Photo by Shamus Pons
I received a second letter from a reader this month, and I can’t tell you how much this encourages me. As it was written in a different color crayon from the first, I can only assume this means my readership has doubled – publisher, please take notice!
This one begins, as did the first, with, “Dear Mr. So-called History Person,” and ends immediately thereafter with, “What about Fort Pike?” Now, when a reader has taken the time to think about a question and couch it in a way that so concisely and incisively cuts to the very heart of the matter, it is difficult for even an orthodox procrastinator like me to ignore it for very long.
First, a disclaimer: I was in the Air Force. We didn’t have “forts.” Like the Navy, we had “bases,” plus the occasional “station.” Now bases, as in “home base” or “base camp” are just what they sound like. Air and naval forces hang around these locations until there’s work to be done, but go elsewhere to engage the enemy - venturing to the very frontiers of freedom to protect American womanhood against the ravages of the Hun. The only change over time has been that now quite a few women are sent out to deal directly with the Hun.
Bases are located based on extensive studies by brilliant military visionaries, civilian think tanks and Blue Ribbon committees that address important strategic questions like, “Which area’s congressional delegation has the most clout?” After resolving this, they deal with secondary considerations like suitable flying weather and port facilities. When the location is decided, the next step for Air Force planners is to decide where to put the runway and the officers’ club, and which to build first.
Forts are different. “Forts” are offspring of the Army, and should not be confused with “camps,” “posts,” “cantonments,” “casernes,” “barracks,” “redoubts,” “stockades,” “batteries,” “arsenals,” and “armories.” Well, maybe it’s okay to be confused, as many of these terms seem to be used interchangeably today. They also mutate over time; for example, Fort Polk in western Louisiana was once Camp Polk. I strongly suspect that the Army uses these different terms primarily to cause confusion during budget hearings … “General, I don’t think the peaceniks will buy a new fort this year, but they might go with two camps, three posts and a caserne – whatever the hell that is.” Officially, however, I think locations are given the fort designation when they attain a certain level of permanence, size, mission importance, etc. Camps, etc. are, or were originally, of a more temporary or support nature.
Historically, however, forts were where the action was. Forts were where you actually engaged the enemy eyeball to eyeball. Strategically, they served both defensive and offensive purposes. Originally, they probably evolved from castles and walled cities, built to protect your own population and assets. They were also used to defend important mountain passes and water chokepoints into your territory. In the American West, they were used as bases of operations to exert control over new areas and populations. Prior to the American Revolution, forts were the way that the geopolitical big dogs – Britain, France and Spain – marked their territory and deterred others from sniffing around in their colonial claims. The French built Fort St. Jean Baptiste near Natchitoches in the early 1700s at the point where their, and Spanish, colonial claims began to conflict. The Spanish also built a fort, the Presidio de los Adaes, nearby to stake their claim.
Literally hundreds of forts and related facilities have been built in Louisiana over the years, and many nearby ones played a significant role in our history. Fort Maurepas, established by the explorer Iberville near Biloxi in 1699, served as a base of operations for controlling France’s Louisiana territory. Fort Myssyssypy (the French were late in developing spell check) was also built at a critical bend in the river below New Orleans. Fort St. Jean (later called Spanish Fort), on Lake Pontchartrain near Bayou St. John, and Fort Petite Coquilles, on the Rigolets near where Fort Pike is now, were also strategically located to prevent access to New Orleans.
Early forts were generally built of earth and wood, and little remains of them to visit today. We do, however, have some important reminders of the age of forts still around. Across from each other on the Mississippi River, designed for the same purpose as Fort Myssyssypy, are Forts Jackson (west bank) and St. Phillip (east bank). These were two of some 42 brick and mortar forts built to protect critical points along America’s shores and rivers from attack by sea. They were constructed over many decades following the War of 1812, when the British burning of Washington DC indicated we just might have a little vulnerability in this regard. This was called the United States’ Third System of seacoast defense. We won’t talk about the First and Second Systems, because they were neither interesting nor effective.
Third System forts were the very latest in technology and design when the program began. Enemy naval guns and tactics had made previous forts with low walls and berms, and no overhead protection for defending gunners obsolete. Thick, taller brick walls with guns protected in casements were the answer. These had secondary walls before the main walls to stop direct high velocity fire; they had moats; they had features called glacis, scarps, and counterscarps, to slow infantry assault; and they had a citadel for last stand defense. Their most striking features were the bastions, or arrowhead shaped features at corners and other critical points on their landward exposures. Their geometry allowed defenders direct shots from every angle at enemy troops assaulting their walls. They were magnificent structures and were described as looking like giant stone or brick snowflakes. Unfortunately, these too were done in by technology, as very high velocity ordinance went through the brick walls like they were butter. In fact, when Fort Sumter’s walls were destroyed by attacking forces, it was found that the resulting rubble was a better barrier than the original walls.
Other Third System forts in this area were Fort Macomb (also called Fort Wood), which protects the southwest entry to Lake Pontchartrain at Chef Menteur Pass, Fort Proctor in St. Bernard Parish, and … Ta Da! … Fort Pike.
Work on Fort Pike began in 1819 and ended in 1827. It was named after Zebulon Pike, who despite his primary identification with Pike’s Peak did have a real Louisiana connection. He served in New Orleans early in the War of 1812, and died as a hero in Canada later in the war. He was the “Lewis and Clark” of the South, having led the expedition to find the source of the Arkansas and Red Rivers a few years earlier. Fort Pike’s history was nowhere near as heroic. Like most Third System forts, it witnessed no real combat. It was used for training, storage and other purposes, the most interesting of which was probably the temporary incarceration of prisoners and Native Americans being relocated. According to some stories, the most famous of these was Geronimo, who was kept there overnight as he was being transported to a prison in Florida after his capture in the west.
Despite the ravages of tide and time, Fort Pike remains an impressive place to visit. It was badly damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Gustav, but was recently reopened to visitors. Looking from its walls across the Rigolets, it is easy to imagine enemy ships trying to sail past its guns and to understand the role that our seacoast forts were well-designed to play. They were important parts of local and national history and efforts to save and restore them deserve our support.
Tags: