NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AMERICAN BATTLEFIELD PROTECTION PROGRAM GRANT AGREEMENT NO. GA‐2255‐09‐015 NAVAL ENGAGEMENTS OF THE REVOLUTIONARY AND 1812 WARS IN MARYLAND BY MARYLAND MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGY PROGRAM MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST AND NEW SOUTH ASSOCIATES, INC. FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT VOLUME I – TEXT SEPTEMBER 2013 For future copies: Kristen L. McMasters Government Technical Representative DOI – National Park Service American Battlefield Protection Program 1201 Eye Street NW (2255) 6th floor Washington, DC 20005 This material is based upon work assisted by a grant from the Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of the Interior. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Maryland Maritime Archaeology Program (MMAP) wishes to express its appreciation to the American Battlefield Protection Program, especially Kristen McMasters and Paul Hawke, for their guidance, advice and patience as we worked through unfamiliar bureaucratic processes, vast geographic areas, changes in staff, equipment failures, and inclement weather. Evie Cohen, the Maryland Historical Trust’s Chief, Operations Management/Grants Manager, managed all the finances for the project and ensured that fiscal reports were completed and submitted on time; a daunting task for which we are eternally grateful. We would also like to thank former MMAP staff member Brian Jordan for his efforts, early in the project, in crafting and submitting the various work plans requiring approval to begin fieldwork. Like many agencies, MMAP is understaffed and has been operating with only 2/3 of the required personnel. Therefore, the assistance provided by the large number of volunteers, many of them loyal supporters for years, is more than gratefully received, it is critical to the undertaking and completion of most projects. This one is no exception and we wish to acknowledge the following participants who put their valuable time and skills at our service. In alphabetical order, Tom Berkey , Hal Brundage, Dawn Cheshaek, John Fulchiron, Dave Howe, Steve Kuper, Dan and Nick Lynberg, Isabel Mack, LCol Pete Peril (Canadian Forces), Kirk Pierce, Robert Thompson, and Jim Smailes. Some of these volunteers are members of the Institute of Maritime History (IMH), some are members of the Maritime Archaeological and Historical Society (MAHS). Others came to us from university and college classes, or heard about the Program and project through media reports and MHT‐related events. We appreciate everyone’s good nature through rough seas, near sinking, sudden squalls and infuriating equipment failures, as well as how adept everyone became at dodging crab pots or disentangling them under the scrutiny of passing watermen. We are particularly grateful for some exceptional services, as in the trailer‐backing skills of Dave Howe and Steve Kuper, and the on‐the‐fly repairs of our own MacGyver, Kirk Pierce. Of course, some aspects were less arduous than others; those on the Sassafras River survey had to be sworn to silence when the only marina, restaurants and accommodation within a viable distance were exceptionally nice. A debt of gratitude is also owed to the personnel at the Patuxent River Naval Air Station (PAX). Natural Resources Manager for PAX, Kyle Rambo, was an outstanding partner for the survey work off shore of the base. He coordinated access to the grounds, use of the seaplane basin for mooring, and communication with the security personnel. Newly appointed Cultural Resources Manager for PAX, Michael Smolek was always willing to assist and facilitate this project. In addition the Commanding Officer at the time, Captain Stephen Schmeiser took a personal interest in the project and Kim Upshaw, then Managing Editor of the base publication The Tester offered research and field assistance. The project is very grateful to a number of businesses: Calvert Marina on Solomons Island, that donated docking and freshwater free oft charge, kep an eye on the lines in bad weather when staff were ashore, and provided the “fuzz therapy” of assorted pets after a long day. Locust Marina on the Elk River, provided launching and docking facilities at no charge as well as advice and information about i difficulties navigating the river channel above that point. Georgetown Yacht Basin and the Kitty Knight House both went above and beyond in providing additional and special services without charge and for cooperating with our exceptionally early departures. We are appreciative of scholars and interested parties, especially Ralph Eshelman, who forwarded documents, comments, and suggestions about the sites under consideration and regarding the War of 1812 in general. We anticipate that these will prove interesting as research continues on some of these sites. ii ABSTRACT This study of naval engagements of the Revolutionary and 1812 Wars in Maryland was supported by a grant from the National Park Service American Battlefield Protection Program. New South Associates undertook battlefield analyses related to six naval engagement sites in Maryland: the loss of Cato and Hawk at Cedar Point (1781); the Battle of Kedges Straits (1782); the raids on Frenchtown and Elkton on the Elk River (1813 & 1814); the raid on Georgetown and Fredericktown on the Sassafras River (1813); the Battles of St. Leonard’s Creek (1814); and the Battle of Baltimore (1814). That work utilized the METT‐T approach supplemented by consideration of the Principles of War. Battlefield terrain analyses, a component of the METT‐T approach, utilized the KOCOA method. New South Associates defined key battlefield features as well as core and secondary areas for each battle. The results of those analyses reveal a better understanding of some of the battles under consideration, and generate new questions related to others. Their work served as the basis for reconnaissance‐level underwater archaeological fieldwork using magnetometer and side scan sonar systems that was undertaken by the Maryland Maritime Archaeology Program (MMAP) related to the loss of Cato and Hawk , the Battle of Kedges Straits, and the raid on Georgetown and Fredericktown. Fieldwork was intended to identify areas with potential to contain physical evidence of the engagements. In addition to reconnaissance‐level fieldwork, MMAP inspected site no. 18CV414, Gunboats 137 and 138 related to the Second Battle of St. Leonard’s Creek, and attempted to access site nos. 18CE319 and 18CE331, a shipwreck and a ballast pile possibly related to the 1813 raids on Frenchtown and Elkton, in order to ensure that the sites remain undamaged and to record any observations that might facilitate future surveys or investigations. Twenty‐eight targets were identified during magnetometer and side scan sonar surveys that were recommended for further investigation and inspection of site no. 18CV414 revealed no evidence of intrusion. Site nos. 18CE319 and 18CE331 were not accessible due to sedimentation and channel collapse. Further historical and archaeological research is needed at the six engagement sites to assess their potential eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ‐ VOLUME I ‐ TEXT Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................ i Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ iii Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures ..............................................................................................................................................xiii 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Battlefield Analyses ................................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 3 The METT‐T Approach ............................................................................................................................... 3 Mission .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Enemy ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Terrain (KOCOA) .................................................................................................................................... 4 Troops Available .................................................................................................................................... 6 Time Available ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Principles of War ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Objective ..............................................................................................................................................