Civil War Fortifications - Fort McAllister - Research Paper Example

?FORT MCALLSTER FORT MCALLISTER Introduction The history of military earthwork and fortification could be traced back to centuries. To define, ‘any primarily earthen structure termed interchangeably as intrenchments, trenches, rifle or shelter trenches, rifle pits, parallels, earthen defenses, or breastworks’ erected for military purpose is an earthwork1. Fort McAllister, one of the most incredible earthwork fortifications of the world has a remarkable role in the history of the American Civil war. This fortification is an outstanding one of its kind for several reasons. Fort McAllister, set up by Confederacy, survived several attacks initiated by Union soldiers. Among those, the first attack took place on March 3, 1863, in Bryan County, Georgia as ordered by Adm. Samuel F. Du Pont who intended to test their mechanical appliances by attacking the Confederate defenses. The attempt proved that an earthen fort like McAllister could not be destroyed easily by ironclads. History The fort is named after Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Longworth McAllister who built this in 1861 at Genesis Point. During the Civil War (1861-65), it ensured the protection of the southern flank of Savannah from the U.S. Navy. The fort also provided defense for the Savannah, Albany and Gulf Railroad Bridge, Ogeechee basin plantations etc for the survival. Fort McAllister mainly defended naval attack from the Union force, and it possessed very effective cannonballs and large-caliber guns that could destroy warships. As per reports, despite the latest naval warship technology deployed by the Union force, the fort survived seven naval attacks mainly because of its exceptional earthen construction. Features Obviously, Fort McAllister was strong enough to withstand each attack that involved heavy bombards. In addition to this advantage, some other factors also strengthened the Confederates. For instance, as Chuber (1996) notes, “the U.S. and Confederate quartermaster departments' class system had a predetermined number of tools and tool-types that were issued based on the tasks and the different types of units. For every 15 infantrymen and 13 mounted men, two spades, two axes, two pick axes, and two hatchets were issued. These items were issued in leather carrying cases to the soldiers but most likely were placed in wagons during the march”2. By 1864, the Confederates had equipped McAllister with a considerable amount of guns and other war apparatus. It possessed ‘four smoothbore 32-pounders, one riffled 32-pounder, two 10 inch Columbiads, 24 pounder, six 6-pound howitzers, one 12-pounder Napoleon, and many more’3. One of the notable defense strategies of the Confederate was that it anchored its line to the Ogeechee River and guarded Savannah from the Union force. Savannah was well prepared to meet all levels of contingency, for it had already “stockpiled over 1,000 pounds of bacon, 2200 pounds of bread, 40 gallons of molasses, 50 pounds of candles, and a good supply of salt in the bombproofs”4. The Confederate commander George W. Anderson was determined not to surrender McAllister to the enemy. The result was a terrible face to face attack and assault. Fort McAllister was finally captured On December 13, 1864 by General Sherman. According to many, the secret of the fort’s sustainability was that unlike other forts, it was entirely an earthwork. This admittedly marked a new era of fortification that utilized only natural materials like sand, timber, mud, earth, etc. other than stone, bricks, or masonry work of any kind5. Therefore, as compared to many other forts, it lacked aesthetic sensibilities as well. However, the fort later gained the appreciation of many military leaders for its better resistance as opposed to famous masonry works like Fort Pulaski. Another comparison is that when the Fort Pulaski took nearly 18 years and over one million dollars to construct, Fort McAllister was built in a few moths and was more effective than the former6 . Fort McAllister taught officials new lessons on fortification and the art of war. Many wondered how so effectively such an earthwork could withstand the continued Union bombardment. It also resolved the puzzles of many other previous fortification failures. Both mud and sand had been heavily used at Fort McAllister to build its walls, for mud alone was found not sufficient to withstand the heavy attacks7. In addition to the competency of the earthwork, the strong determination of people like Maj. Anderson who supported McAllister also contributed to the great history of the Confederates’ endeavor. There at McAllister existed very strict supervision and well defined system that ensured frequent inspection and maintenance of guns and all sorts of equipments. Obstacles It is interesting to see to what extent OCOKA principles were effectively employed at McAllister. It seems that the builders of the fort had clear understanding of the OCOKA principles that they selected right location, movement, and control of forces throughout the war. The force also maintained effective weapons, protective measures, and other systems. The following part will analyze how the confederates employed the principle of OCOKA (Observation and Fields of Fire, Cover and Concealment, Obstacles (man-made and natural), Key or Decisive Terrain, Avenues of Approach (OCOKA) at Fort McAllister. Evidently, Fort McAllister was a temporary earthwork and one of a series of temporary batteries constructed to protect the city of Savannah from attack by sea. Initially, at the fort a few guns made obstruction across the Ogeechee River that prevented ships coming upstream. The fort had no defenses against land assault and had an open rear as it only intended naval defense. Magazines, supply rooms, and hospitals were erected. In order to ensure flank protection against dismounting guns, traverses of approximately 10-15 feet height were constructed. The enemy had to move over, under, and through abatis, ditches, palisading, and parapet, fighting the garrison through to their bomb-proofs. In addition, around the fort, there was a dry ditch that leveled of the river on both sides and contained palisades that would slow down the enemy’s entry. One of the notable advantages of the earthwork was that almost all damages it bore on its earth parapets could well be repaired overnight. Pilings and torpedoes also played their own roles in raising obstacles. Land mines were laid around the fort's perimeter and along the main path to Genesis Point. In this context, it is relevant to quote from what is written by Private Isaac Dye, one of the participants in the assault; “we charged on fort McAllister…there was a row of saggy bush piled around it…there was torpedoes planted all around the fort six feet apart…then a ditch fifteen feet deep and a row of stacks sharpened and drove in the ditch so that it would take four or five men to break one o f them off..”8. Obviously, McAllister maintained a Forward Operating Base (FOB) or a secured forward military position that supported its tactical operations. Its FOB contained field, hospitals, and other facilities which provided backup support to the confederates. McAllister’s FOB also consisted of a fortified entry control point, natural barriers, watchtowers, bunkers and other force protection infrastructure. Battle & Capture As the Union force identified that all parapets damaged could easily be repaired overnight by the confederates, they sought new strategies. For instance, mortar ships were allowed to fire throughout the night so that Anderson would be forced to assign more soldiers other than slaves to repair the damages. However, the result was different and disappointing, for the Federal Navy found that much of the damages it inflicted had already been repaired successfully by the confederates. Thus the Federal vessels withdrew instead of attempting further attacks. Establishing an effective and permanent blockade on Savannah was not possible due to several interconnected waterways leading to McAllister. Anderson had deployed garrison of 230 troops at McAllister. This consisted of Clinch's Georgia's Light Artillery Battery, Companies D and E of the First Regiment of Georgia Reserves, and the Emmitt Rifles9. There was no notable progress in the operation initiated by the Union force till December 1864 when Sherman's troops arrived from Atlanta. Sherman's troops were badly in need of supplies. Although Admiral John A. Dahlgren's fleet had been waiting with the needed supplies off the coast, Confederate fortifications, namely McAllister prevented Sherman from linking up with Dahlgren. Sherman’s cavalry reconnoitered Fort McAllister and he assumed that a determined infantry attack would be sufficient to capture Fort McAllister. Sherman was sure that the capture of McAllister would offer him an avenue to the sea and thus the Union Army could control the Ogeechee River thereafter. Brig. Gen. William B. Hazen was ordered to lead the attack. Although Anderson was confident that McAllister could not be captured easily by a naval attack, Sherman initiated land assault as that was his sole alternative. Also, adhering to the orders of General P. G. T. Beauregard, Hardee had already withdrawn the cavalry that supported McAllister. Hardees’s intention was to slowly withdraw the main garrison toward South Carolina. As a result, Anderson had to resist the attack with 230 men at the fort but all in vain. Altogether, the history of McAlister is overwhelming in every aspect. It evoked the thoughts of military engineers mainly for its cost effectiveness and admirable resistance. The Fort still is a topic for research not only because of its historical significance but also the construction. Bibliography David C. Chuber. Field fortifications during the American Civil War. 1996. Eldridge, David P. Brick Versus Earth: The Construction and Destruction of Confederate Seacoast Forts Pulaski and McAllister, Georgia, 1996. University of North Florida. Accessed Lowe, Civil War Fortifications Tour. Museum of the Confederacy (April 5, 2003). Mosser, Jeffrey. “Gateway to the Atlantic”. Civil war times illustrated. Historical Times, Incorporated, 2002. Read More