort Fisher, then moved two of his divisions closer to the fort on the 14th. On the 15th, Rear Adm. David D. Porter of the U.S. North Atlantic Blockading Squadron battered Fort Fisher and silenced most of its guns. A landing party of sailors and marines assaulted the sea face of the fort. This attack was repulsed, but soon Terry's forces (his Second Division under Brig. Gen. Adelbert Ames) began their attack on the sally port at the other end of the land face. That led to the fabled engagement at the Bloody Gate.

Ames's soldiers had to cut through the abatis and palisades under heavy fire, before storming the westernmost salient and the entry gate. Dr. James Mowris, surgeon of the 117th N.Y. Infantry, described the assault this way:

"It was an awful moment, and, while with compressed lips our troops were breathing a silent petition for home and country, the signal was given, and the line, despite the storm of bullets and cannister which strewed the interval with dead and wounded, rushed forward like a tempest, through the stockade, and up the parapet, and, in a trice, a veteran Union flag fluttered on the parapet. If the roar of artillery abated, it was more than supplied by the yelling and the din of deadly musketry." (A History of the 117th Regiment. N.Y. Volunteers. Hartford: Case, Lockwood and Co., 1866. Pages 168-9.)

Here's a map of the assault at the Bloody Gate, taken from interpretive signage at the Fort Fisher park:

View attachment 402306

This is the view from the approach to the gate likely used by Ames's men:

View attachment 402307

Roy B.
Fantastic images.
Without a Sally Port how could defenders Sally Forth?
It looks to me that it is poor design that maybe relied on swampyness to hamstring ground attackers. I don't know any Sally Port that doesn't have flank fire on the gate to mow down attackers. Was there a piece or two aiming out that gate at the time?
On YouTube there are clips from a film where the defenders in a castle fire a single tube into charging Winged Hussars coming in through the Sally Port. One Hussar gets beheaded by chain shot. I don't know what happens next but it illustrates that a couple double canister rounds into that opening would cause fearful carnage. Maybe that happened and they still got over ran.
 
My understanding of the mines at Fort McAllister is that they were placed on the land approach to the fort, and did cause quite a problem for the Union troops who made the assault. If memory serves, after the fort was taken, Sherman ordered the captured commander to have the Confederate POWs dig up and remove all remaining mines. My only gripe about McAllister is the fact that the fort as it is today looks nothing as it did during war time. The entire area in and around the fort was completely barren, affording the defenders good visibility for 360 degrees and clear fields of fire. If the fort had been assigned a larger garrison and more cannon for the land side approach, it could have been a blood bath.....not that it would have mattered much to Sherman with his seemingly endless supply of troops.
I have been away from the site for several weeks due to a life-threatening illness, but thankfully am getting back to normal now after a successful surgery. I have some physical limitations for another week or so, but I can research and type again! :smile:
The sally port/entrance to a fort is considered a weak point, and is generally - at least in masonry forts - well defended to compensate for that fact. Early Third System forts often used multiple wet ditches with outworks between the ditches to defend the landward faces of the fort, and almost always had some significant outwork in advance of the sally port. While the idea of multiple ditches fell away as time progressed - it was found that even relatively simple outworks would prevent a land attack short of a siege - the sally port continued to be a well-protected point of a fort throughout the system. It was only toward the end of the system when funds were being cut off (after the war) that these defenses were abbreviated, though the original drawings still showed the extensive defenses of the sally port.
Here is a good example of an early-Third System sally port and its defenses: Fort Pike at Pass Rigolets to the northeast of New Orleans. The defenses of the sally port comprised two wet ditches with outworks between the ditches. Entrance to the sally port included a curved pathway that prevented direct artillery fire on the main gate of the sally port, with that passageway traversing a demilune that provided a strong defense. The outer ditch was crossed via a causeway defended by the demilune, with the inner ditch crossed by a combination of a causeway and a drawbridge. On either side of the sally port were casemates with embrasures for howitzers (firing cannister) providing forward fire down the causeway and drawbridge. Additionally, bastions to either side of the sally port provided flanking fire on the causeway and drawbridge. Even though it was a relatively small fort, the land defenses were formidable. This was true for all Third System forts of this time period.
The following drawings are from National Archives and Records Administration, then colorized by me to bring out the details.
View attachment 403828
This is a section through the same area:
View attachment 403829

In this photo, the sally port, protected by an embrasure in the flank of a demibastion, is shown. What now is a continuous wooden bridge was originally a similar wooden bridge to within about 12 feet of the sally port, then a drawbridge ending at the masonry wall. The full bastion at the bottom of the picture would also have contained a casemate with a howitzer embrasure overlooking the sally port.
View attachment 403835
When compared to the sally port / entrance to Fort Fisher, the defenses of the relatively small fort were very extensive!

While Fort Fisher was indeed designed for seacoast defense, so were all the permanent fortifications of the Third System (except one). They each had, however, extensive land defenses for self-protection. I'm surprised by the lack of strong land defenses for the sally port of Fort Fisher.
God's speed with your recovery.
 
It looks to me that it is poor design that maybe relied on swampyness to hamstring ground attackers. I don't know any Sally Port that doesn't have flank fire on the gate to mow down attackers. Was there a piece or two aiming out that gate at the time?

Good observations. There was some capability for flanking fire at that entrance, and many attackers were brought down -- thus the moniker "Bloody Gate." But I think the defenders might have been relying too much on the marshy area and stockades as obstacles. Also on a network of wired torpedoes (land mines), which was disabled by artillery fire from the squadron. And on top of all that, the defenders were diverted and distracted by an amphibious assault from the sea face. Bragg is often accused of not sending enough reinforcements from Wilmington, thus the Fort Fisher defenders were overwhelmed and the fortress lost.

Roy B.
 
Good observations. There was some capability for flanking fire at that entrance, and many attackers were brought down -- thus the moniker "Bloody Gate." But I think the defenders might have been relying too much on the marshy area and stockades as obstacles. Also on a network of wired torpedoes (land mines), which was disabled by artillery fire from the squadron. And on top of all that, the defenders were diverted and distracted by an amphibious assault from the sea face. Bragg is often accused of not sending enough reinforcements from Wilmington, thus the Fort Fisher defenders were overwhelmed and the fortress lost.

Roy B.
Were all obviously just assuming here as I have not read any literature from Lamb or anyone else regarding the defenses of Fort Fisher, in particular the "Bloody Gate" if such a work even exists. That said.

I think it's a mixture of assumptions regarding the defense of the gate.

The first is obviously the terrain did not seem desirable for an opposing force to make an attack. Thats why the defenders chose to place such a gate at that location. Granted, the terrain has changed since 1865 but as a former grunt in the Marines, I wouldn't want to make an assault through that area, having been there. That said, it's possible as we have already seen.

As I've posted prior. There were 20+ artillery pieces incorporated into the land-facing portion of Fort Fisher. An attacking force having to cross the dunes, exposed to that type of firepower, would have taken HEAVY casualties. But Lamb assumed any landing further down the beach and out of range of his artillery would be opposed. Those troops that were actually in place to oppose such a landing under Hoke, were never committed and Bragg, effectively, sat on his hands during both the landings and the ensuing battle.

As @A. Roy stated. A series of early land mines were placed, but were rendered ineffective due to naval gunfire. That, coupled with the garrison being engaged from the seaward face by a mixed force of sailors and Marines that pretty much ended up being ineffective but acted as an impromptu diversion as well as being weary from the previous bombardment, sealed the fort's the fate.

Additionally, I'm not sure if this was an assumption, but I would think naval gunfire from CSN vessels on the Cape Fear River could have made quite a significant contribution and possibly the defenders thought this would be possible. That said, I'd have to ask @Mark F. Jenkins or someone what type of firepower would have been available to support the fort in January of 65. I'm not very familiar with the CSN operations in the Wilmington area beyond the Marine operations and the ill-fated CSS Raleigh.

Now, put that all together. To me, it makes sense why the gate became a weak point.
 
The sally port at Alcatraz had a very effective design, and was based on the terrain at its location. It was designed for three howitzers, two providing forward fire up the road from the dock and one providing reverse fire outside the scarp. It was also equipped with loopholes for flanking fire along the ditch. A drawbridge crossed the ditch, providing another obstacle to an attacker.
View attachment 403952View attachment 403951
View attachment 403953
Fort Point under the arch of the Golden Gate Bridge gas a great Sally Port for illustrating such things. We used to have Civil War weekends with the Park Service there. NCWA.
 
Fort Point under the arch of the Golden Gate Bridge gas a great Sally Port for illustrating such things. We used to have Civil War weekends with the Park Service there. NCWA.
The sally port at Fort Point is typical for a Third System fort. As you say, it is a great example of how a sally port should be built, with layers of defense and intersecting fields of fire. While the sally ports of Third System forts vary in design, the principles are the same.
 
The defense of the sally port at Fort Point (technically the Fort at Fort Point) begins with defending the path leading to the fort. There is only one route, the one in use today, to approach the fort, and that is a roughly 20-foot wide road leading along the water. Coming down the road, one is facing the landward side of the east bastion of the fort. Howitzer embrasures on three levels provide forward fire down this road, and counterbattery cannon on the barbette tier of the fort would support these howitzers.
East bastion land defense.jpg

As an attacker approached the fort, they would turn 90 degrees to the left (west) and approach the sally port parallel to the gorge of the fort. During this time there would have been a cliff to their left (south) and a ditch between them and the gorge wall of the fort. They would have been under fire from the loopholes along the gorge wall on three levels.
Point Gorge.jpg

As can be seen in the picture, the ditch has been filled in, but the loopholes are still present. As they traversed this route parallel to the gorge, they would have been facing a counterscarp gallery - unfortunately no longer extant. This gallery, detached from the fort, provided howitzer fire parallel to the gorge, firing from west toward the east, as well as guarding the west wall of the fort. The following historic photograph shows this counterscarp gallery prior to its demolition during the building of the Golden Gate bridge.
Point Aerial McGovern 2 Rev03.jpg

Once the sally port itself was reached, the attacker was faced with a drawbridge and two massive doors. The drawbridge has subsequently been removed, but the holes in the façade are clearly visible where the cables passed through to the lifting mechanism inside the sally port.
Sally Port closed.jpg

As can be seen, these doors were carefully designed. They are made from three layers of wood, with the grain of the middle layer perpendicular to the grain of the inner and outer layers. This made it difficult to chop through with an ax, as you would be chopping with the grain, then be faced with a cross grain. To complicate matters, every six inches in both directions were iron studs. If the attackers ax hit one of these studs, one of two things would happen. Best case, his back teeth would ring for an hour! Worst case, the hardened iron ax head would shatter, and the attacker would be left with only a handle to try to knock down the gate.
Once past the drawbridge and doors, the attacker would be in the outer chamber of the sally port. Here the attacker would be under fire from loopholes in the side walls of the chamber, in addition to forward fire from the second set of doors.
Point Sally Port Rev01.jpg

The second set of doors were slightly different from the outer doors. While the lower half of the inner doors were the same design as the outer doors, the top half were an open lattice pattern. This allowed for rifle/musket fire through the top half of the door while the bottom half of the door protected the defender.
Inner Sally Port Doors.jpg

If the attacker managed to breach these doors, there would have been a field piece loaded with canister on the parade of the fort facing the sally port.
As can be clearly seen, attacking this fort with infantry would be tantamount to suicide!
 
The defense of the sally port at Fort Point (technically the Fort at Fort Point) begins with defending the path leading to the fort. There is only one route, the one in use today, to approach the fort, and that is a roughly 20-foot wide road leading along the water. Coming down the road, one is facing the landward side of the east bastion of the fort. Howitzer embrasures on three levels provide forward fire down this road, and counterbattery cannon on the barbette tier of the fort would support these howitzers.
View attachment 409012
As an attacker approached the fort, they would turn 90 degrees to the left (west) and approach the sally port parallel to the gorge of the fort. During this time there would have been a cliff to their left (south) and a ditch between them and the gorge wall of the fort. They would have been under fire from the loopholes along the gorge wall on three levels.
View attachment 409013
As can be seen in the picture, the ditch has been filled in, but the loopholes are still present. As they traversed this route parallel to the gorge, they would have been facing a counterscarp gallery - unfortunately no longer extant. This gallery, detached from the fort, provided howitzer fire parallel to the gorge, firing from west toward the east, as well as guarding the west wall of the fort. The following historic photograph shows this counterscarp gallery prior to its demolition during the building of the Golden Gate bridge.
View attachment 409014
Once the sally port itself was reached, the attacker was faced with a drawbridge and two massive doors. The drawbridge has subsequently been removed, but the holes in the façade are clearly visible where the cables passed through to the lifting mechanism inside the sally port.
View attachment 409015
As can be seen, these doors were carefully designed. They are made from three layers of wood, with the grain of the middle layer perpendicular to the grain of the inner and outer layers. This made it difficult to chop through with an ax, as you would be chopping with the grain, then be faced with a cross grain. To complicate matters, every six inches in both directions were iron studs. If the attackers ax hit one of these studs, one of two things would happen. Best case, his back teeth would ring for an hour! Worst case, the hardened iron ax head would shatter, and the attacker would be left with only a handle to try to knock down the gate.
Once past the drawbridge and doors, the attacker would be in the outer chamber of the sally port. Here the attacker would be under fire from loopholes in the side walls of the chamber, in addition to forward fire from the second set of doors.
View attachment 409016
The second set of doors were slightly different from the outer doors. While the lower half of the inner doors were the same design as the outer doors, the top half were an open lattice pattern. This allowed for rifle/musket fire through the top half of the door while the bottom half of the door protected the defender.
View attachment 409017
If the attacker managed to breach these doors, there would have been a field piece loaded with canister on the parade of the fort facing the sally port.
As can be clearly seen, attacking this fort with infantry would be tantamount to suicide!
Going up top at night in heavy fog is surreal. Muskets Rust real quick there.
 
The defense of the sally port at Fort Point (technically the Fort at Fort Point) begins with defending the path leading to the fort. There is only one route, the one in use today, to approach the fort, and that is a roughly 20-foot wide road leading along the water. Coming down the road, one is facing the landward side of the east bastion of the fort. Howitzer embrasures on three levels provide forward fire down this road, and counterbattery cannon on the barbette tier of the fort would support these howitzers.
View attachment 409012
As an attacker approached the fort, they would turn 90 degrees to the left (west) and approach the sally port parallel to the gorge of the fort. During this time there would have been a cliff to their left (south) and a ditch between them and the gorge wall of the fort. They would have been under fire from the loopholes along the gorge wall on three levels.
View attachment 409013
As can be seen in the picture, the ditch has been filled in, but the loopholes are still present. As they traversed this route parallel to the gorge, they would have been facing a counterscarp gallery - unfortunately no longer extant. This gallery, detached from the fort, provided howitzer fire parallel to the gorge, firing from west toward the east, as well as guarding the west wall of the fort. The following historic photograph shows this counterscarp gallery prior to its demolition during the building of the Golden Gate bridge.
View attachment 409014
Once the sally port itself was reached, the attacker was faced with a drawbridge and two massive doors. The drawbridge has subsequently been removed, but the holes in the façade are clearly visible where the cables passed through to the lifting mechanism inside the sally port.
View attachment 409015
As can be seen, these doors were carefully designed. They are made from three layers of wood, with the grain of the middle layer perpendicular to the grain of the inner and outer layers. This made it difficult to chop through with an ax, as you would be chopping with the grain, then be faced with a cross grain. To complicate matters, every six inches in both directions were iron studs. If the attackers ax hit one of these studs, one of two things would happen. Best case, his back teeth would ring for an hour! Worst case, the hardened iron ax head would shatter, and the attacker would be left with only a handle to try to knock down the gate.
Once past the drawbridge and doors, the attacker would be in the outer chamber of the sally port. Here the attacker would be under fire from loopholes in the side walls of the chamber, in addition to forward fire from the second set of doors.
View attachment 409016
The second set of doors were slightly different from the outer doors. While the lower half of the inner doors were the same design as the outer doors, the top half were an open lattice pattern. This allowed for rifle/musket fire through the top half of the door while the bottom half of the door protected the defender.
View attachment 409017
If the attacker managed to breach these doors, there would have been a field piece loaded with canister on the parade of the fort facing the sally port.
As can be clearly seen, attacking this fort with infantry would be tantamount to suicide.
Having the Pacific on the tight swimming with sharks would also be a deterrent. Surfers love that point but then again they are not bleeding from canister wounds.
 
Back
Top