Fort Amandas Footprint; did they get it wrong?

 

Fort Amanda's Footprint

 

 
                                This                                        or                               This

  

 

Site Dimension

It has long been thought that the grassed the area surrounding the obelisk at Fort Amanda marked the outline of the finished fort (fig. 1).  I propose that while much of the forts footprint did indeed lay within the grassed area, evidence suggests that  the northwest wall was not the northwest edge of the grassed area we see today, but rather 132 ft, northwest in the adjacent field.  

NOTE:  The "chain" was used to measure distance.  It was 66 feet long.      

Over the years writers have agreed that when completed, Fort Amanda enclosed an area of 1 1/2 acres.  Journal entries tell us that the fort was built in 2 phases, the first, Phase 1, was completed in 1812 by the Kentuckian troops under Lt. Col. Robert Pogue.  Pogue’s fort was  square shaped, 3 chains by 3 chains or 198 ft by 198 ft. (and enclosed an area of  39.204 square feet.   The Ohio militia extended  the southwesst and northeast walls 2 chains (132 ft) to the northwest which added additional   29,136 square feet.  (132 x 198).   The  combined total area of Pogue's fort and the area added by the Ohio troops (39,204 ft. and 29,136 ft.) equals 65,340 square feet; exactly 1 ½ acres.

Supporting Evidence

To support my proposal we need to consider 2 key elements; 1) the location of the forts water supply "the well" and 2) the ramp leading down from the fort to the rivers edge.  

The Well

Stories written by early settlers who lived at the fort, claim that the well was located near the center of the fort.   As  you can see in Fig. 3 below, if the grassy area marks the original footprint of the fort , the well is not located in what would have been the center of the fort .

Figure 3

Question:  What if it was at the center of Pogue’s fort?  That would have been very unlikely.  If the southeast end of the grassy area marks the southeast wall of Pogues fort, the well would have been  approx. 70 feet beyond (and outside) northwest wall, a bad idea for obvious reasons.  

Figure 4

Question:  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 5.

Figure 5

OK, so it’s not “centered in the fort” would that make all that much difference?  It’s still within the walls.  True, but if you remember, the other key element to consider is the ramp   A ramp was needed to move supplies down from the fort to the rivers edge.  By having the new area (outined in blue) butt up against the ramp means that anyone going down to the river  would immediately start down the ramp.  Also, with that configuration troops boarding boats would first have to travel through the fort to get to the gate to the ramp.   See Figure 4.  The most compelling argument against this configuration is that the early settlers tell us that the largest blockhouse was located in the southeast corner of the enclosure and as one can see in Figure 4, not only would it not be in the southeast corner, it would be almost in the center of the enclosure. 

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 making the overall length of the southwest wall 198 (pogues 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 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 mentioned earlier that there were 2 keys to answering the question about the forts footprint.  The first was the well which I just explained, the second is the ramp. 

I first discovered the ramp 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.

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

Figure 6

And Not Here?

Figure 7

The asumption 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 using teams of horses.   

Conclusion

In conclusion, I believe that Pogue’s original fort sat at the extreme northwest end of the grassed area surrounding the monument.  The Ohio militia extended the southwest walls 132 feet to the northwest the well in the center of the fort. With this configuration, the largest blockhouse would still be in the southeast corner of the enclosure.  With that configuration, there would have been an open area between the southeast wall of Pogues’ fort and the ramp which not only could have been used as a staging area, but it also eliminated the need for soldiers outside the walls having go to in and through the fort to exit to a ramp.  The most likely reasons for  why the grassy area does not mark the entire footprint of the fort are:
1.  It may have abutted against an established property line at the southeast end.

2.  Leaving a small area to farm between the neighbors property and the forts southeast wall may not have been convenient.

DOES IT REALLY MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE?

Absolutely.  If the fort did extend into the field, the area could contain artifacts that tell us more about the fort and its functions.  A ground penetrating scan was done a few years ago could give us some hints on what was where.  The story of the fort is far from over. 

NOTE:  The location of the grave of Pvt. Charles Murry isapprox. 200 feet northwest of the grassed area and suppossed northwest wall of the fort whereas, with my proposal his grave would have been located just a few feet away from the forts northwest wall.