|
|
Post by Larry Koschkee on Mar 31, 2003 16:09:23 GMT -5
Historical research tends to be heavy, solemn and serious at times, but once in awhile something comes across with levity.
This is an account of a man and his fort which he is prepared to defend against Black Hawk and his followers. The story comes from the History of Grant County, 1881, pps 848-849.
... In the same year (1828), Mr. Solomon Arthur and wife came to Beetown from Vermont and located there, the first actual settlers Beetown hand known. Mr. Arthur had reached Chicago in the fall of the preceding year; but meeting Gen. Cass at that point, who was advising people to put themselves under the protection of the fort, remained there until spring. In three days after his arrival he had his log cabin rolled up, and here he lived until his death, which occurred in 1846 or 1847. For five years, Mrs. Arthur was the only white woman in Beetown, her nearest neighbor being six or seven miles distant. She was often compelled to subsist on parched corn, and would spend many days and nights alone, with no companion but the house-dog...
... During the Black Hawk war excitement, Mr. Arthur, having first sent his wife to the block-house at Cassville, remained on his claim, continuing the cultivation of his little patch of ground. Now and then an Indian would appear upon the horizon, when Mr. Arthur would retire to an improvised fort, a drift in a hill near by, and, rifle in hand, stand prepared to give the dusky intruder anything but a hospitable reception should he venture upon a closer acquaintance. Mr. Arthur was a genuine pioneer... He was buried at his death under the shade of four oaks in the Beetown Cemetery, a little northwest of the village. Mrs. Arthur continued to live in the old cabin until 1851, when her death occurred.
The Town of Beetown and village is located in Grant County, Wisconsin, Town 4 N., Range 4 W.
I would like to ask the "fort hunters", Mr. Carter and Mr. Braun, of this board membership; can this one-man fort be counted as a bona fide BHW fortification??
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Apr 2, 2003 12:14:51 GMT -5
Hmmm.... to use Mr. Arthur's example, every digger in a ditch with a gun, or every log dwelling with its owner ready to wield the "death dealing musket" should be classified as a "fort." That would drive the potential number of candidates up a bit, wouldn;t it? Yikes!  Webster's Ninth defines "fort" as: a strong or fortified place; esp. a fortified place occupied only by troops and surrounded with such works as a ditch, rampart, and parapet : FORTIFICATION. The implication here is-- some sort of man-made improvement, i. e. ditch, rampart, or parapet. Clearly, natural features could provide the same protection as that afforded by a man-made rampart. The use of the pond embankment by the Kickapoo on June 16, 1832 is a good example. In the case of Mr. Arthur, he is using a "drift" or a cut or cross-cut in a terrain feature. Mr. Arthur's tenacity builds an admirable case for his designation of "fort." His castle, however, is a bit at odds with the usual and customary definition of such strongpoints. That being said, "Fort Union," Henry Dodge's homestead, consisted of a blockhouse, with a circular stockade and ditch, or "dry moat." So far, so good. However, as far as I can determine, Fort Union was not garrisoned by a militia company. |
|
|
|
Post by Larry Koschkee on Apr 6, 2003 13:10:43 GMT -5
Is intent nine-tenths of the law? Wasn't Mr. Arthur intending to use a improvised fort, something other than his log house and is this pre-meditated intent more significant than... say simply dropping into a ditch or impression to fortify oneself.
Could this drift be associated with some mining activity he may have been conducting?... After all.. Beetown had its share of mining claims.
Websters Collegiate Dictionary defines "drift" a nearly horizontal mine passageway driven on or parallel to the course of a vein or rock stratum. Perhaps this would have been a suitable one-man defense strongpoint.
What should be the historical criteria or defining factor in what is a fortification?
Your comments are solicited...
Larry K
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Apr 6, 2003 15:05:36 GMT -5
Alright... are we dealing with the philisophical arguement of "intent," or "perception?"  I have heard it said by some that "one's perception is one's reality." For this to hold some semblence of truth, one's perception must have some form of validity, for one's reality to have validity. For example, one might argue that they percieve a dog to be a cat. Since society has decreed that a dog (in nearly every circumstance) is not a cat, the perception is incorrect-- therefore the reality is skewed. That being said, I have stipulated the use of natural terrain features for purposes of defense. However, accidents of terrain or cuts or drifts in the terrain dug for the purposes of mining do not necessarily "forts" make. History is replete with examples of established forts-- as opposed to "fortifications"-- being primarily a fixed position that was built-upon or otherwise improved for the purposes of quartering troops, serving as a base or depot for military supplies, and/or or acting as an improved defensive strongpoint. I think these examples from history offer a guide to establishment of what may be, and what may not be a "fort." Mr. Arthur may have found himself a "fox hole" or other improvement wrought by either past mining or an occurance of Nature. In my opinion, a "fox hole" is just that-- a foxhole.  My readings indicate the 101st Airborne dug numerous foxholes around the perimiter of Bastogne during the "Battle of the Bulge." Some of these were elaborate affairs, with log overhead cover, firing steps, grenade sumps... the whole smash. So far, none of the vets refer to their fortifications as "forts"--- despite being arguably more elaborate affairs than that occupied by Mr. Arthur. |
|
|
|
Post by Larry Koschkee on Apr 7, 2003 11:14:06 GMT -5
If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, or talks like a duck-- it must be a duck.
If one does not no exactly what a duck looks like you have a problem and, again if you do not know what a fort should look like you have a problem with critique.
Are we only to interpret historical objects in a classical sense, in this case the classic "fort" with blockhouses, stockades, etc. with military connections or activity? Is there no room for abstract interpretation?
So lets start small and work our way up to determine at what point a object, place or thing can be called a "fort."
What is the minimum improvement to Mr. Arthur's DRIFT for it to be considered a "fort?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Braun on Apr 7, 2003 13:05:58 GMT -5
Larry, I am unsure if your duck analogy works in the case of the story of Mr. Adams. I suspect the account was written by the author of the Grant County history... or paraphrased from the account of another. I dare say that such an author or authors would indeed have some sense of the "classical" definition of a "fort." We do not know from the 1881 account whether or not Mr. Adams knew was a "fort" was in the classical sense. To depart from the classical definition and delve into the abstract would indicate, as I said earlier in this thread, that every digger and farmer with a rifle at his hearth could claim their cabin was a "fort." That would make reasonable identification and taxonomy of BHW era forts a nearly hopeless task.  We started the discussion with a modern definition: I now offer a definition that eminated from a work published closer to the time period underconsideration. Towit: Scott, Henry Lee, Military dictionary: comprising technical definitions; information on raising and keeping troops; actual service, including makeshifts and improved material; New York, D. Van Nostrand, 1861. 674 p. illus. (incl. plans, diagrs.) On p. 310, Scott defines a “FORT” as: “an enclosed work of the higher classes of field works. The word, however, is loosely applied to other field works” (emphasis original.) Scott devoted seven pages of descriptions and definitions-- from mostly the Prussian military engineering experience-- to a rather lengthy discussion of the term “fortification.” Defined: “A fortification, in its simplest form, consists of a mound of earth, termed a rampart, which encloses the space fortified…” Scott went on to define three general classes of fortifications: natural, regular, and irregular (he pointed out that “irregularity does not necessarily imply weakness”). Using Scott’s general definitions, Mr. Adam’s “fort” fits best Scott's definition of an irregular fortification. Borrowing the old "square" and parallelogram" discussion from geometry class-- since all "forts" are fortifications, but all "fortifications" are not necessarily forts... I would suggest (based on the 1881 description) that Mr. Adam's strongpoint does not contain the "minimum improvement" to render it among the "higher classes of fieldworks" (and hence a "fort") using Scott's definitions. |
|
