WHY IS FORT FOSTER WHERE IT IS?
Mark W. Leavitt
Most people see a fort and quickly assume “there was something worth protecting”. This is true of all fortifications. In Fort Foster’s case, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is the obvious answer. However, there is more to it and location is everything. The old real estate adage “location, location, location” is very relevant to the placement of seacoast fortifications. The location of harbor defenses are influenced by several things and Portsmouth Harbor is a good example of how American port defenses have evolved over time.
One has to know the earliest European settlement pattern of North America to better appreciate the initial defensive locations. Early European settlers didn’t like to expose themselves any more than they had to. If one looks at the settlements of Jamestown, St. Augustine, and Castine, those colonies weren’t set right at the ocean’s edge. Doing so would have been disastrous with battering ocean storms and roving buccaneers looking for easy pickings. The more sound defensive practice was to find a location with a deep water entrance and inhabit further upriver in order to protect from storms and get closer to fresh water sources. Even this could be a problem as the settlers of Jamestown discovered when their water turned against them.
Portsmouth began as "Strawberie Banke" and later incorporated itself as Portsmouth. The other local “settlement”, Pannaway, was closer to the ocean and less successful despite its attractive salt flats. As Portsmouth grew, the site and others along the river became a hub of activity for trade and shipbuilding. Not ones for creating business and allowing it to be absconded with, the British created defensive works along narrow sections of the river in order to create a hazardous approach to unwanted ships. In many cases these works would be in conjunction with dangerous natural obstructions like Whaleback Ledge or a tricky bend in a river that Portsmouth Harbor possesses in New Castle, New Hampshire. Defense was not always attained by lobbing cannonballs but also by driving a sailship on the rocks. This would halt any continued attack and make the ship a much easier target to train cannons on.
Cannons and their projectiles did not match the accuracy and distance of modern weapons with rifled barrels and more powerful propellants. The need to mass them together demonstrated this weakness. In many cases, several cannons could act together as a shotgun to pepper the target with multiple balls. Accuracy was difficult considering the movement of ships on the water and the irregular shape of cannon balls. More ingenious projectiles were far more terrifying to men on ships. Red-hot heated cannonballs could set fire to rigging and sails or chain shot could fling a whirling pair of cannon balls to slice rigging.
The nature of defending coastal locations such as Portsmouth changed with the change of weapons technology. Sailing up to the Piscataqua River from the ocean, one can see the newer forts of Dearborne, Foster, and Stark close to the harbor entrance. These possessed the newer, more accurate, and longer ranged weapons of modern times. As one progresses up river, the older forts, Constitution and McClary, come into view. Both of these possessed the older cannon embrasures and earthen gun platforms. Once you have rounded the sharp bend at Fort Constitution, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard looms over you from the Maine side. It is here, when you are closest to the old prison. This was the site of one of the earliest fortifications that protected Portsmouth from marauding ships. Two forts, Washington and Sullivan, straddled the main channel creating a daunting crossfire obstacle. With the invention of rifled barrels, breech loaded guns, and more powerful propellants, coastal fortifications could now use fewer projectiles with more deadly accuracy and choose targets from a greater distance. As forts employed these newer weapons, construction was pushed closer toward the ocean to head off newer ships with the same types of weapons. As these forts moved closer to the ocean they also could move further apart. Thus Fort Foster is further from Fort Dearbourne than Fort Washington was from Fort Sullivan.
Mark W. Leavitt
Most people see a fort and quickly assume “there was something worth protecting”. This is true of all fortifications. In Fort Foster’s case, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is the obvious answer. However, there is more to it and location is everything. The old real estate adage “location, location, location” is very relevant to the placement of seacoast fortifications. The location of harbor defenses are influenced by several things and Portsmouth Harbor is a good example of how American port defenses have evolved over time.
One has to know the earliest European settlement pattern of North America to better appreciate the initial defensive locations. Early European settlers didn’t like to expose themselves any more than they had to. If one looks at the settlements of Jamestown, St. Augustine, and Castine, those colonies weren’t set right at the ocean’s edge. Doing so would have been disastrous with battering ocean storms and roving buccaneers looking for easy pickings. The more sound defensive practice was to find a location with a deep water entrance and inhabit further upriver in order to protect from storms and get closer to fresh water sources. Even this could be a problem as the settlers of Jamestown discovered when their water turned against them.
Portsmouth began as "Strawberie Banke" and later incorporated itself as Portsmouth. The other local “settlement”, Pannaway, was closer to the ocean and less successful despite its attractive salt flats. As Portsmouth grew, the site and others along the river became a hub of activity for trade and shipbuilding. Not ones for creating business and allowing it to be absconded with, the British created defensive works along narrow sections of the river in order to create a hazardous approach to unwanted ships. In many cases these works would be in conjunction with dangerous natural obstructions like Whaleback Ledge or a tricky bend in a river that Portsmouth Harbor possesses in New Castle, New Hampshire. Defense was not always attained by lobbing cannonballs but also by driving a sailship on the rocks. This would halt any continued attack and make the ship a much easier target to train cannons on.
Cannons and their projectiles did not match the accuracy and distance of modern weapons with rifled barrels and more powerful propellants. The need to mass them together demonstrated this weakness. In many cases, several cannons could act together as a shotgun to pepper the target with multiple balls. Accuracy was difficult considering the movement of ships on the water and the irregular shape of cannon balls. More ingenious projectiles were far more terrifying to men on ships. Red-hot heated cannonballs could set fire to rigging and sails or chain shot could fling a whirling pair of cannon balls to slice rigging.
The nature of defending coastal locations such as Portsmouth changed with the change of weapons technology. Sailing up to the Piscataqua River from the ocean, one can see the newer forts of Dearborne, Foster, and Stark close to the harbor entrance. These possessed the newer, more accurate, and longer ranged weapons of modern times. As one progresses up river, the older forts, Constitution and McClary, come into view. Both of these possessed the older cannon embrasures and earthen gun platforms. Once you have rounded the sharp bend at Fort Constitution, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard looms over you from the Maine side. It is here, when you are closest to the old prison. This was the site of one of the earliest fortifications that protected Portsmouth from marauding ships. Two forts, Washington and Sullivan, straddled the main channel creating a daunting crossfire obstacle. With the invention of rifled barrels, breech loaded guns, and more powerful propellants, coastal fortifications could now use fewer projectiles with more deadly accuracy and choose targets from a greater distance. As forts employed these newer weapons, construction was pushed closer toward the ocean to head off newer ships with the same types of weapons. As these forts moved closer to the ocean they also could move further apart. Thus Fort Foster is further from Fort Dearbourne than Fort Washington was from Fort Sullivan.