I ,,-:- I •• I. D~ 11 I •II •I. ii I I I I ~----!-~_z~_~_s_c_a_ns_· ______________________ PB-200 644 Fort j , cHenry I Militar Structures I HISTORIC STRUCTURES REPORT PART I I Fort McHenry National Monument I and Historic Shrine BALTIMORE, MARYLAND I Historical Data Section I by George J. Svejda I I ·1 I '. I I • I I I I i I i I : I I : I l.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR . National Park Service Washington, D.C. I 11 I I I No Part Ir 16. Ab,UdCt'l ---------------------------------------------------------i I This report was prepared· to provide historic;ll data on struct11rei a t F o r t Mc H e n r y t h a t e i t h e r o n c e e x i s t e d o r s t i : l J <' e K i s t Th •.• o. l 'J d v l' is limited to those structures which serveJ thv fort at the time of the 25 hour British bombardment of September 13-14, 181~. and contributt·d I to it s success f u 1 defence an <l t he w r i t in g o f "Th e S t ;1 r - Sp a n g 1 l' <l Bann e "r , " our National Anthem. The report inclu_des an introduc·tqrv chapter of background information and admiostrative history, to[ lowed by indivi,i·1al treatment of each of the structures conc<o'rnl.'d. rhe in[,)rtnation con- I tained in the report will be helpful to interpretation of events associated with Fort McHenry and to understcrn :in.c: ·of the_· hi·;t,,ri1 ·.t i I scene. *National Monuments I Park Lands History Architecture Military Structures Reviews ; I I l l7b. IJencif1c";,'Upen·f·o,Jed ! erms I *Fort McHenry National Mo n um en t a n <l H i s t o r i r· Shrine I Baltimore Maryland Patapsco River I '. !. r'~ ;~·'J . • J ~P 1· ~.;".. '. ··-·!,\L ~c(;il«\(.'\L I i... ,::r~ :<.11",,-:1c:-r "~c.~<VICf.: j l7c. COSATl l· 1eld (;roCLp SD ·:· :.''\:·.· , ·\';'.""R'> Pril'i.:s subject to ch;111ge '"'1:--s-.-A-v-.,-.-1.. -f-,i,...11-t)-.-'i-ta_t_l'_m_<_-!1-t _,A_v_a-1"""·..,.1_a_b,__,l_e--f~r_o_m_: ____________ 'l9.~·;:,.,'::/.'.; r ',,, Tl," 21_.___ c;_._·· __···.~·"_e_' ]' National Tec-hnical Information Service r_,, ,,,!Ff!Jl __ ~- I 1 5285 Port Royal Road 20.,... ,,.,1·<la.-1:.. 22.h•c. 1 1 Springfield, Virginia 22161 ''· >< • sc 00 1 ~~FO~R~M"'.'"""N~T~>~S-~0~5"."",".""R~~"."",-:-,c,·.-,-,,---------------------L---~f'~~~(~f~.A~·~,·~-l~F~f~l·~IJ;.__ _ __j,___ J_. __ ______, I I \:J)()H:Si'.D HY A.\:' \'.',[) 1'"'~~·:--;c.O. lHb f-11/~'..l \1\Y Hf· Hi·l'!~il\J' r: ') ._.,~.·~··r,•.r)c.. ~ .. ,c;.Pr4 I HISTORIC STRUCTURES REPORT I I HISTORICAL DATA SECTION I I by I ~­ DR. GEORGE J. SVEJDA I HISTORIAN I I I I DIVISION OF HISTORY I OFFICE OF ARCHEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION i JUNE 30, 1969 l I I : I I1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR l NATIONAL PARK SERVICE I I I 1 l i I i I I r.--- , ~ ! I TABLE OF CONTENTS I Page I INTRO OlfCT fON . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • j l I I. FORT Mcl!I.:NRY N/\TTONAL MONUMENT t.ND llISTORIC SIIR £NE: c;ENERAL I I I. TllE COMMANDING OFFICER'S QUARTERS 30 I II I . THE POWDER M/\CAZ I NE . • • • • • • • • . • • • . .n I IV. TIIE .JUNIOR OFFICERS' QUARTERS I V. SOLDIERS' BARRACKS NO. 1 .•••.••••• 45 I VI. THE GUARD HOUSE . .:.2 I VII. THE RAVELIN • • • • • • • • • . • 57 I VIII. APPROACH ROAD AND TRESTLE BRIDGE 61 I IX. THE WATER CISTERN . 63 I X. THE STAR ·FORT WALLS . • • . 65 XI. THE PARADE GROUND .......•••...... 70 I XII. SOLDIERS' BARRACKS NO. 2 76 I i I I I I INTRODUCTION I Jistoric Structur~~_5eport, Fort McHenry k:.dor>'1.!_ I ~~-~·rnd Historic Shrine has been prepared in accordance with the Historical Resource Study Proposal tc satisfy the I research needs of the Park. The study involves historical I data on the foll-:nd_ng :_· tructures: I. General I II. The Conunanding Officer's Quarters, Part I, FM-H-6 I III. The Powder Magazine, Part I, FM-H-8 IV. The Junior Officers' Quarters, Part I, FM-H-10 I V. Soldiers' Barracks No. 1, Part I, FM-H-12 VI. The Guard House, Part I, FM-H-16 I VII. The Ravelin, Parts I & II, FM-H-18 I VIII. Approach Road and Trestle Bridge, Parts I & II, FM-H-19 IX. The Water Cistern, Parts I & II, FM-H-20 I X. The Star Fort Walls, Parts I & II, FM-H-22 XI. The Parade Ground, Parts I & II, FM-H-23 I XII. Soldiers' Barracks No. 2, Part I, FM-H-24 I In preparing this study I received valuable assistance from Superintendent Walter Bruce and his able assistant, Mrs. Hallie I D. Crowell. While I was doing resear~h at Fort McHenry our second I daughter, Andrea Frances, was born at the Georgetown University I ii '·· I I I Hospital. While my thoughts were with my wife and the newly born baby, both Mr. Bruce and Mrs. Crowell tried to make my stay I at Fort McHenry as pleasant as possible, and by their cheerful I and pleasant attitude helped me to complete this a.~signment. My thanks and appreciation also go to Mr. Frank B. Sarles, Jr., I I for proofreading the final draft and to Mrs. Maxine G~·,; sr.am , I for typing this study in final form. I I I I George J. Svejda I I I I I I I I I , I I I iii t i ! ' I I I i l I I I I CHAPTER I ~ FORT McHENRY NATIONAL MONUMENT AND HISTORIC SHRINE I HISTORICAL DATA (a) Brief History of Structure: General I Fort McHenry is so situated that it has absolute c0ntrol I of the water approaches to Baltimore. Lying in Baltimore between the Patapsco River and its northwest branch, it had 1 I its origin in 1776 with the Whetstone Point shore battery. By 1794 Fort Whetstone, which in the meantime had been I abandoned, came unde! the jurisdiction of the Federal Govern­ I ment upon a recommendation made to the House of Representatives that Bal t: :11ore, together w:: th fifteen a.ddi tional ports and harbors, be fortified, and an appropriation was made for this I 2 purpose. The authorization for work on the fortification of 3 ports and harbors came with the Act of March 20, 1794. I John Jacob Ulrick Rivardi was designated by the Secretary of War to examine the fortifications and to prepare plans for I 1. Harold I. Lessem and George C. Mackenzie, Fort McHenry National Monwnent and Historic Shrine, Maryland. Nati ona 1 Park Service Historical Handbook Series, No. 5. (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1957), pp. 1-2. I 2. Cf. Report No. 13 Communicated to the House of Repre­ sentatives, February 28, 1794, 3rd Congress, 1st Session. American State Papers. Class V. Military Affairs. Volume I, I pp. 61-64. 3. "An Act to provide for the defence of certain ports and harbors in the United States. 11 Annals of the Congress of I the United States, Third Congress. Comprising the Period from December 2, 1793, to March 3, 1795. Inclusive, pp. 1423-24. I 4 Rivardi's plans I a permanent defense of Baltimore harbor. I were approved on April 20, 1794, and Samuels Dodge was selected to supervise the construction. I By May 11, 1797, Fort Whetstone had become known as Fort McHenry, so named in honor of Colonel James ;.1cHenry of 6 I Maryland, then Secrets.ry of War. I Although the St.!' Fort was completed some time in the late 1790s, extensive improvements were made between 1803 I and the time of the bombardment by the British in 1814. The bombardment by the fleet of sixteen British warsh5ps I lasted, with two brief intermissions, for twenty-five hours, I between 6:00 a.m. of Se-ptember 13 and 7:00 a.m. of Septe;nber 14, and according to the estimate of Maj. George Armistead, I between fifteen and eighteen hundred shells were directed at the fort. Despite ~his heavy shelling, only four men lost 7 I their lives and twenty-four were wounded. 4. Secretary of War to Rivardi, March 28, 1794. American I State Papers. Class V. Military Affairs. Volume I, pp. 87-88. 5; Rivardi to Secretary of War, April 20, 1794. Ibid., p. 89. 6. A letter from Capt. Staats Morris to William Simmonds 11 I was datelined 11 Fort McHenry, May 11, 1797. .Letters of Samuel Hodgdon, Box 9, 1797. War Records Section, Office of the Secre­ tary of War. for a complete study of James McHenry's life see Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry, I i. Secretary of War under Washington and Adams. (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers Company, 1907), passim. i 7, Armistead to Secretary of War, September 24, 1814. ·~4 !I I NiZes' Weekly Register, Vol. VII, No. 3 (October l, 1814), p. 40. I 2 I I I The primary purpose of the bombardment was to create panic I among the defenders and thus to cause evacuation of the fort. This did not materialize and it became evident to tl:e British I that a direct assault on the fort during daylight c~uld not 8 I succeed.