fortifications


This week, while re-reading the 1706 journal of the South Carolina Commons House of Assembly, I came across a bit of colorful text that had previously escaped my attention, and I thought others interested in Charleston’s early fortifications might find it interesting.On 7 March 1705/6, at the opening of a new legislative session, Governor Nathaniel Johnson delivered a speech in which he reminded the House of its duty to provide for the proper defense of the young colony. As was customary, the House then appointed a committee to draft a formal reply to the governor’s speech, and on 12 March they presented their draft before the full House. After it was read and approved, the Speaker of the House, Lt. Col. William Rhett, affixed his signature to the message and then ordered it to be sent to the governor. Among the obligatory formal language contained in the reply, the House expressed its concurrence with the governor’s concerns about the state of the fortifications, and included this metaphorical phrase:

It is no Doubt a Duty which we owe to God and ourselves[,] to the present Age and to Posterity[,] to Improve the Opportunity God gives us of ffenceing [sic] our Vineyard; and makeing [sic] the Hedge about it as Strong as we can.

At this time, Charleston (then called Charles Town) was a heavily fortified, walled settlement. It was the political capital of the infant colony, the sole port and market, and the store of nearly all the provincial armaments. In comparing the town (and, by extension, the colony) to a vineyard surrounded by a hedge, the members of the Commons House used their linguistic skills to help us, more than 300 years later, to understand the importance and value of their efforts to defend the once struggling colony that we now take for granted.

If you happen to be combing through books and the Internet for information about forts and fortifications in early South Carolina history, you’re likely to encounter an illustration titled “Arx Carolina,” along with a vague description of its subject. I’ve been asked about this image several times recently, and I’ve discovered a number of contradictory explanations. Let’s see if I can briefly set the record straight.

arx_carolina.jpgArx Carolina is the title of an engraving by Arnold Montanus first published in Amsterdam by Dapper in 1671—one year after the English-Barbadian settlement at Albemarle Point in Carolina. It depicts a triangular fort based on contemporary European designs, and includes corner bastions, wooden revetments, a moat, drawbridge, and gate. Some history texts identify this fort as the early English settlement of Charles Town at Albemarle Point, while others claim that it represents the fortifications at New Charles Town on the peninsula between the Ashley and Cooper Rivers. There are also writers who state that it depicts the brief French settlement of Charlesfort on Parris Island, South Carolina, and still others that identify it as the French settlement of Fort Caroline near modern Jacksonville, Florida. So which is it? 

In his Narratives of Early Carolina (1911), page 140, Alexander S. Salley Jr. cites Thomas Ashe’s 1682 publication Carolina; or a Description of the Present State of that Country, which identifies “Arx Carolina” as the fort built by Jean Ribault and his followers in 1562 on what is now known as Parris Island, South Carolina. Salley states that the name is the Latin form of “Fort Charles” or “Charlesfort,” and was named for King Charles IX of France. Yates Snowden’s History of South Carolina (1930), volume 1 page 31, however, identifies “Arx Carolina” as Fort Caroline at the mouth of the St. John’s River in Florida.

Ribault’s settlers abandoned Charlesfort in 1563, barely a year after its creation, and the next French attempt at settlement in the New World was planted at the mouth of the St. John River, near modern Jacksonville, Florida. In mid-1564 French settlers erected at that site a fort that English-speaking historians call “Fort Caroline.” A year later, in the autumn of 1565, a Spanish force destroyed Fort Caroline and replaced it with a fort of their own. The French counterattacked in April 1568, however, and burned the Spanish fort, which the Spanish abandoned the following year in favor of the new settlement of St. Augustine. If you’re curious, The History of Beaufort County, South Carolina (USC Press, 1996), volume 1, pp. 23-28, includes a good description of this period, and the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology has a website devoted to the Santa Elena and Charlesfort.  

It is clear that the 1671 engraving of Arx Carolina does not depict either the 1670 or the 1680 English settlements of Charles Town. It is not entirely clear, though, whether this image depicts the French settlement of 1563 at Parris Island or the 1564 settlement at Jacksonville. It is significant, however, that Montanus’s 1671 image of Arx Carolina was reprinted ca. 1710 with the subtitle “Charles Fort, sur Floride.”

Yes, I’ll agree that it’s an interesting and historically significant illustration, but we have to remember that it was created more than a century after the subject it depicts was wiped off the face of the earth, and the artist certainly never laid eyes on the fort. Arx Carolina represents an important chapter in the early contests for settlement in North America, but it doesn’t have any direct connection to the fortifications of colonial Charleston, South Carolina.

This Thursday, October 18th, you’re invited to join members of the Walled City Task Force and the Young Advocates of the Historic Charleston Foundation for a fun and educational evening. It’s time for the autumn “Walk the Walls” event, and the weather should be just right for a bit of history, food, drink, music, and conversation under the stars in Charleston. Come join us at 40 East Bay Street at 6:00 p.m. for a self-paced stroll along the path of Charleston’s early defensive walls. At significant points along the way, you’ll meet interpreters who’ll help breath life into the history of that site. We’ll finish the evening off with dinner and music harbor-side at the Missroon House, where you’ll have a chance to chat with other “walled city” enthusiasts. Besides having a great time, you’ll be contributing to the Task Force’s preservation efforts.

I hope to see you there!

Whenever I give a presentation on the history of Charleston’s colonial fortifications, I always start with the wall that once stood on the east side of East Bay Street. This wall, identified in the colonial records as the “wharf wall,” “curtain wall,” or “front wall,” was the starting point for the effort to fortify Charleston more than three hundred years ago, and it was among the last parts to be dismantled after the American Revolution. Here’s a very brief overview of what I know about it so far.

In 1680, when “New Charles Town” was established on the present peninsula, a “wharf” sixty feet wide was laid out on the east side of East Bay Street, stretching from the site of the present Missroon House to the Exchange Building at the foot of Broad Street. Since there are no extant legislative records from the 1680s, we don’t know what this “wharf” was made of, or what it looked like. Similarly, we don’t know anything about the construction of the “tranchée” or entrenchment (probably an earthwork wall) that is depicted along the east side of East Bay Street in the Jean Boyd map of 1686 (published in the 2006 Transactions of the Huguenot Society of South Carolina). In 1694, the S.C. legislature passed the first law authorizing the construction of a brick “wharf wall” or “curtain wall” along the east side of the street, but due to a shortage of bricks and bricklayers construction apparently didn’t start until 1696. Governor Nathaniel Johnson reported in late 1704 that this project was still not finished, but the curtain wall was apparently completed by August 1706 when a French and Spanish fleet made an unsuccessful attempt to invade Charleston. Based on account statements from 1704, I estimate that approximately four million bricks were used to build the curtain wall (excluding the bastions) between 1696 and 1705.

Between 1711 and 1728 the brick curtain wall sustained extensive damage from several severe hurricanes, and thus it was substantially rebuilt and apparently enlarged between 1725 and 1739. Near the end of that era the South Carolina legislature and Charleston merchants negotiated over the size of openings to be left in the wall to allow carts to move between the wharves to East Bay Street. The legislature wanted ten-foot openings; the merchants wanted thirty-foot openings. They settled on openings fifteen feet wide. The legislature also passed restrictive measures to prevent the building of residences or any tall structures to the east of the curtain wall. Any structures built in that area, the legislature decreed, would have to be razed in a moments notice in the event of an invasion. In 1745 the curtain wall was described in a London magazine as being “six feet over.” This statement may have meant that the wall was six feet tall, or it may indicate that it was six feet wide at the top. I suspect this number refers to the height of the wall, but we hope to find out in the upcoming archaeology at South Adger’s Wharf.

The wharves projecting out from the on the east side of East Bay Street in to the Cooper River grew substantially between the 1720s and the American Revolution, but the brick curtain wall remained standing throughout these years. After the conclusion of the war with Britain in the spring of 1783, the S.C. legislature waited a full year before authorizing the demolition of the fortifications in Charleston. The work of dismantling the brick wharf wall on the east side of East Bay Street began in late 1784 or early 1785. In the spring of 1787, the legislature finally repealed the old law restricting the size and nature of buildings on the east side of East Bay Street. From that time forward, the wharves of Charleston began to be filled in and built up, leading to the streetscapes that we now see.

Over the past year I have presented a chronological overview of the rise and fall of Charleston’s colonial fortifications for a number of different audiences in the Charleston area. On nearly every one of these occasions, someone has asked if I can give them a summary or outline of this material, which is taken largely from unpublished archival sources. Eventually I do plan to publish the full scope of my research in an illustrated monograph, but in the interim I am happy to oblige with a basic outline of the story.

Under the Educational Resources page of the Mayor’s Walled City Task Force website, I have inaugurated a “Time Line” that will eventually contain four sections covering the Proprietary, Royal, Revolutionary, and Post-Revolutionary eras of Charleston’s early fortifications. The first part, covering the Proprietary Era of 1663-1719, is now online. The remaining parts will be posted in future weeks.

« Previous PageNext Page »