Fort Amanda's Foootprint?

Fort Amanda's Footprint?

OR

             

 

  

Do I think the grassed area around the monument marks the location of the fort? The answer is "yes" and "no". First of all, it’s long been an accepted fact that when work on Fort Amanda was completed, it enclosed an area of 1 ½ acres or 65,340 sq. feet. We know that the fort was built in 2 phases, Phase I by the Kentuckians under Lt. Col. Robert Pogue in 1812, and Phase II (expansion of the fort) by the Ohio militia in 1813. The question is, "what did the 2 phases look like?"

Key: Unlike today where we measure distances in feet, yards or miles, in 1812 the standard measurement was the “chain.” The chain was an actual chain that measured 66 feet.

Pogue’s grew up in Fort Harrod (Harrodsburg, Ky.), a frontier fort measuring 4 chains by 4 chains (264 ft. by 264 ft) and all indications are he modeled Ft. Amanda after Fort Harrod but in a scaled down version. The original fort probably measured 3 chains by 3 chains (198 ft by 198 ft.) That will be our starting point.

The 2 main clues as to the fort's location are the well used for the drinking water supply, and the ramp exiting the fort and leading down to the river.

The Clue - The Well Location

The first key is the location of the forts water supply, “the well.” Most early writers as well as stories from settlers who lived at the fort claim that the well was located near the center of the fort and as one can clearly in the Figure 1 below, the well, is not located in what is purported to be the footprint of the fort.

Fig. 1

So, if the well was in the center of the fort perhaps they meant it was the in the center of Pogue’s fort (Phase I)? That would have been unlikely. First of all if the southeast end of the grassed area marks the southeast end of Pogue’s fort, the northwest wall would have been 198 ft. away or roughly approx. the base of the monument. (remember Pogues fort was 198 x 198). It that was the case, the well would have been approx. 70 feet outside the northwest wall, (Figure 2) and a bad idea for obvious reasons.

Fig. 2

What if Pogue’s fort sat at the northwest end of the grassed area? That would have put the well inside the fort. True but if the fort was expanded to the southeast so it fit within the grassed area, the well would no longer be in the “center of the fort” See Figure 3

Figure 3

OK, so it’s not “centered in the fort” would that make all that much difference? It’s still within the walls. True, but what about the ramp. Remember, the only way to move men and materials down to the rivers edge was use of a ramp. If the top of the ramp butted up against the southwest wall of the fort, anyone going down to the river would immediately start down the ramp. In addition, using that configuration, anyone outside the forts walls would first have to pass through the fort to get to the gate to the ramp. See Figure 4. The most compelling argument against this configuration is that, according to early writers, the largest blockhouse in the fort was located in the southeast corner of the enclosure and as one can see if walls were extended to the southwest, the large blockhouse would be practically in the center and not the southeast corner of the enclosure (Figure 4).

Figure 4

So what did the finished fort look like? I believe Pogue’s fort sat at the northwest end of the grassy area as shown in Figure 5 and that the Ohio militia troops extended the walls 2 chains (132 ft.) to the northwest into what is now an open field. This made the overall length of the southwest wall 198 (Pogue's wall) +132 (extended wall) a total 320 feet. This coincides with Schillinger’s comment about the old gate (northwest wall of Pogues fort) being taken down and placed in the southwest wall. It also satisfies the claims that the largest blockhouse was in the southeast corner of the enclosure.

Figure 5

The “Staging Area”

With the fort positioned as shown in Figure 5 there would have been room an open area southeast of the fort that could be used for storing barrels, boxes, etc, a staging area. Remember, if the wall butted up against the ramp, troops going north by river would have to have passed through the fort to get to the gate leading to the ramp. Having the open area between the forts wall and the ramp would have eliminated that inconvenience.

The Ramp

I first noticed a "ramp" leading out of the south end of the fort area in the late 80s when a friend of mine, Darrel Young, and I were standing near the monument trying to visualize what things might have looked like in 1813. We started talking about all the supplies that shipped out of there and it suddenly dawned on me, “How did they get all those supplies down to the river?” After all the fort sat several feet above the Auglaize and they had to have some way to get tons of materials down to the loading area on the bank of the river. We both agreed that taking it down the ravine northwest of the fort wouldn’t work because in rain or snow, it’s basically a stream of runoff. Over the side of the hill didn’t seem like it would work either. The only other alternative was to have some kind of ramp that led from the fort down to the rivers edge.

I received permission from a property owner to see if I could find anything. I walked the tree line on the southeast end of the grassed area and as I struggled through the underbrush and limbs, I suddenly found myself standing on what looked and felt like a gradual downward sloping ramp.

Apparently little if any thought was given to a ramp when funds were obtained to purchase the park site. That’s unfortunate because it would have been a wonderful addition to the site.

Supporting Evidence

But if What You Claim is True, Why is the  Grassed Area Here?

Figure 6

And Not Here?

Figure 7

My guess is ease of farming. By grassing the area as shown in Figure 6, the area around the perimeter would be relatively easy to farm whereas if it looked like Figure 7, it would have created a small inset area approx. 200 ft. by 150 that to farm which I assume might be a little more difficult to maneuver in using teams of horses.

Does What You Claim Agree with the 1 ½ acre Size?

Yes. First of all Pogue’s fort was 198 ft by 198 ft. (3 chains by 3 chains) or 39.204 square feet. The Ohio militia enlarged the fort 2 chains but remember the expanded area was not a square. Two sides would have measured 132 ft. each, but the new northwest wall would have measured 198 ft. (to match up to Pogue’s northwest wall). That measurement would then be 132 ft by 198 ft. or 29,136 square feet. Added together (39,204 and 29,136) the answer is 65,340 square feet; exactly 1 ½ acres.


In conclusion, I believe that Pogue’s original fort (198' x 198') sat at the extreme northwest end of the grassed area surrounding the monument and when the Ohio militia extended the southwest walls, they extended them 132 feet to the northwest. In this arrangements, not only would the well have been near the center of the fort, the largest blockhouse would in the southeast corner of the enclosure. Placed as such, there would have been an open area between the southeast wall of Pogues’ fort and the ramp leading down to the Auglaize River. In addition, the open area between the forts wall and the ramp would have provided ample room for a staging/storage area plus individuals using the ramp didn't have to pass through the forts gates to get to it.

Fort Amanda -1813