The third system forts did a great job in my book. We learned a hard lesson during 1812. After the incorporation of the third system how many foreign invasions did we have? Zilch. In addition, these forts were not meant to be impervious. They were only to hold out until the cavalry could arrive, about 2 weeks estimated time. Sometimes a strong defence seems the best way to keep the peace. It is how Alabama and Bear Bryant won so many football championships. Punishing defence. 
 
Even after advances in technology dropped the curtain on the third system at Fort Pulaski, we relied on these forts and related improvements to protect the coast up until the Spanish American war.    
  
 
B   

----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask]
Date: Sunday, April 29, 2007 5:47 pm
Subject: Re: [BP] outdated defence
To: [log in to unmask]

> In a message dated 4/29/2007 2:00:34 AM Central Daylight Time, 
> Ken wtites 
> 
> > Book I am currently reading indicates that of the masonry 
> fortifications 
> > along the East Coast built after War of 1812 (where the 
> natural cement 
> > plays an important role) the strategy to build them was based 
> on an 
> > already outdated conception of war that applied to warfare as 
> it was 
> > conducted prior to the fortifications, but of little relevance 
> or effect 
> > for the afterward history.
> 
> Whoa .. wait a gosh dern minuet......According to my notes the
>  defense of the united states relied on a militia .
> ..not a standing militia ....
> a raised Militia  to stave off invasion  .....the 
> British invasion (no not 
> the Beatles Ralph) 
> in 1812 proved any Tom Dick or Moo-hamad could come into this country
> at will and burn the White House;
> drink up all the liker , and run off with all de 
> wimmin   
> so we got mad and built a fortification system to withstand an 
> invasionfor two weeks Max ......(the key word here is two weeks 
> Max) 
> until the militia could come an stave off the invasion 
> What's interesting is that by the 1870s when stone masonry and 
> brick masonry 
> were at the height of their craft; the army corps of engineers 
> switched over 
> to poured concrete for their fortifications ....Why?  
>  Seems the arms race with Kens comment about the rifled 
> cannon 
> fueled interest in performing firing tests in England
>  projectiles were fired into brick , granite, and poured 
> concrete 
> with concrete sustaining the least damage  .
> ....then.Viola.(as they say in Hoboken) .the concrete  test 
> won out and usher 
> in the Magiot and the Siegfried line and another happy exchange 
> of humanity 
> called Verdun which was in  the war to end all wars  
> ...not required reading by 
> the present administration  PY  
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **************************************
>  See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
> 
> --
> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
> <http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
> 
> 
> 

Brian Scott Robinson, MHP 
Professor 
Savannah College of Art and Design 
School of Building Arts 
Historic Preservation Department 
P.O. Box 3146 
Savannah, GA 31402 

912 525 6940 office (Tues/Thurs) 
912 262 2650 home (students emergency only) 
[log in to unmask] 

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>