I. THE FORT 1. CONTEMPORARY DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FORT Early on the second day (February 19, 1736) of Frederica’s beginning, Oglethorpe and his men “traced out a Fort with 4 Bastions by cutting up the Turf from the Ground, dug enough of the Ditch & 141 raised enough of the Rampart for a Sample for the men to work upon.” The fort was “in the Front of the said Town, commanding the River both ways, where the Town Guard was kept, which was built large 142 enough upon Occasion to contain the Inhabitants of the said Town”, who numbered at least 116 souls 143 in the early days. Within little more than a month, this fort was defensible. The indication is that in its first form, the fortification was entirely of earth, without any palisade or other timberwork whatsoever. But as time went by and the essentials were taken care of, additional strength was added. From eyewitness and other descriptions, this fort appears to have been 141 Collections of the Georgia Historical Society (Savannah, 1840-1916), III, 15 (hereafter cited as Collections); see also Francis Moore, “Voyage to Georgia Begun in the Year 1735”, in Collections, I, 109. 142 Colonial Records of the State of Georgia (Atlanta, 1904-1916; and MS. Volumes), XXXIX, 488. Hereafter cited as CR 39488. 143 Margaret Davis Cate, “Fort Frederica and the Battle of Bloody Marsh”, Georgia Historical Quarterly, XXVII, no. 2, 117. Cited hereafter as “Cate”. 99 conventional in design: a square with four regular bastions surrounded by a dry ditch and palisaded covert way. Within the earth walls were at least two large buildings. Philip Delegal, one of the military men associated with the early history of the settlement, furnished one of the most detailed descriptions of the fort in his deposition at London (1739): in 1736, stated Delegal, a “Fort was built at Frederica, consisting of a strong Mud Wall, with Frizes [fraises] all round, a Square with four regular Bastions, and a Spur-Work towards the river, and a dry Fosse palisadoed on the Outside, and stockaded in the Inside, defended by Cannon, and other Ordinance 144 [sic].” Samuel Augspourguer (Auspourget), surveyor employed in building the fort, made a similar deposition, in which he mentions specifically the existence of a covert way: “in the Year One thousand seven hundred and thirty-six, he [Augspourguer] built the Fort At Frederica, to which there is four 145 Bastions, a Ditch palisadoed, and a covered Way defended by fifteen Pieces of Cannon . .” Charles Dempsey, Oglethorpe’s well qualified commission, told the gentlemen in London that “at Frederica there is another Fort built with four regular Bastions, and a dry Ditch palisadoed on the Out-side, and stockaded in the Inside, both which were erected and mounted with Ordinance [sic], before this Deponent left 146 Georgia . .” Another record, summarizing the progress of fortification work in Georgia prior to 1737, mentions “One at Frederica, with Four regular Bastions, and a Spur-work towards the river, and several 147 Pieces of Cannon were mounted on it.” Capt. William Thompson wrote to the Earl of Egmont that “Col. Oglethorpe has now render’d the Fort of Frederica very strong, with a ditch, rampier [rampart], 148 parapet and Bastions, and there was only remaining to finish the Platforms for Canon.” Not all descriptions of the fort are enthusiastic. A Frederica landholder named Carteret reported in 149 1741 that “Frederica Fort contains about 200 Men in garrison, but is ill mounted with Canon . .” Thomas Stephens, a disturber, was quoted as saying that “the Forts we brag of are pitiful things not worth the mentioning. Frederica 144 CR 39/473. 145 CR39/479. 146 CR 39/483. 147 CR 3/388. 148 CR 5/558. 149 CR 5/499. 100 150 Fort is only some boards set up Musket proof with a ditch about it . .” About this same time (1739), the Earl of Egmont had occasion to talk with Charles Dempsey about the condition of Georgia’s forts. “After dinner I met Capt Demsey,” wrote Egmont, “and told him Sr Robt Walpole said publicly in the house of Commons that there had not yet been a shovel of Earth dug towards building Forts in Georgia. The Capt swore G--- d--- him, what did he mean to say so? That Fort Frederica is so strong it can’t be taken without Canon, having bastions, covert way, palisadoes & ditch, and when he was there, 20 cannon 151 mounted.” One valuable eyewitness description of the fort came from the pen of Edward Kimber, a traveler to 152 Frederica late in 1742 or early in 1743: “The Town is defended by a pretty strong Fort, of Tappy, which has several 18 Pounders mounted on a Ravelin in its Front and commands the River both upwards and downwards; and is surrounded by a quadrangular Rampart, with 4 Bastions, of Earth, well stockaded and turfed, and a palisadoed Ditch, which include also the King’s Storehouses, (in which are kept the Arsenal, the Court of Justice, and Chapel) two large and spacious Buildings of Brick and Timber: On the Rampart are mounted a considerable Quantity of Ordnance of several Sizes. The Town is surrounded by a 153 Rampart, with Flankers, of the same Thickness with that round the Fort . .” Doubtless there are other descriptions of the fort, buried in the mass of sources relating to Frederica. Those cited above will suffice for the purpose of the present study. 2. NOTES ON THE CITADEL SITE On the east bank of the Frederica river stands a one-story masonry ruin popularly called “the fort” or “the citadel” (marked A in plate 21). The river bank rises here some 8 feet above the marsh level. In the yellow sand of this bluff or bank may be seen various interesting strata, including some humus layers, as well as apparent floor 150 CR 5/308 151 CR 5/144 152 This casual reference to a tabby fort is difficult to accept literally. Evidently this observer, who was not an experienced military man familiar with military nomenclature, saw the masonry buildings within the earth fortification as a “Fort of Tappy”. For a definition of tabby, see post pp. 179-180, n. 200. 153 [Edward Kimber,] “Itinerant Observations in America”, in London Magazine (1745-1746). Reprinted in Collections, IV. See p. 4. Kimber’s observations were written early in 1743. Cited hereafter as “Observations.” 101 levels. The “citadel” is a rectangular structure approximately 20 by 50 feet. Its foundations and walls are of tabby, consistent with other ruins in the vicinity. Height of the “citadel” is about 12 feet from foundation to top. The floor level is several feet below the level of the bluff. There are three rooms, the two larger almost identical, each ceiled with a round arch of brick, and the soffit of the arch at right angles to the length of the building. The third room is a small one, now ceilingless, at the north end of the structure. By 1900 the south, west and north walls of the building, together with the south arch, had fallen. 154 Almost the only parts of the ruin standing above the foundations were the east wall and the north arch. 155 In 1904 the fallen walls were reconstructed, the workmen using as much as possible of the old masonry. To rebuild the south arch, however, new brick was used, and the method of laying was not entirely in accord with the style of the north arch. It has not been possible to determine whether the structure originally was higher than its present single story. During the reconstruction, the walls were crowned with merlons of Portland cement containing an oyster shell aggregate (rather poorly resembling tabby), but it is doubtful that these merlons t h are historically accurate. Their design is inconsistent with 18 century principles. Perhaps they were based upon the obviously inaccurate sketches that appeared in Harper’s Weekly or Lossing’s Pictorial Field-Book of the Revolution (see post, bibliography.) About 100 feet north of the “Citadel” (Ruin A) in an eroded portion of the river bank, are tabby ruins (B) of a building that appears to have been similar in dimension and plan to Ruin A. The base of this foundation seems to be at higher elevation than that of Ruin A. Little of the building remains except lower portions of the east wall and fragmentary ground floor levels, partially protected by an accumulation of humus. Several partition foundations are displaced, and a section of the north foundation is also moved slightly from its original location by erosion. 1) See the accompanying photographs, plate 19. 2) S. Price Gilbert, “The Part Played by the Colonial Dames in Establishing the Fort Frederica National Monument,” Georgia Historical Quarterly, XXVII, no. 2, 177. 102 Plate 21 - Sketch of the Citadel Site 103 Other masonry ruins (C and D) are found within a 150-foot area east of Ruin A. Ruin C, a tabby foundation, shows approximately 50 feet northeast of Ruin A, and extends eastward for a distance of about 60 feet. Probing revealed the existence of underlying masonry which might be west and south walls for Ruin C. About 130 feet south of Ruin C is Ruin D, the corner foundation of another tabby building. Earthwork remains in the citadel area are not extensive, and a most careful observation of the site was necessary to discover what may be significant topography. Just north of Ruin B on the river bank, a swale or depression (G) opens into the marsh. This swale extends landward in a southeasterly direction for about 100 feet, where it angels to the northeast, circles a mound (E) about 200 feet east of Ruin B, and runs some 200 feet south until it becomes lost in an oak grove near the existing road.