“BY THE RIVER POTOMAC” 

AN HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY 

OF FORT HUNT PARK 

GEORGE WASHINGTON MEMORIAL PARKWAY 

MOUNT VERNON, VIRGINIA 

MATTHEW R. LAIRD, Ph.D. 

Cultural Resources, Inc. 

AUGUST 2000 
“BY THE RIVER POTOMAC” 

AN HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY 

OF FORT HUNT PARK 

GEORGE WASHINGTON MEMORIAL PARKWAY 

MOUNT VERNON, VIRGINIA 

Prepared For: 

National Park Service 

National Capital Region 

1100 Ohio Drive, S. W. 

Washington, D.C. 20242 

(202) 208-3100 

Prepared By: 

Matthew R. Laird, Ph.D. 

Cultural Resources, Inc. 

705 Caroline Street 

Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 

(540) 370-1973 

August 2000 
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAGE 

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................... iii 

 LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................v 

 FOREWORD ............................................................................................. vi 

1. PISCATAWAY NECK TO CLIFTON’S NECK 

 (6000 B.C. – A. D. 1759).............................................................................1 

2. GEORGE WASHINGTON’S RIVER FARM 

 (1760 – 1799).............................................................................................12 

3. SLAVE PLANTATION TO YANKEE FARM 

 (1800 – 1900).............................................................................................27 

4. “THEM CRAZY SOLDIERS” 

 (1893 – 1917).............................................................................................36 

5. A NEW DEAL FOR AN OLD FORT 

 (1918 – 1942).............................................................................................67 

6. “P. O. BOX 1142”: FORT HUNT IN WORLD WAR II 

 (1939 – 1945).............................................................................................88 

7. FORT HUNT AS PUBLIC SPACE 

 (1946 – 2000)...........................................................................................118 

BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................124 

APPENDICES 

A. EARLY LAND PATENTS, LEASES, AND WILLS, 1653 - 1768........132 

B. FAIRFAX COUNTY TITHABLES FOR THE RIVER FARM, 

 1761 - 1774 ..............................................................................................136 

C. SLAVES AT RIVER FARM, FEBRUARY 1786 ..................................138 

D. SLAVES AT RIVER FARM, JUNE 1799..............................................139 

E. WASHINGTON’S INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE RIVER FARM, 

 1799..........................................................................................................141 
iii

LIST OF FIGURES 

FIGURE PAGE

1. Savage’s survey of Brent’s Patent, Piscataway Neck, 1738..............................4 

2. Washington’s map of the River Farm, 1766......................................................8 

3. Projected location of 1766 tenant farm..............................................................9 

4. Washington’s map of his Mount Vernon Farms, 1793....................................18 

5. Fort Hunt Park boundaries projected onto Washington’s 1793 map...............19 

6. Extract of Military Map of Northeast Virginia Showing 

 Forts and Roads, 1865......................................................................................29 

7. Detail of Mount Vernon District, Fairfax County, 1879 .................................32 

8. Route Surveyed for a National Road from Washington, D.C. to 

 Mount Vernon, 1893........................................................................................34 

9. Plan of Battery Mount Vernon, 1902...............................................................39 

10. Plan of Batteries Porter and Robinson, 1902...................................................41 

11. Plan of Battery Sater, 1902 ..............................................................................43 

12. Battery Sater, 1923...........................................................................................44 

13. An aerial view of Fort Hunt, 1923...................................................................45 

14. Fort Hunt features ca. 1906 projected onto modern base map ........................47 

15. The post hospital, 1923, later code-named “The Creamery”...........................48 

16. Enlisted men’s barracks, 1923 .........................................................................49 

17. NCO quarters, 1923 .........................................................................................50 

18. Officer’s quarters and the Administration Building, 1923 ..............................51 

19. Parade grounds, 1923.......................................................................................52 

20. Temporary World War I buildings, 1923 ........................................................53 

21. Warehouse and attached office, 1923 ..............................................................54 

22. Wharf and wharf house, 1923..........................................................................55 

23. Arthur F. Curtis in Manilla, 1899 ....................................................................61 

24. Fort Hunt football team....................................................................................64 

25. Lieutenant Alphonse Strebler ..........................................................................65 

26. Fort Hunt features ca. 1938 projected onto modern base map ........................78 
iv

LIST OF FIGURES 

FIGURE PAGE 

27. First Aid Instruction, CCC Co. 2387 ...............................................................80

28. Exhibit of national CCC activities,1939 ..........................................................85 

29. Inspection of the CCC camp by the King and Queen, and the First Lady 

 as reported in the CCC newspaper, Happy Days, 1939...................................86 

30. Fort Hunt features ca. 1945 projected on modern base map............................94 

31. Enclosure A, Fort Hunt Detailed Interrogation Center, World War II ............96 

32. Enclosure B, Fort Hunt Detailed Interrogation Center, World War II ............97 

33. Windowless Army bus used to transport POWs, World War II......................99 

34. Typical POW double room, World War II ....................................................101 

35. Chief Monitor Control Board, Enclosure A, World War II...........................110 

36. Interior of the Administration Building, Enclosure A, World War II ...........111 
v

LIST OF TABLES 

TABLE PAGE 

1. Post Buildings at Fort Hunt, 1898-1929 ..........................................................46 

2. CCC Buildings at Fort Hunt, 1935-1942 .........................................................77 

3. Commanding Officers, Joint Interrogation Center, Fort Hunt, 

 1942-1945. .......................................................................................................92 

4. Structures at Fort Hunt, February 1945 ..........................................................93 
vi

FOREWORD 

Numerous individuals contributed their time and expertise to the creation 

of this historic resource study. I would like to thank Gary Scott for his 

patience and guidance throughout the course of the project; Matthew Virta 

(National Park Service, George Washington Memorial Parkway) for 

generously sharing his office and files; Norbert Erickson (National Park 

Service, National Capital Region) for his assistance in researching historic 

maps of Fort Hunt; and Barry Wood (National Park Service, George 

Washington Memorial Parkway) for providing digital mapping of the 

park. 

I appreciate the assistance of the staff of National Archives I and 

II, particularly Mike Meier, Gene Morris, and Judith Koucky. Thanks also 

to Noel Harrison (National Park Service, Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania 

National Military Park) for sharing his research on Camp Alger during the 

Spanish-American War; and to Creg Howland for sharing his experience 

with Fort Hunt’s historic resources. 

Within Cultural Resources, Inc., I appreciate the creative and 

skilful efforts of Allison Johnson and Justin Atkins in producing the 

digital versions of historic Fort Hunt maps. And thanks to Laura Welborn, 

for her enthusiastic and insightful editing. 
1

CHAPTER 1: 

PISCATAWAY NECK TO CLIFTON’S NECK 

6000 B.C. - A.D. 1759 

The story of human occupation in the vicinity of Fort Hunt Park begins more than 8,000 

years ago. Over the past 30 years, archaeologists have identified the remains of sites 

dating to the prehistoric Archaic Period along the Potomac River shoreline between Fort 

Hunt and Little Hunting Creek. Coinciding with the end of the Pleistocene epoch, this 

period witnessed a dramatic change both in climate and natural resources, with warmer, 

drier conditions spawning a greater diversity of food types. In turn, the local human 

population adapted to the changing environment by developing new strategies of 

subsistence that emphasized seasonal mobility. Organized in small bands, the Archaic 

peoples of Virginia’s coastal plain appear to have congregated in base camps for part of 

the year, then moved across the landscape at other times to exploit seasonal food sources. 

The junction of Little Hunting Creek and the Potomac River would have proved an ideal 

setting for such temporary prehistoric campsites, and archaeological evidence confirms 

that native peoples came to this area regularly over many centuries.1

Beginning about 1200 B.C., prehistoric Virginians began to develop a radically 

different way of life. Experimenting with pottery and agriculture, they became 

increasingly sedentary, establishing more permanent villages that were occupied yearround. Defined by archaeologists as the Woodland Period, this era was marked by more 

stable population growth and increasingly complex social organization. Woodland 

villages in the Potomac River Valley were typically located on bluffs, terraces, or high 

floodplains near rivers or major tributaries, while smaller seasonal satellite camps tended 

to be established along smaller interior streams. Diagnostic pottery and projectile points 

found near Fort Hunt Park indicate that, like their predecessors, Woodland peoples also 

found this location ideal for exploiting the river’s resources.2

 

By about 1500 A.D. warfare had become endemic among the native peoples of 

the Mid-Atlantic region. Archaeological evidence suggests that the cultural groups of the 

inner coastal plain of the Potomac, including Maryland and Virginia, began to develop a 

defensive alliance in the early sixteenth century under the authority of a paramount leader 

with centralized power and authority. The resulting Conoy chiefdom of Maryland was a 

hierarchical, stratified society that encompassed a variety of Algonquian-speaking 

peoples, including the Nacothtanks, Pamunkeys, Nanjemoys, Potapacos, Yaocomacos, 

Tauxenents, and Piscataways. Though no permanent village sites are believed to have 

been located on or near Fort Hunt Park, this land lay between two important Conoy 

villages. The eponymous “metropolis” of the Piscataways was situated almost directly 

across from Fort Hunt Park at the confluence of the Potomac and Piscataway Creek. The 

largest and most powerful of the Conoy tribes, the Piscataway’s “tayac,” or ruler, 

governed all the groups of the chiefdom. On the Virginia side of the Potomac, the 

 

1

 Richard J. Dent, Jr., Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions (New York, 1995); 

Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) Archaeological Sites Inventory. 2

 William M. Gardner, “Early and Middle Woodland in the Middle Atlantic: An Overview,” in Roger 

W. Moeller (ed.), Practicing Environmental Archaeology: Methods and Interpretations, American 

Indian Archaeological Institute, Occasional Paper No. 3: 53-86; VDHR Archaeological Sites 

Inventory. 
2

principal village of the Tauxenents was seven miles downriver from Fort Hunt Park at 

Mason Neck. The Tauxenents, whose territory encompassed Fort Hunt, appear to have 

been closely allied with the Piscataways during the Late Woodland. 3

 In the early seventeenth century, the Conoys were confronted with a strange new 

people. John Smith and a small exploratory party of Englishmen met the Tauxenents and 

other nearby tribes on their expedition up the Potomac River in the summer of 1608; they 

“did their best to content us,” Smith recorded, in typical laconic fashion. The new 

English arrivals guessed that the Tauxenent village claimed “40 able men,” which 

suggests a total population of about 170. It is unlikely that any of these people lived 

permanently on or near Fort Hunt Park, though this area would have seen frequent use for 

seasonal hunting and fishing. 4 

 Despite Smith’s initially warm welcome, it was not long before the tenuous AngloIndian relationship had worn thin. In March 1623, Captain Henry Spelman and 19 fellow 

colonists were killed on a trading voyage up the Potomac, about 15 miles south of Fort 

Hunt. The Virginians blamed the Nacotchtanks, a group of Maryland Conoys, and later 

that year Governor Sir Francis Wyatt led a punitive expedition to “revenge the trecherie 

of ye Pascoticons [Piscataways] and theire assocyates.” The English force of 90 men 

reportedly “putt many to the swoorde,” burned numerous Piscataway and Nacotchtank 

houses, and destroyed their corn supplies. The subsequent arrival of increasing numbers 

of English traders and settlers in the upper Potomac Valley would mark the beginning of 

the end for the traditional Conoy way of life. Now known as the Doegs, the Tauxenents 

were still living at Mason Neck as late as the 1650s, and archaeological evidence shows 

that they were actively trading with the new English settlers of Virginia and Maryland. 

About this time, however, many Doegs began to move south to new lands along the 

Rappahannock, relinquishing their former territory to tobacco-growing Englishmen. The 

Piscataways would survive somewhat longer in their original territory along the Potomac, 

but they, too, had left the area by about 1680.5

 

 In the mid-seventeenth century, the lands lying north of the Rappahannock and 

east of the Potomac comprised Virginia’s northernmost frontier. Captain Giles Brent of 

Maryland was the first Englishman to settle in the “freshes” of the Potomac, in what is 

now Stafford County. Brent first arrived in Virginia during the 1620s, and is mentioned 

as a witness in a Jamestown court proceeding. He evidently left Virginia soon after; as a 

Catholic, he likely would have refused to accept the Oath of Allegiance and Subservience 

required of new settlers. Brent reappears in the Maryland records in November 1638, 

arriving at St. Mary’s City aboard the Elizabeth, accompanied by his sisters, Mary and 

Margaret, and his brother, Foulke. An old Catholic Somersetshire family, the Brents had 

 

3

 Stephen R. Potter, Commoners, Tribute, and Chiefs: The Development of Algonquian Culture in the 

Potomac Valley (Charlottesville 1993): 20, 117, 180; Christian F. Feest, “Nanticoke and Neighboring 

Tribes,” in Bruce G. Trigger (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15: Northeast

(Washington, D.C., 1978): 240-43. 4

 Edward Wright Haile (ed.), Jamestown Narratives: Eyewitness Account of the Virginia Colony, The 

First Decade, 1607-1617 (Champlain, Virginia, 1998): 260-61, 605. 5

 Potter, Commoners, Tribute, and Chiefs, 197, 204; Feest, “Nanticoke,” 243. 
3

close personal connections to Cecilius Calvert, the second Lord Baltimore, who 

personally provided large land grants for them in the new colony.6

Giles Brent immediately took up 60 acres in St. Mary’s City, was given a 1,000-

acre tract near Kent Fort, and another 1,000 acres in the location of his choice. Brent was 

invited to sit in the Maryland Assembly in 1639, and became Lord of the Manor of Kent 

Fort in 1642, a position that entailed sweeping political, judicial, and military power in 

the region. The following year, Governor Leonard Calvert decided to return to England, 

and appointed Brent Deputy Governor in his absence. About 1645, Brent married 

Kittamaquund, the twelve-year-old daughter of the chief of the Piscataways. Later 

dubbed the “Maryland Pocahontas,” Kittamaquund had been adopted by Brent’s sister, 

Margaret, several years prior, and renamed Mary after her baptism by Jesuit Father 

Andrew White. That same year, a Captain Richard Ingle arrived in the colony under the 

authority of Parliament, then embroiled in civil war with King Charles I. Ingle seized 

Brent, a staunch Royalist, and took him hostage to London. After a near brush with 

death, Brent returned to Maryland in 1646 to put his affairs in order. Almost 

immediately he became locked in a futile dispute with Lord Baltimore over his claims to 

large portions of the colony allegedly inherited from his father-in-law, the chief of the 

Piscataways. Increasingly disillusioned with the Maryland government and wary of the 

growing Protestant influence in the colony, Brent moved across to Virginia with his 

young bride in 1647. Here he established a plantation on the Widewater peninsula at the 

confluence of the Potomac River and Aquia Creek, optimistically naming it Peace.

7

Eager to capitalize on the potential Indian trade of the upper Potomac Valley, Brent 

soon began to patent large tracts of land upriver from his settlement. During 1653-54, 

Brent patented two tracts totaling 1,800 acres in the name of his infant son, Giles Brent 

II, thus becoming the first English owner of what would become Fort Hunt Park. Lying 

along the Potomac between Hunting and Little Hunting creeks in what was then 

Westmoreland County, these lands lay almost directly across from his wife’s former 

village. For the next century, this land would be known as “Piscataway Neck” (Figure 

1).8 

Under Virginia’s “headright” system, Brent was entitled to 50 acres of land for each 

person whose passage he paid to the colony. In order to maintain these claims, however, 

he had to “seat and plant” the land within a year, which could be accomplished by 

clearing an acre of land, building a structure, keeping animals on the site, or settling 

servants or slaves on the property. No record remains of who may have lived on the 

property during Brent’s lifetime, or how much land was brought into production, but it is 

likely that he maintained a modest quarter on the tract, where tenant farmers or 

 

6

 Chester Horton Brent, The of Collo Giles Brent, Capt George Brent, and Robert Brent,Gent., Immigrants 

to Maryland and Virginia (Rutland, Vermont, 1946): 51. 7

 Brent, Descendants, 50-64. 8

 Nell Marion Nugent (ed.). Cavaliers and Pioneers: Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents and Grants, 

Vol. 1: 1623-1666 (Richmond, Virginia, 1992): 279, 315, 398. The lands of Fort Hunt Park have been 

encompassed by five Virginia counties since the seventeenth century. Originally part of the 

Chickacoan Indian District, it became part of Northumberland County in 1648. In 1653, the year Giles 

Brent patented his first Fort Hunt parcel, the land was transferred to the authority of Westmoreland 

County. It was then subsumed by Stafford County in 1664, Prince William in 1731, and finally by 

Fairfax in 1742. Michael F. Doran, Atlas of County Boundary Changes in Virginia, 1734-1895

(Athens, Georgia, 1987). 
4

Figure 1. John Savage’s survey of Giles Brent’s Patent, Piscataway Neck, 1738 

(source: Beth Mitchell (ed.), Beginning at White Oak...Patents and 

Northern Neck Grants of Fairfax County, Virginia, McGregor and 

Werner, Fairfax, Virginia, 1977). 
5

indentured servants gradually cleared the land and planted tobacco. Given the typical 

pattern of seventeenth-century settlement in Virginia, it is likely that the first occupants 

on the property would have situated themselves near the confluence of the Potomac and 

Little Hunting Creek. 

When Brent died in 1671, he willed his lands in England, Maryland, and Virginia to 

his 19-year-old son, Giles. When he came of age, the younger Giles sold 500 acres in the 

north part of the Piscataway Neck estate to his cousin, George Brent. Not long after, he 

married his cousin, Mary Brent. Their union evidently was not a happy one, and in 1679 

Mary was granted a judicial separation from her husband—only the second in Virginia’s 

history—on grounds of cruelty. Aside from his hot temper, Giles is best remembered for 

his ambivalent involvement in Bacon’s Rebellion of 1676. After an English servant in 

the Northern Neck was murdered by Doeg Indians, Brent led a party of vindictive 

Virginians into Maryland, where they surprised and slaughtered a number of Doeg 

villagers and took one of the chief’s young sons hostage. As Anglo-Indian tensions 

heightened along the Potomac, Brent raised a force of 1,000 men and joined rebel leader 

Nathaniel Bacon in a march against the Indians. After Bacon burned Jamestown, 

however, Brent led his troop south to defend Governor Sir William Berkeley. Brent’s 

private army lost heart when they heard that Bacon had ejected Berkeley from 

Jamestown, and the majority of his force deserted. Brent did not survive long after the 

failed uprising. After separating from his wife, he moved to a Middlesex property he had 

inherited from his aunt, Margaret Brent. He died there that same year.9

 

The will of Giles Brent II does not survive, but it appears that his eldest son, Giles 

Brent III, inherited the Piscataway Neck tract. The Order Book of the Stafford County 

Court records that on February 10, 1693, “Giles Brent son and heir of Col. Giles Brent 

late deceased came into Court and did choose Capt. George Brent to be his guardian 

which accordingly was granted.” Since these lands would later be associated with this 

branch of the Brent family, it is possible that the wealthy and politically well-connected 

George Brent of “Woodstock” may have assumed control over Giles’s holdings when he 

died prematurely in 1694 at the age of 24. 10 

George Brent died in 1699, leaving the Piscataway Neck estate to his son, George. 

Now including 1,143 acres, this tract was described in Brent’s will as that “on which 

Robert Williams is tenant.” Little is known about Williams, who appears only 

occasionally in the records of the Stafford County Court. He was definitely living on the 

Neck land by 1690, when the deed for a neighboring parcel mentioned him as Brent’s 

tenant. Williams was also one of the “subscribers” to a 1686 petition submitted on behalf 

of the residents of what was then northern Stafford County. Prompted by fears of 

unrestricted Indian movement in their region, this petition underscores the fact that this 

part of Virginia remained an unsettled frontier: 

 

Whereas the upper parts of Stafford being daily alarmed by the sight and 

sign of Indians, but whether neighbors or strange Indians unknown to the 

 

9

 Brent, 84-88. 

10 Ruth and Sam Sparacio, Order Book Abstracts of Stafford County, Virginia, 1692-93 (McLean, 

Virginia, 1988): 68; Brent, Descendants, 89. 
6

subscribers, therefore the subscribers thought good to make their 

grievance known by this instrument. Viz. That the neighboring Indians 

goes out and bring in strange Indians to their town which the subscribers 

supposed are that the Indians that are daily seen or sign of them and these 

with the neighboring Indians do endeavor to fright the inhabitants of these 

parts so that they may leave their plantations . . . . We think it a grievance 

that the Indians are permitted to come to every man’s house to trade, but 

rather that they may be confined to a certain place for trade.11 

The younger George Brent would not enjoy possession of the Piscataway Neck lands 

for long, as he died only a year after his father in 1700. In his will, he divided the Robert 

Williams tenement tract between his brothers, Henry, Nicholas, and Robert. In 1701, the 

20-year-old Robert went to Bermuda to represent the interests of his older brother 

Nicholas in the settlement of a family estate. While there he married Susannah Seymour, 

granddaughter of a former Bermudian Governor-General. Robert returned to Virginia 

when Nicholas died in 1711. Since his other brother, Henry, was no longer living, Robert 

was left with the entire 1,143-acre Piscataway Neck tract.12 

 Since Robert Brent lived at the family estate of Woodstock until he died in 1722, 

most likely he leased the family lands in Piscataway Neck to tenant tobacco planters. 

Robert Williams may still have occupied the land, but no extant records detail exactly 

who lived on the tract, or where. At his death, Robert Brent divided his substantial 

Virginia holdings between his children, and his daughter Elizabeth, then only six years 

old, received a partial share in the Neck lands. About 1730, Elizabeth married William 

Clifton, a fellow Catholic who had emigrated from England some years earlier. Members 

of the Clifton family had lived in Virginia and Maryland since the mid-seventeenth 

century, and had long-standing business and family connections to the Virginia Brents. 

William and Elizabeth Clifton appear to have been living on Elizabeth’s Piscataway Neck 

land by 1739, when William purchased an additional 500 acres from his brother-in-law, 

George Brent. The following year Clifton bought another 555-acre tract, known as 

“Budgins,” from Henry Brent, another of Elizabeth’s brothers. Ultimately, William 

Clifton would amass an estate of 1,806 acres through his wife’s inheritance and purchases 

from her brothers. This land, including what would become Fort Hunt Park, would 

henceforth be known as Clifton’s Neck.13

 During the 1740s and 1750s, the Cliftons lived on a 500-acre parcel in the eastern 

portion of the Neck, and rented the remainder of the property to tenant planters. Fort 

Hunt Park appears to have been occupied by two neighboring leaseholders after 1741. In 

August of that year, Clifton leased 200 acres to John Sheridine along the Potomac River, 

including what would come to be known as Sheridan Point, and rented an adjoining 

parcel of the same size to Jane Hester and her sons (See Appendix A). Both leases were 

for the lifetime of the leaseholder and their heirs. The annual rent was to be paid on 

 

11 Brent, Descendants, 73-74; Ruth and Sam Sparacio, Deed and Will Abstracts of Stafford County, 

Virginia, 1689-93 (McLean, Virginia, 1989): 53, 115. 12 Ruth and Sam Sparacio, Deed and Will Abstracts of Stafford County, Virginia, 1699-1709 (McLean, 

Virginia, 1987): 14; David M. French, The Brent Family (Alexandria, 1977): 52. 13 Brent, Descendants, 90-95, 105; French, Brent Family, 58; Donald Jackson (ed.), The Diaries of 

George Washington (Charlottesville, 1976), I: 238; Prince William County Deed Book D: 267-69, 

Deed Book E: 103-04. 
7

Christmas Day, assessed at 830 pounds of tobacco in Hester’s case, while Sheridine owed 

730 pounds. Since both tracts included the same acreage, it is likely that Hester’s parcel 

included somewhat more “improved,” or cleared land. The leases stipulated that neither 

Sheridine nor Hester were to sell or sublet the tracts, though both were allowed the 

privilege of cutting wood on other unleased portions of Clifton’s estate. A final condition 

stipulated that both were to plant orchards of at least one hundred apple trees and keep 

them “under good fence.”14

A map of Clifton’s Neck drafted in 1766 after George Washington had acquired 

the property offers some clue as to how Fort Hunt Park might have looked under 

Clifton’s ownership (Figure 2). The boundary between the Sheridine and Hester tenant 

tracts appears to have been the eastern line of Washington’s Field No. 1, which ran north 

from the Potomac through a ravine. The Sheridine leasehold likely lay to the east of this 

line, encompassing approximately two-thirds of Fort Hunt Park, while the Hester tract 

included the western third of the property. Washington did not include the Sheridine 

parcel on his map, most likely because the family was still living there and farming the 

land for themselves. The Hester parcel is depicted, however, and the map indicates that 

two buildings—possibly the dwelling house and kitchen, or other outbuilding—were 

situated west of the ravine, most likely within Fort Hunt’s current boundaries (Figure 3). 

The apple orchard that Hester was required to plant under the terms of her lease appears 

to have been located a short distance west of the buildings. 

Though scant documentary evidence remains to illuminate how Fort Hunt Park 

may have looked during the mid-eighteenth century, the few fragmentary records that 

have survived open a window onto the life of a Fairfax County tenant farmer in the years 

before the American Revolution. John Sheridine’s son, also named John, died in 1768, 

leaving his aging father and his widow Barberry (or Barbara) still living on the 200-acre 

tract they leased from William Clifton. In his will, Sheridine left his estate to his wife, 

with the exception of his “wearing clothes,” saddle, and bridle, which he gave to his 

father (See Appendix A). Officials of the Fairfax County Court probated his estate in the 

following months: the picture of Sheridine that emerges is of a modestly successful 

tenant planter, not wealthy enough to own his own land, but living a comfortable life by 

the standards of eighteenth-century Virginia (See Appendix A).15 

By the time Fairfax County was created from Prince William in 1742, nearly all 

of its usable land had already been granted or patented, in tracts that generally ranged 

between 200 and 500 acres. Since the Potomac River was still the region’s primary 

artery of trade, transportation, and communication, the fertile land along its shores was a 

valuable commodity. A man of modest means such as Sheridine would have found it 

nearly impossible to purchase such desirable land in the mid-eighteenth century. In fact, 

by the time of the Revolution, only 36 percent of Fairfax County householders owned 

their own land; the majority leased their farms from wealthier landowners of the William 

Clifton variety.16 

 

14 Prince William County Deed Book E: 419-21, 421-23. 

15 Fairfax County Will Book C-1: 29, 40. 

16 Nan Netherton et al., Fairfax County, Virginia: A History (Fairfax, 1978): 15, 26, 30-32; Allan 

Kulikoff, Tobacco and Slaves: The Development of Southern Cultures in the Chesapeake, 1680-1800

(Chapel Hill, 1986): 135. 
8

Figure 2. George Washington’s map of the River Farm, 1766 (source: Lawrence 

Martin (ed.), The George Washington Atlas, United States George 

Washington Bicentennial Commission, Washington, D.C., 1932). 
9

Figure 3. Projected location of 1766 tenant farm (source: Martin (cd.), The George 

Washington Atlas, Plate 3). 
10

But what of economic standing? Where did John Sheridine fit in the Fairfax 

County hierarchy of wealth and status? Here his inventory proves an invaluable 

comparative tool. When he died, Sheridine owned three black slaves, two adult males 

valued at £50 and £35, and a girl worth £35. Though Fairfax County slave ownership 

was becoming increasingly widespread in the middle decades of the eighteenth century, it 

was still relatively unusual for a tenant planter to own slaves. In 1749, only about 17 

percent of white adult males in the county owned slaves, the majority of whom held 6 or 

fewer. The proportion of slaveowners had increased somewhat by the 1780s, but a large 

majority of adult white males still did not own a single slave by the end of the 

Revolution. The total value of Sheridine’s personal property, including his slaves, 

livestock, tools, and household goods was £241 7s. 3d. To put this figure in perspective, 

the annual rent of 730 pounds of tobacco he paid to Clifton was equivalent to about £4 

13s., less than 2 percent of his net worth.17 An analysis of similar inventories for 

neighboring Prince George’s County, Maryland, from the 1770s determined that the 

mean estate value of slaveowning tenant planters was £121, only half of Sheridine’s total. 

Even the value of Sheridine’s slaves was significantly higher than the average for Prince 

George’s County slaveowners who owned their own land.18 

 Though Sheridine may have ranked among the higher levels of Fairfax County’s 

small planters, he still did not share the benefits of owning real estate enjoyed by his 

landlord. Besides leasing portions of his estate, Clifton could augment his income in 

other ways. Beginning in the mid-1740s, for example, Clifton operated a ferry service 

from the Neck. A 1745 “Act for appointing several new ferries” passed by Virginia’s 

House of Burgesses allowed a public crossing “on Potomac river, from the land of 

William Clifton, in Fairfax County, over the said river, to the land in the tenure of 

Thomas Wallis, in Prince George County, in Maryland, the price for a man, one shilling, 

and for a horse, the same.” This ferry proved popular with Fairfax County travelers, and 

was frequently used by George Washington when venturing out from his neighboring 

Mount Vernon estate. Yet, despite this additional revenue, by 1747 Clifton was deeply in 

debt. In that year he mortgaged his 1,806-acre estate on the Neck to Charles Carroll, 

William Digges, and John Addison of Maryland, a transaction that created a vexing legal 

entanglement that would not be resolved completely for 50 years.19

By 1755, Clifton had defaulted on his mortgage, and his Maryland creditors 

brought suit against him in the Fairfax County Court. Acting in chancery, the court 

ordered the Neck lands to be sold to pay Clifton’s debts of more than £1,000, and later 

that year the property was purchased by George Johnston. Clifton launched a countersuit 

to regain the land, and in April 1759 the General Court in Williamsburg nullified the sale. 

To settle the issue, the Williamsburg authorities appointed a panel of local 

commissioners, including George William Fairfax, John West, Jr., Charles Green, and 

Thomas Colvill to arrange the sale of the property within four months, and to work out an 

 

17 In 1750, the Fairfax County Court set the official value of tobacco at 12s. 6d. per hundredweight. 

Netherton et al., Fairfax County, 59. 18 Kulikoff, Tobacco and Slaves, 140. 

19 William Waller Hening, The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of all the Laws of Virginia from the 

First Session of the Legislature in the Year 1619 (Richmond, 1819), v. 5: 364, v. 6: 19; Fairfax County 

Deed Book B-1: 290. 
11

equitable settlement with Clifton’s creditors. The Fairfax commissioners still had not 

resolved the situation by October 1759, and when Thomas Colvill stepped down as 

commissioner, he was replaced by Clifton’s young neighbor, George Washington. And so 

the future President of the United States would begin his lifelong association with the 

lands of the Fort Hunt Park.20

 

20 Fairfax County Deed Book D-1: 165-69,171-75, 178-84; W.W. Abbott (ed.), The Papers of George

Washington: Colonial Series (Charlottesville, 1983-98), 9:409-10n. 
12

CHAPTER 2: 

GEORGE WASHINGTON’S RIVER FARM 

1760 - 1799 

I shall begrudge no reasonable expense that will contribute to the 

improvement and neatness of my farms, for nothing pleases me better than 

to see them in good order, and everything trim, handsome, and thriving 

about them; nor nothing hurts me more than to find them otherwise. 

George Washington to William Pearce, 

 6 October 17931

The year was 1760, and George Washington had finally arrived home. A young man of 

28, he was now a husband and father, having just married Martha Dandridge Custis the 

year before and assumed responsibility for her children. He was also fresh from the 

battlefield, having helped to wrest the continent from the hands of the French, and change 

the course of North American history. But, after a youth spent winning an empire on the 

frontier, Washington now yearned for a more settled life. And so, he returned to his 

ancestral lands along the Potomac River to take up the role of gentleman farmer. His 

goal: to bring prosperity and order to the farm at Mount Vernon where he had spent a part 

of his youth, and where he would end his days as the Father of the new American 

Republic. 

This Fairfax County neighborhood of river farms had been home to the 

Washington family for nearly a century when George returned to Mount Vernon. In 

1674 George’s great-grandfather, Lieutenant Colonel John Washington, along with 

Colonel Nicholas Spencer, patented 5,000 acres in what was then Stafford County, “in 

near land of Capt. Giles Brent . . . .”2 When George’s father, Augustine, inherited the 

tract, it hardly possessed the carefully crafted aura of Georgian respectability for which 

Mount Vernon is now universally known. Rather, this was a large, though largely 

undeveloped, piece of ground, with a modest planter’s house and little else. The family 

was living at Wakefield on Pope’s Creek in Westmoreland County when George was 

born in 1732, though they soon moved to the Mount Vernon land—then known as 

Epsewasson—where they stayed until George was six. When their home was destroyed 

by fire, the family once again was forced to relocate, this time to Ferry Farm on the 

Rappahannock River in Stafford County, near the new town of Fredericksburg. George 

would return to Mount Vernon frequently during his youth, to visit his brother Lawrence, 

who had inherited the land, and pay his respects to the nearby Fairfax family, whose 

daughter Sally was his first love. But until Lawrence died prematurely in 1752, George 

likely did not dream that one day he would become master of this ground.3

Marriage changed George Washington, and Washington soon began to change 

Mount Vernon. In a society in which such unions were conceived as much to transfer 

wealth and privilege among the colonial gentry as for romantic love, George could not 

 

1

 Donald Jackson (ed.), The Diaries of George Washington (Charlottesville, 1976), I: xxvi. 2

 Nell Marion Nugent (ed.), Cavaliers and Pioneers: Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents and Grants, 

(Richmond, 1977), II: 178. 3

 James Thomas Flexner, Washington: The Indispensable Man (Boston, 1974), 43. 
13

have made a better match. George would come to love Martha deeply, but much of the 

initial attraction was clearly fiscal. Widow of the wealthy Daniel Parke Custis, Martha 

transformed George from a “run-of-the-mill planter to a man of substance.”4

 Though 

George had by no means endured an impoverished young life, he was never allowed to 

forget that his modest family circumstances demanded that he make his own way in life. 

So, when he suddenly came into a third of the vast Custis estate, and was likewise 

responsible for the other two-thirds as guardian of Martha’s children, it is hardly 

surprising that George began to spend, and not always wisely. Looking back on his 

younger self, an older and more cautious Washington admitted that his strivings for a 

gentrified respectability “swallowed before I knew where I was, all the money I got by 

my marriage. Nay more, brought me into debt.”5

 

As a new member of Virginia’s landed elite, George assumed that the key to his 

success as a gentleman farmer lay in increasing his farm’s productivity. This meant 

acquiring more land. Gazing out across Little Hunting Creek to the scattered tenant 

farms on his neighbor William Clifton’s property, George surely imagined one day 

adding these acres to his growing estate. By 1760, the time must have seemed right: 

Clifton appeared eager to sell and be done with the legal wrangling over the property that 

had plagued him for years; and now Washington had the money to make a respectable 

offer. “Mr. Clifton came here and we conditioned for his land,” Washington recorded in 

his diary on Thursday, February 14, 1760. “I am to have all his land in the Neck (500 

Acres about his house excepted) and the Land commonly called Brents for £1,600 

Currency.”6

 

Given his complicated legal position, Clifton should not have been so quick to 

make this offer; and considering his own involvement as a commissioner charged with 

resolving the Clifton case, it is surprising that Washington should have shown such 

optimism. Nonetheless, these informal discussions over the sale of the Neck continued 

relatively amicably through February. Though he seemed to Washington a changeable 

personality, occasionally putting on “airs of indifference” and wavering on price, Clifton 

evidently was committed to the transaction, noting only that he must first get his wife to 

acknowledge her right of dower, a supposedly minor detail. Over the following days, 

however, the pages of Washington’s diary reveal his bewilderment and exasperation as 

the deal began to unravel. 

Sunday, March 2, 1760: “Mr. Clifton came here to day,” Washington noted, “& 

under pretence of his Wife not consenting to acknowledge her right of Dower wanted to 

disengage himself of the Bargain he had made with me for his Land on the 26th past and 

by his Shuffling behaviour on the occasion convinced me of his being the trifling body 

represented . . . .”7

 Washington was then outraged to learn that Clifton also had agreed to 

sell the land to Thomson Mason, younger brother of George Mason of Gunston Hall. 

Washington could barely restrain himself, and his reaction seems to betoken more a 

 

4 Flexner, Washington, 43. 5

 Flexner, Washington, 44. 6 Jackson (ed.), Diaries, I: 237. 7

 Jackson (ed.), Diaries, I: 250. 
14

bruised sense of dignity than mere disappointment over potentially losing a valuable 

piece of real estate. This blatant betrayal, Washington wrote, “convinced me that he was 

nothing less than a thorough pac’d Rascall—disregardful of any Engagements of Words 

or Oaths not bound by Penalties.”8

 Washington’s characteristic sense of honor and 

propriety was deeply wounded by Clifton’s actions, but this did not prevent him from 

haggling. Offering £50 more than Mason, Washington wooed Clifton back to their 

original agreement. “I did not think Myself restrained by any Rules of Honour, 

Conscience or & ca. from making him this offer,” he rationalized, “as his Lands were 

first engaged to me by the most Solemn assurances that any Man could give.”9

Pinning down the fickle Clifton had been no easy task, but sorting out the legal 

aspect of the sale would prove even more difficult. Meeting on March 28, 1760, the 

commissioners—Washington included—finally agreed upon the final disposition of the 

property. Rather than allowing Washington to buy Clifton’s Neck in a private sale, they 

determined that the land would be offered at public auction in Alexandria on May 20th. 

On the appointed date, Washington’s bid of £1,210 sterling was accepted, and the deed 

duly registered with the clerk of the Fairfax County Court.10 Not unexpectedly, Thomson 

Mason, Washington’s thwarted rival, threatened to appeal the sale decree, and a handful 

of Clifton’s creditors refused to acknowledge the transfer. In fact, more than 30 years 

would pass before Charles Carroll’s son and Ignatius Digges’s widow, Mary Carroll 

Digges, finally gave Washington clear title to the land. But, for all intents and purposes, 

Washington now legally owned the 1,806 acres of Clifton’s Neck.11 

Ownership aside, Washington’s enjoyment of the property was hampered from 

the start. To begin with, the deed of sale allowed Clifton to reside on the land for a year 

while he put his affairs in order. Washington also was limited by the fact that a number 

of Clifton’s tenants remained on the property and, though they now paid their annual rent 

to Washington, the terms of their original leases were unaffected by the sale. It appears 

that former Clifton tenants Richard Rollins and William Crump left the Neck shortly after 

Washington bought the land, but several others, including John Carney, Samuel Johnston, 

Gilbert Simpson, and John Sheridine, remained on their leaseholds as late as the 1770s. 

In fact, Washington could not incorporate much of what now comprises Fort Hunt Park 

into his Clifton’s Neck plantation until 1773, when he bought out the remainder of 

Sheridine’s lease from his widow, Barberry, who was still living on the property with her 

new husband, Samuel Halley.12

The earliest known map that depicts Clifton’s Neck as part of Mount Vernon was 

drafted by Washington himself in 1766 (see Chapter 1, Figure 2). Less than 1,000 of the 

property’s 1,806 acres were included in this survey; it appears that only those fields that 

Washington was actively farming, not those still occupied by leaseholders, were shown. 

 

8

 Jackson (ed.), Diaries, I: 252. 9

 Jackson (ed.), Diaries, I: 255. 10 Fairfax County Court, Deed Book D-1: 759-68. 

11 W.W. Abbott (ed.), The Papers of George Washington: Colonial Series (Charlottesville, 1983-98), 9: 

409-10n. Within three years Washington had purchased an additional 238 acres of Neck land from 

Charles Brent, bringing the total acreage to 2,044. Fairfax County Deed Book D: 839. 12 Jackson (ed.), Diaries, II: 43; III: 115, 155; 248-49; V: 102. 
15

Five years after taking over the Neck, Washington had divided the tract into six discrete 

components. Fields 1, 2, and 3 encompassed the bulk of the acreage, their boundaries 

likely coinciding with those of the Clifton era tenant farms. A number of structures, and 

what appear to be orchards or garden plots, are situated within each field, and likely 

represent former tenant dwellings. A 182-acre parcel to the north of the farm fields is 

labeled “woods and pasture,” and would have provided pasturage for livestock, as well as 

the large quantity of wood necessary for fuel and fencing. At the head of Carney’s Cut, a 

tributary of Little Hunting Creek that runs southeast from the heart of the property, is a 

small, well-defined area with at least three buildings and adjacent gardens. This was the 

location of the “quarter” that housed the slaves who worked the surrounding fields. 13 

The current boundaries of Fort Hunt Park do not fit neatly into Washington’s 

1766 depiction of his new property. The modern Sheridan Point (named for John 

Sheridine, the Clifton/Washington tenant) marks the extreme southeast boundary of the 

survey, so only the western portion of the National Park Service property is depicted in 

“Field No. 1” of the 1766 map. The remainder, which included the Sheridine leasehold, 

lies directly to the east of Field No. 1, and is not included in the map. Since Washington 

did not have access to this ground—and would not for another several years—he likely 

did not see the utility in including this acreage in the survey. The two unidentified 

structures depicted in the southeast quadrant of Field No. 1 appear to be located within 

the current boundaries of Fort Hunt Park (see Chapter 1, Figure 3). These buildings may 

represent the tenant farm of Jane Hester, who leased 200 acres adjacent to John Sheridine 

from Clifton in the years before Washington purchased the property. By 1766, Hester or 

the subsequent tenant had likely vacated the leasehold, however, and the fields had come 

into production as a part of Washington’s farm on the Neck.14

In the two centuries since his death, historians and the general public alike have 

tended to view Washington through the prism of his public persona as soldier, statesman, 

and Founding Father. It is clear, however, that Washington saw himself in a much 

different light: as a farmer, frequently called away from his fields to serve the public 

interest. The pages of his diaries are filled with notations on the minutiae of plowing, 

crops, soils, and the weather. Washington loved the land, and clearly it occupied nearly 

all his mental and physical energy when he was at home.15

 The very year that Washington acquired Clifton’s Neck, 1760, also marked what 

is generally recognized as the beginning of an “agricultural revolution” in England. 

Pioneered by agriculturalist Jethro Tull, this blossoming interest in farming methods and 

theory marked a profound break with the medieval tradition of three-year crop rotation. 

Tull and others developed a far more sophisticated system of land management that 

included, among other advances, the introduction of fertilizers, forage crops, roots, and 

non-native grasses to stave off soil exhaustion. Washington’s early diaries reveal that 

during his first years at Mount Vernon he was still heavily wedded to tobacco as his 

primary cash crop. But, like his fellow planters throughout Tidewater Virginia in the 

 

13 Washington did not regularly use the name “River Farm” to identify this property until fairly late in his 

tenure. From the 1760s through the 1780s, he generally referred to it in his diaries and correspondence 

as “the Neck,” as in “Clifton’s Neck.” The name “River Farm” appears to have gained currency only 

by the early 1790s. For example: “William Gardener—my new Overseer for the Neck, arrived (by 

Water) with his family today (December 10, 1789).” Jackson (ed.), Diaries, V: 432-33. 14 Prince William County Court Records, Deed Book E: 419 (14 August 1741). 

15 Jackson (ed.), Diaries, I: xxvi. 
16

second half of the eighteenth century, Washington increasingly found the old tobacco 

economy untenable. Tobacco was at root a wasteful crop, devouring land almost as 

quickly as it could be cleared; and it did not take too many seasons before Washington 

realized that Mount Vernon’s soils were simply exhausted from the annual round of 

tobacco planting and harvesting. He could no longer afford to bring substantial new 

tracts of land, such as Clifton’s Neck, into production to maintain his output without 

destroying valuable woodland necessary for firewood, and his farms could not produce 

enough manure to fertilize already depleted soils.16 

By the 1760s Washington had accepted the inevitable and begun to diversify his 

farms, phasing out tobacco production in favor of various other crops. Though he never 

abandoned tobacco entirely, by the Revolutionary era Mount Vernon had become the 

model of a diversified plantation economy. Before his death, Washington had raised—or 

at least experimented with—over 60 different crops at Mount Vernon, including: barley, 

buckwheat, burnet, clover, chicory, corn, carrots, cabbage, field peas, flax, guinea grass, 

hemp, horsebean, Jerusalem artichoke, millet, oats, orchard grass, potatoes, pumpkins, 

rye, sainfoin, Siberian melilot, spelt, tick trefoil, turnips, timothy, and wheat. 

Washington experimented enthusiastically with various types of fertilizers, including 

animal dung, marl, green crops plowed under, and even mud from the Potomac River. 

He shared Jefferson’s interest in the new agricultural machinery, and an inventory of 

equipment at the River Farm taken after his death noted the presence of a threshing 

machine, a recent innovation. In addition to a wide range of crops, the River Farm was 

also home to some of Washington’s livestock, including sheep, cattle, swine, and poultry. 

Throughout his years at Mount Vernon, Washington was fascinated with the new 

scientific study of agriculture and animal husbandry; his library was filled with books on 

the subject, and he corresponded enthusiastically with English and American experts, 

including fellow Virginian Thomas Jefferson, on all matters relating to farm life.17 

It would be disingenuous, however, to continue with a discussion of the plantation 

economy of Mount Vernon, and the daily workings of the River Farm, without first 

addressing the means by which Washington’s agricultural schemes were realized. 

Slavery was well entrenched in Virginia long before Washington was born. Though he 

arguably became a “lukewarm abolitionist” in his later years, throughout his adult life 

Washington acted the traditional part of the large Virginia slaveowner. As with Thomas 

Jefferson, historians have been quick to seize on the irony of Washington’s reputation as 

a pillar of republican virtue when he also held hundreds of fellow humans in bondage. In 

the final analysis, it is clear that Washington was a product of time, place, and social 

class: a “scientific farmer” of the late eighteenth century who managed his slaves as 

closely as his crops, and a ‘benevolent master” who provided food, shelter, and medical 

care to his charges, yet always with an eye towards maintaining productivity.18 

By the time he moved permanently to Mount Vernon, Washington was already 

well accustomed to owning slaves. He had inherited 10 slaves from his father as a boy, 

then 18 more when his elder brother Lawrence died in 1752. But only after marrying 

 

16 Jackson (ed.), Diaries, I: xxvi-xxx. 17 Fritz Hirschfeld, George Washington and Slavery: A Documentary Portrayal (Columbia, Missouri, 

997), 1-8. 18 Fritz Hirschfeld, George Washington and Slavery: A Documentary Portrayal (Columbia, Missouri, 

997), 1-8. 
17

Martha Custis did he truly join the ranks of Virginia’s largest slaveowners. Marriage 

made Washington the caretaker of dozens of “dower slaves” who, though still owned by 

his wife, now came under his direct authority. In 1760, the year Washington bought 

Clifton’s Neck, he paid tax on 49 slaves at Mount Vernon. As Washington’s holdings 

expanded, eventually into five “farms” (Mansion House, Dogue Run, Muddy Hole, 

Union, and River Farm), his demand for slave labor increased accordingly. Each farm 

operated as an independent unit under the direction of either a resident white overseer or 

a black “driver.” Washington himself closely monitored every aspect of work and output 

on each farm while he was at Mount Vernon, and when absent relied on a series of estate 

managers to ensure that plantation affairs ran smoothly.19 

As he brought the fields on the Neck into production during the 1760s and 1770s, 

Washington moved increasing numbers of laborers to the quarter at the River Farm. 

There, they answered to James Cleveland, who served as overseer between 1765 and 

1775. Fairfax County’s lists of titheables, or taxable slaves over the age of 16, indicates 

that the number of laboring slaves living and working on the River Farm rose steadily 

from 6 in 1761 to 33 in 1774 (see Appendix B). After the Mansion House Farm, the 

River Farm was the largest of Mount Vernon’s agricultural units, at its height in the 

1790s housing upwards of 57 black men, women, and children.20 A 1793 map of Mount 

Vernon shows that the main quarter at the River Farm was still located at the head of 

Carney’s Cut, in the central portion of the tract, though it now was considerably larger 

than it had been in 1766 (Figure 4). A row of four structures was depicted along the edge 

of a large orchard and grass lot. A short distance to the south, on the opposite side of the 

cut, was a larger building, likely the overseer’s house, alongside the farm’s main barn and 

gardens. 

 Washington expected a great deal of his slaves and their overseers. At heart he 

was a businessman, and expected Mount Vernon to function in a rational and efficient 

manner. “To request that my people may be at their work as soon as it is light—work 

‘till it is dark—and be diligent while they are at it can hardly be necessary,” Washington 

wrote to one of his overseers in 1789, “because the propriety of it must strike every 

manager who attends to my interest, or regards his own character . . . the presumption 

being, that, every labourer (male or female) does as much in 24 hours as their strength, 

without endangering their health, or constitution, will allow of.”21 

Though Washington’s letters and diaries record the manifold details of 

agricultural operations at the River Farm, and the problems inherent in coaxing labor 

from sometimes recalcitrant slaves, he offered little descriptive detail about “his 

people”as human beings. As a result, the best sources for understanding the living 

conditions of slaves at the River Farm are provided by outsiders. Throughout 

Washington’s life, Mount Vernon was host to a steady stream of visitors, including 

foreigners who were intrigued by Washington’s slaves and their situation. One such 

guest, the Polish nobleman Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz, recorded his impressions of a visit 

to the quarter. 

 

19 Hirschfeld, Washington and Slavery, 11-21. 20 John C. Fitzpatrick, The Writings of George Washington, From the Original Manuscript Sources, 

1745-1799 (Washington, D.C., 1931-44); 37: 262-63. 21 Abbott (ed.), Papers: Presidential Series, 1: 223.
18

Figure 4. Detail, George Washington’s map of his Mount Vernon Farms, 1793 

(source: Lawrence Martin (ed.), The George Washington Atlas, United 

States George Washington Bicentennial Commission, Washington, D C., 

1932). 
19

Figure 5. Fort Hunt Park boundaries projected onto George Washington’s 1793 map 

of the Mount Vernon Farms (source: Library of Congress, G 3882.M7 

1793.W34). 
20

“We entered one of the huts of the Blacks,” he described, 

for one can not call them by the name of houses. They are more miserable 

than the most miserable of the cottages of our peasants. The husband and 

wife sleep on a mean pallet, the children on the ground; a very bad 

fireplace, some utensils for cooking, but in the middle of this poverty 

some cups and a teapot . . . . A very small garden planted with vegetables 

was close by, with 5 or 6 hens, each one leading ten to fifteen chickens. It 

is the only comfort that is permitted them; for they may not keep either 

ducks, geese, or pigs. They sell the poultry in Alexandria and procure for 

themselves a few amenities. They allot them each one pack [peck], one 

gallon of maize per week; this makes one quart a day, and half as much for 

the children, with 20 herrings each per month. At harvest time those who 

work in the fields have salt meat; in addition, a jacket and a pair of 

homespun breeches per year.22

Though little in the way of descriptive detail was ever recorded concerning the 

slaves who called the River Farm home, Washington did take two detailed inventories of 

is Mount Vernon slaves in 1786 and 1799 (see Appendices C and D). From these names 

and numbers can be teased some significant details that Washington simply took for 

granted and evidently felt no need to discuss. In the 1786 inventory, Washington divided 

his 52 River Farm slaves by sex and age, and differentiated between his own and 

Martha’s “dower” slaves. At the head of the list was Davy, “overseer,” and Molly, his 

wife. Davy was a mulatto slave who had previously served as overseer of the Muddy 

Hole Farm before Washington brought him to the River Farm in 1785 to replace the 

recently deceased superintendent, John Alton. At any given time it was not unusual for 

one of the Mount Vernon farms to be run by a trusted black overseer. Though still in 

bondage, the “driver” and his family were allowed special privileges in accordance with 

his elevated status. Living in separate quarters, they received extra rations and 

provisions, and were sometimes allowed to leave Mount Vernon to attend events such as 

horse races in Alexandria.23

River Farm in 1786 was home to 9 adult “laboring men,” and 17 “laboring 

women.” Though he did not purchase any new slaves after 1772, the black population at 

Mount Vernon had continued to grow considerably as the result of natural increase. 

Thus, the 23 children who also lived at the River Farm can be seen in pragmatic terms as 

the byproduct of Washington’s encouragement of his female slaves to procreate. In one 

sense, Washington was all too glad to rely on “homegrown” labor, particularly in the 

years following the Revolution when, under increasing public scrutiny, he resolved to 

stop trading in slaves. But this policy ultimately backfired. Having also made a 

commitment to keep slave families together as best he could, Washington found himself 

unable to sell off excess laborers, as his less scrupulous fellow planters did, to relieve the 

population pressure on his estate. By the 1790s, Mount Vernon had become 

 

22 Hirschfeld, Washington and Slavery, 54. 23 Hirschfeld, Washington and Slavery, 39-40. 
21

overpopulated with slaves, about half of whom—children, the infirm, and elderly—were 

“unproductive,” yet still required food, shelter, clothing, and medical care.24 

Washington’s 1799 inventory of River Farm, taken only weeks before his death, 

paints a similar picture of a large, self-contained slave community of 57 individuals, 

many of whom had several children living with them. Certain minor notations in this 

inventory shed unintended light on what Washington expected of his slaves. For 

example, at 80 years old, the slave Robin was considered “nearly past labor” [emphasis 

added]. At the opposite end of the age spectrum, 14-year-old Cecelia was recorded as 

having “no husband,” suggesting that by her age she conceivably might have already 

found a match and begun to bear children. These few details reinforce a picture of slave 

life at the River Farm in which difficult labor was expected of even the most aged of 

slaves, and the reproductive capacity of young women—or girls—was valued as their 

principal asset. 

Washington was considered by his contemporaries to be a humane master, strict 

and demanding, but never brutal. Though later in life he clearly came to see the 

contradictions inherent in a republic of slaveholders, he also held the typical eighteenthcentury Southern view of blacks as essentially shiftless and inferior to whites. Perhaps 

the most succinct comment on slavery at Washington’s Mount Vernon was offered by his 

private secretary, Tobias Lear “The negroes are not treated as blacks in general are in 

this Country,” remarked the educated, liberal New Englander, “they are clothed and fed 

as well as any labouring people whatever and they are not subject to the lash of a 

domineering Overseer—but they are still slaves. . .”25

Though he rarely delved into the personal lives of his slaves, Washington spared 

no ink in describing the daily operations at the River Farm in those years, admittedly few 

and far between in the later 1770s and 1780s, when he actually lived at home. The 

following selected entries from his journal between January and December 1788 describe 

what amounts to a “year in the life” of the property, a detailed picture of the annual round 

of planting, harvesting, and countless other tasks that occupied Washington’s mind, and 

his slaves’ muscle, through each season.26

4 January 

In the Neck the Men were getting Posts & rails for fencing; & the Women 

were threshing Oats. 

22 January 

at the Neck: the Men were getting Posts & rails—some of the women 

cutting down Corn Stalks & gathering them into heaps—8 others of them 

at the Mansion House. 

14 February 

In the Neck 7 Plows were at Work in the field by the Barn—frost some 

interruption to the Plows. The Women grubbing along the Branch below 

the Spring. Men at work as usual. 

 

24 Hirschfeld, Washington and Slavery, 13-18. 25 Hirschfeld, Washington and Slavery, 52. 26 Jackson, Diaries, 5: 261-438. 
22

19 February 

The Men were getting & preparing for fencing. The Women, some were 

grubbing and others throwing down old fences in order to erect them a 

New. 

15 March 

In the Neck, the Women were spreading Dung on the ground intended for 

Oats and Barley—being the West part of No. 2.27 At this place also I 

caused to be sown a bed of Reynold’s Turnip rooted Cabbages for the 

purpose of raising plants to put in my Corn Rows. 

26 March 

Finished sowing so much of the West cut of No. 2 in the Neck as received 

the Oats raised from the Seed of General Spotswood; and Clover & 

Timothy thereon; & harrowed & cross harrowed them in, but could not 

roll them in on account of the damps on the Surface. Began to Sow Oats 

in the Easternmost cut of this field which was finished plowing this 

Morning and to plow in the middle cut for Barley. 

7 April 

In the Neck, the Posting, Railing & ditching was completed this Morning 

up to the Gate; and the other part, to the Gut, set about. The Plows would, 

about Noon, finish breaking up the Middle Cut of No. 2 and a particular 

part of which being very cloddy and stiff, I ordered it to be crossed. . . . 

The Women would about have done picking up & heaping the Corn Stalks 

in No. 3 to day (having finished those in No. 7) and would repair the fence 

round No. 6 and Orchard Inclosure. 

28 April 

In the Neck, as at Dogue Run, the planting of Corn had been suspended on 

account of the rains, and the extreme wetness of the Earth . . . . Began the 

brick work of the Dairy at this place to day. And ordered the holes for the 

Reception of Corn to be made to morrow. 

2 May 

In the Neck, all hands except the Plowers & Carters were planting Corn—

one plow laying off in the Barn Inclosure for Sundries—one harrow for 

Buck Wheat—3 plows listing for Carrots and Cabbages . . . . 

14 May 

In the ground which had been ridged here for Pease & ca. 5 Men (besides 

the Overseer, who only worked occasionally) 11 Women, and one boy 

made 72 rows of hills, which rows could average 300 hills each—in the 

whole between 21 ad 22 thousand hills in that day. 

 

27 Washington’s 1793 map of Mount Vernon indicates that the current Fort Hunt Park encompassed the 

majority of the River Farm’s Field No. 3 and the southern portion of Field No. 2. 
23

14 June 

At the River Plantation, all hands were planting Potatoes & weeding Corn. 

The Plows were throwing a furrow (on each side) to the Corn, covering 

Potatoes, & ca. The Pumpkins were also weeded and the Planting of 

Potatoes completed at this place. 

18 June 

Examined the grain in the Neck which appears as follows—viz.—the 

Wheat in field No. 7 which I expected would have been very fine scarcely 

merits the epithet—Middling the whole being too thin being injured by the 

frosts of Winter & the wet of this Spring. Of the red wheat which was 

sown in this field scarcely any is to be seen and of the white (both 

imported from England) the ground was but thinly covered. The Corn 

ground Wheat in No. 3 was too thin every where—in places scarcely any. 

22 July 

In the Neck—the Oats were cut down about Noon, & the last of the Wheat 

about five Oclock, when the Cradlers assisted in binding and securing the 

grain. One harrow in the Corn and five Plows finished Weeding the 

Pumpkins after dinner. 

25 July 

[The previous day a fierce hurricane hit the Chesapeake, inflicting serious 

damage between Norfolk and Baltimore.] 

In the Neck—all the River Fence being carried away, All hands (plow 

people as well as the rest) were collecting rails to repair it, to keep the 

stock out of the fields of grain except One or two who were righting some 

shocks of grain and Setting up Flax which had been pulled and blown all 

about. 

11 August 

Overlooked the Stock here, and separated 13 (besides 2 Work Steers 

which will follow as soon as they can be spared) to go to the feeding 

Pasture at French’s viz. 5 steers & 9 cows. Separated the Lambs 45 in 

number from the Ewes, & put them in field No. 2. Drew 12 old weathers 

and 38 old ewes for killing and Marked and put them in Field No. 7. The 

residue—viz. 29 weathers & 79 ewes were turned in the Common Pasture. 

23 August 

The rest of the hands were about finishing weeding the Pease & pulling

the large weeds from among the Pompions—after which would gather up 

the apples under the trees. 
24

12 September 

In the Neck. The Ploughs and harrows from the different Plantations were 

at Work, preparing for, and putting in wheat—one harrow in the Corn and 

the Waggon & Carts drawing in Wheat. The other hands were clearing 

Wheat (which had been tread out yesterday) and picking up apples. 

29 September 

In the Neck—All the tops were cut and blades pulled from the Corn on 

Saturday lasst, but not got in being too green. All hands, except 5 people 

at the Plows, getting them in to day. 

9 October 

In the Neck—the People having pulled up all the Pease that were planted 

in Hills had begun to dig the Irish Potatoes between the Corn rows in order 

to Sow Rye. The Carts & Waggons were getting in the Pease and one man 

was cutting down with a scythe those Pease which had been sown in 

Broadcast. 

29 October

In the Neck—Ordered the Pumpkins at this and all the other plantations to 

be taken up & secured as a severe frost might be expected. 

1 November

In the Neck—all the Plows were putting in Rye, and all the Hoes 

employed in taking up Potatoes & hoeing in Rye between the Corn. 

18 November

In the Neck the Plows were at Work breaking up field No. 8. The other 

hands were stripping the Seed off the flax in order to Spread. 

4 December 

In the Neck the Plows were stopped by the frost which had frozen the 

ground quite hard. The greater part of the hands had been working on the 

public roads the two preceeding days. To day they were removing 

Potatoes into the Barn from the Corn House. 

10 December

William Gardener—my new Overseer for the Neck, arrived (by Water) 

with his family today. 

And so the cycle of seasons, and the rhythm of work, began anew. 

In 1788, Washington was still a man in his prime, rising at dawn and spending 

hours touring his estate, not content merely to admire his land from horseback, but 

plunging into every detail of management, from deciding how to plow to when to pick 

the pumpkins. But as the years passed, and he began to lose his renowned vigor, 
25

Washington longed to abdicate as ruler of Mount Vernon, a huge plantation that literally 

comprised a small, self-sufficient village. Washington envisioned leasing the plantation’s 

four outlying farms, while retaining the mansion house and grounds for his own use. The 

following advertisement, describing the River Farm and his other Mount Vernon 

properties, appeared in a Philadelphia newspaper in early 1796: 

The largest of these, called River Farm, contains 1207 acres of ploughable 

land; 879 of which, are in seven fields, nearly of a size, and under good 

fences; 212 acres (in one enclosure) are, generally in a common grass 

pasture; and 116 acres more, are in five grass lots, and an orchard (of the 

best grafted fruit) all of them contiguous to the dwelling house and barn. 

On the premises, are a comfortable dwelling house (in which the 

Overlooker resides) having three rooms below, and one or two above; an 

old barn (now in use) and a brick one building 60 by 30 feet; besides ends 

and wings, sufficient for stabling 20 working horses, and as many oxen; 

and an excellent brick dairy, with a fine spring in the middle of it. Thirty 

black labourers (men and women) being the usual number which have 

been employed on this farm, are, with their children, warmly lodged 

chiefly in houses of their own building. The soil is a loam, more inclined 

to clay than sand, and with slight dressings yields grain well, particularly 

wheat. Encompassed on two sides by the river Potomack, and on a third 

by a navigable creek, the inlet therefrom, in a variety of places, afford an 

inexhaustible fund of rich mud for manure and compost. The water 

abounds in a variety of fish and wild fowl; and one or more shad and 

herring fisheries might be established thereon.28

Despite his flair for salesmanship, Washington was unable to find a tenant willing 

to take on the management of the River Farm, or any of his other properties. When his 

long-time personal secretary, Tobias Lear, married Martha’s niece Frances in 1795, 

Washington gave them a rent-free lease of 360 acres in the extreme eastern part of the 

River Farm as a wedding gift. This property, known variously as “Wellington” and 

“Walnut Tree Farm,” included William Clifton’s former home tract. A Harvard graduate, 

Lear had arrived at Mount Vernon from his native New Hampshire in 1785 on the 

recommendation of a mutual acquaintance. A one-year appointment turned into a 

fourteen-year association, and Lear was at Washington’s side when the General died. 

Lear and his stepsons, George Fayette and Lawrence Augustine Washington, lived 

intermittently at Wellington until he was sent abroad on diplomatic service during the 

Jefferson presidency.29 

By the summer of 1799, Washington sensed that his death was imminent, and he 

set about drafting his will. “Upon the decease of my wife,” he ordered, “it is my Will & 

desire that all the Slaves which I hold in my own right, shall receive their freedom.” 

Though Martha retained control over the distribution of her “dower slaves,” 

Washington’s death ultimately released dozens of slaves from their labors at the River 

 

28 Fitzpatrick, Writings of Washington, 34: 433-34. 

29 Stephen Decatur, Jr., Private Affairs of George Washington, From the Records and Accounts of Tobias 

Lear, Esquire, His Secretary (Boston, 1933), 303. 
26

Farm. The land itself went to his nephews, George Fayette and Lawrence Augustine 

Washington, to be divided equally between them when they reached their majority. In 

the interim, their stepfather, Tobias Lear, would assume responsibility for the property.30

 For nearly 40 years, George Washington had invested tremendous energy in the 

River Farm, through drought and storms, and numerous overseers, good, bad, and 

indifferent. He would have been sorely disappointed to see, however, how quickly his 

accomplishments at Mount Vernon, his most prized life’s work, began to disintegrate 

once he was gone. Thirty years after Washington’s death, a Fairfax County writer 

offered this appraisal of the current condition of Mount Vernon: “any curious to mark 

the operation of time upon human affairs,” he noted, 

would find much for contemplation by riding through the extensive 

domains of the late General Washington. A more widespread and perfect 

agricultural ruin would not be imagined; yet the monuments of the great 

mind that once ruled, are seen throughout. The ruins of capacious barns, 

and long extended hedges, seem proudly to boast that their master looked 

to the future.31

 

30 Fitzpatrick, Writings of Washington, 37: 289-90. 31 Jackson, Diaries, I: xxxvii. 
27

CHAPTER 3: 

SLAVE PLANTATION TO YANKEE FARM 

1800 - 1900

Until rescued by the visionary efforts of Ann Pamela Cunningham and the Mount Vernon 

Ladies’ Association, George Washington’s estate had slipped inexorably into decay in the 

years following his death. No longer a component of Mount Vernon, the River Farm was 

now in the hands of Tobias Lear’s stepsons, George Fayette Washington and Lawrence 

Augustine Washington. When they inherited the 2,077-acre property in 1799, both boys 

were still minors, and Fairfax County land tax records for the early years of the 

nineteenth century reveal that the land continued to be attributed to George Washington’s 

estate. Lear held the neighboring 360-acre Wellington estate, which he entrusted to farm 

manager Albin Rawlins when he went as President Jefferson’s consul to Santo Domingo 

in 1801. It is unclear exactly how the River Farm operated before the Washington heirs 

reached their majority, but it is likely that Lear leased the land to tenants on their behalf. 

When Lear took his own life in 1816, the 360-acre Wellington estate was transferred to 

his stepsons; and after the young Lawrence Washington died at a young age while 

visiting Cadiz, Spain, the River Farm passed entirely to his brother George.1

 

In 1813, the 23-year-old George Fayette Washington married Anna Maria Frame 

in Charles Town, Virginia (now West Virginia). Fairfax County tax and census records 

suggest that Washington and his new bride lived on his River Farm property (probably on 

the Wellington estate) between 1818 and 1825. Personal property tax rolls list 

Washington for the first time in 1818, at which time he was assessed on 9 black slaves 

over the age of 16, a slave between 12 and 16, and 10 horses. The 1820 Federal Census 

indicates that Washington was then living in Fairfax County. His household included a 

white female between 26 and 45, presumably Anna Maria, and 16 slaves, including 10 

men and 6 women of various ages. It is unclear whether Washington used his slaves to 

work the entire River Farm plantation, or whether he may have leased portions of the 

land to tenants. In 1826, Washington left the River Farm, moving his family and slaves 

to the “Waverly” estate in Frederick County, seven miles northeast of Winchester. For 

the next 28 years, Washington presumably leased the farm to tenants, though the county 

records are silent on this matter.2

 

On June 22, 1852, George Fayette Washington sold 791.25 acres of the River 

Farm, including the future site of Fort Hunt Park, to Henry Allen Taylor of Alexandria 

for the sum of $8,444. Three years later, Taylor and his wife Ann transferred a 300-acre 

parcel at Sheridan’s Point to Lewis Linton, a 50-year-old physician from Gloucester 

County, New Jersey, for $5,000.3

 The Lintons were only one of hundreds of Yankee 

families who relocated to Fairfax County in the years before the Civil War. By the 

beginning of the nineteenth century, the county had reached its economic and social 

 

1

 Eugene E. Prussing, The Estate of George Washington, Deceased (Boston, 1927): 211-12; Ray 

Brighton, The Checkered Career of Tobias Lear (Portsmouth, 1985): 175, 179; Fairfax County Land 

Tax Records, 1800-1823. 2

 John W. Wayland, The Washingtons and Their Homes (Staunton, 1944): 257, 259, 323; Fairfax 

County Land Tax Records, 1818-25; Federal Census, 1820, Fairfax County, Population Schedule. 3 Fairfax County Deed Book R-3: 252; V-3: 463 
28

nadir. Decades of careless farming had exhausted the land, and the subsequent 

outmigration of county residents caused the population to drop by more than 30 percent 

between 1800 to 1840. But the agricultural life of the area was given a much-needed 

boost in the 1820s, albeit from an unlikely source. A native of Westmoreland County, 

Virginia, and a naval hero of the War of 1812, Thomas ap Catesby Jones inherited a tract 

of land near the Great Falls of the Potomac. Taking up the cause of “scientific” farming, 

Jones experimented with a variety of fertilizers, including a batch of South American 

guano. His efforts succeeded remarkably, and proved an example to many northern 

farmers eager to take up new land. Fairfax County would prove the perfect location. Its 

overworked and unproductive lands were cheap to buy, but had the advantage of 

proximity to the growing urban markets of Alexandria, Georgetown, and Washington.4 

By 1847, about 200 Northern families had moved to Fairfax and invested more 

than $200,000 in land, which they set about improving with a vigor and ingenuity that 

impressed their Virginian neighbors. In 1850, just before the Lintons arrived, roughly 

one in three adult white males in Fairfax hailed from the northern states or European 

countries. Most were farmers who took up moderately sized parcels, typically between 

150 and 200 acres, but the new arrivals also included a few professional men, such as 

Linton. These Yankee newcomers, including many Pennsylvania and New Jersey 

Quakers, were inherently anti-slavery, though not aggressively so. By improving their 

farms with free white labor, they hoped to show Southerners that black slavery was not 

simply immoral, but also economically unsound.5

Fairfax land records indicate that there were no taxable buildings on the property 

when Linton purchased it; however, he appears to have built a house soon after, since 

buildings valued at the respectable sum of $500 were assessed on the tract by 1857. 

Maps of the Mount Vernon area drafted during the 1860s indicate that Linton’s house 

was situated in the southern portion of the current Fort Hunt Park (Figure 6). The Federal 

Census of 1860 recorded that Linton’s household included his wife, Sarah, aged 51, a 

daughter, Harriet, 26, and two sons, John, 22, and Frank, 11. A 23-year-old white man 

named William Cook also lived with the Lintons; the newly relocated Yankees owned no 

slaves, so Cook probably worked as a farm hand. According to the agricultural schedule 

of the census, 175 acres of Linton’s Sheridan’s Point farm consisted of “improved” land 

(i.e. cleared and under cultivation), while the remaining 125 acres were wooded. The 

total value of his real estate, including land and buildings, was $6,000. Linton’s livestock 

included four horses, four milch cows, seven cattle, and six hogs, with a combined value 

of $400. Over the previous year, the farm had yielded 75 bushels of wheat, 500 bushels 

of Indian corn, 75 bushels of oats, 100 bushels of Irish potatoes, 500 bushels of sweet 

potatoes, 200 pounds of butter, and 5 tons of hay. Most of this produce would have 

found its way to market in nearby Alexandria. In 1856 Virginia’s General Assembly had 

authorized the construction of the Alexandria, Mount Vernon, and Accotink Turnpike. 

While providing easier access to Mount Vernon for tourists, the new toll road also 

allowed area farmers unprecedented access to urban consumers. The Lintons were 

 

4

 Nan Netherton, et al., Fairfax County, Virginia: A History (Fairfax, 1978): 251-59. 5

 Netherton et al., Fairfax County, 259-284; Dorothy Troth Muir, Potomac Interlude: The Story of 

Woodlawn Mansion and the Mount Vernon Neighborhood (Mount Vernon, 1979): 40, 52. 
29

Figure 6. Detail, U.S. War Department, Engineer Bureau, Extract of Military Map 

of Northeast Virginia Showing Forts and Roads, 1865 (source: Fairfax 

County Regional Library, Fairfax, Virginia), approximate vicinity of Fort 

Hunt indicated. 
30

perfectly situated to take advantage of the route, which ran past their farm a short 

distance to the north.6

 Not long after the Lintons had established their Fairfax County farm, their 

neighborhood was engulfed by war. In January 1861, as sectional conflict seemed 

inevitable, a company of U.S. Marines sailed on the steamer Philadelphia from the 

Washington Navy Yard to Fort Washington, on the Maryland side of the Potomac within 

view of the Linton farm. Here they garrisoned the old stone fort and began to make 

much-needed repairs. Meanwhile, the majority of Alexandrians prepared to support the 

secessionist cause. Alexandria’s importance as a port, and its proximity to Washington, 

D.C., meant that it was only a matter of time before Union forces arrived to secure the 

area. On May 24, 1861, Federal troops entered Alexandria on the heels of the fleeing 

Confederate defenders, and the city would remain occupied by Union forces until the end 

of the war.7 

The war interrupted the daily lives of the Lintons in numerous ways. Having 

voted against secession, Linton would not have been popular with his neighbors. In fact, 

in the early days of the war, Unionist sympathizers in the area were frequently harassed 

by pro-Confederate Virginians. The arrival of Federal troops ended this persecution, 

though the military occupation brought its own inconveniences. The Linton farm lay 

beyond the ring of Federal fortifications built to defend Alexandria and the capital from 

Confederate assault, but numerous roadblocks and checkpoints along the major county 

roads made it difficult to travel even short distances. Sarah Tracy, Ann Pamela 

Cunningham’s secretary who lived at Mount Vernon during the war years, recalled that 

progress was so slow on the seven-mile route between Alexandria and her home that on 

one occasion she was forced to stop and spend the night along the way.8 

No actual fighting occurred within miles of Mount Vernon, though the war was 

never far away. Tracy remembered that throughout the day and evening of July 21, 1861, 

the sound of guns from the First Battle of Bull Run literally shook the ground at Mount 

Vernon. The Federal occupation quickly disrupted farm life in the area, as troops 

regularly confiscated food and other necessary supplies from the surrounding Fairfax 

County farms. But since they tended to target mainly secessionist households, the 

Lintons were likely spared the most destructive effects of “hay-soldiering” (foraging for 

horses) and “pie-rooting” (feeding hungry soldiers). They would have soon grown 

accustomed to the sight of Federal troops, however, since Washington’s Mount Vernon 

proved a popular tourist destination for off-duty officers and men garrisoned in the 

Washington area.9

 

Despite the many inconveniences of the Federal occupation, the Linton farm 

survived the war years relatively unscathed. County tax records indicate that the value of 

buildings on the property remained constant after the war, and the land was still 

productive. After the war, the aging Linton evidently let his sons run the farm. The 1870 

Federal Census indicates that he was now retired, while his household had expanded to 

 

6

 Fairfax County Land Tax Records, 1855-57; Federal Census 1860, Fairfax County, Population and 

Agricultural Schedules. 7

 James G. Barber, Alexandria in the Civil War (Lynchburg, 1988): 3-15. 8

 Edith M. Sprouse (ed.), Fairfax County in 1860: A Collective Biography (Fairfax, 1996), v. 4: 1221; 

Dorothy Troth Muir, Mount Vernon: The Civil War Years (Mount Vernon, 1993): 74-77. 9

 Barber, Alexandria in the Civil War, 15-22. 
31

include: John Linton, 31, a farmer, and his English-born wife, Mary, 28; Frank Linton, 

21, also a farmer; Caroline Smith, 16, who may have been a relative or servant; Robert 

Linton, a 60-year-old retired merchant from Pennsylvania, perhaps Lewis Linton’s 

brother; Jerome Linton, 28, a farmer, his wife Jane, 24, and their children, Caroline, 8, 

and Henry, 2; and finally Spencer Watts, a white Virginian who boarded as a farm 

hand.10 

The Agricultural Schedule for the 1870 census gives a better indication of how 

the Linton farm was organized. The eldest son, John, presided over 200 acres, 175 of 

which were improved. His farm included 5 horses, 3 milch cows, 7 cattle, and 21 hogs. 

The previous year he had raised 80 bushels of winter wheat, 30 bushels of rye, 100 

bushels of Indian corn, 30 bushels of Irish potatoes, $400 of market garden produce sold 

in Alexandria, 150 pounds of butter, and 4 tons of hay. Jerome Linton oversaw work on 

the remaining 100 acres, 75 of which were in cultivation. He owned three horses, two 

milch cows, and eight hogs. Though his farm was considerably smaller, Jerome’s output 

nearly equaled that of his brother, with 70 bushels of winter wheat, 10 bushels of rye, 100 

bushels of Indian corn, 30 bushels of Irish potatoes, 5 bushels of sweet potatoes, 200 

pounds of butter, and 200 tons of hay. In addition, Jerome sold $50 worth of forest 

products, most likely firewood.11 

In March 1871, Lewis Linton formally deeded the farm to his two younger sons. 

Frank received the 100-acre tract known as the “Homestead Farm,” or “Park Farm,” 

while Jerome acquired 100 acres at Sheridan’s Point. Together, these two parcels 

encompassed what is now Fort Hunt Park.12 Frank took over buildings worth $1,000 on 

his parcel and, by 1873, Jerome had added improvements to his Sheridan’s Point Farm 

valued at $700, including a house and farm buildings.13

On August 4, 1877, the unmarried Frank Linton sold the Park Farm to Nicholas 

Eckhardt of Washington, D.C. For the first time in its history, the land encompassing 

Fort Hunt Park was now owned by more than one family. Later that year, Jerome Linton 

claimed a Homestead Exemption on his Sheridan’s Point Farm, which now included 92.5 

acres, since he had sold a small portion to his neighbor, William Hunter, the year before. 

An 1879 map of the Mount Vernon District of Fairfax County indicates the location of 

Jerome Linton’s farmhouse near Sheridan’s Point, while the former Lewis Linton home 

was now identified as “Eckhardt,” and “Piney Grove” (Figure 7). 

 By 1879, Jerome Linton had defaulted on his mortgage. The Sheridan’s Point 

Farm was sold at public auction in Alexandria on August 26th to Thomas F. Boroughs, a 

city merchant with a store at the corner of Franklin and Patrick streets. By this time, the 

value of buildings on the property had increased to $1,000.14 In April 1880, Boroughs 

sold the Sheridan’s Point Farm to Annie M. Pelton of Washington, D.C. The Federal 

 

10 Federal Census, 1870, Fairfax County, Population Schedule. 

11 Federal Census, 1870, Fairfax County, Agricultural Schedule. 

12 Fairfax County Deed Book N-4: 497; 4-O: 50. When Lewis Linton died in 1877, he ordered his 

executors to sell the remaining 100 acres, known as the “West Farm,” and distribute the proceeds 

between his daughters, Emma Smith, Harriet Fuller, Ellen Steward, and Deborah Devler. 13 Fairfax County Personal Property Tax Records, 1871-1873. 

14 Fairfax County Deed Book V-4: 181; V-4: 251; V-4: 443; Y-4: 31; Fairfax County Personal Property 

tax Records, 1880. 
32

Figure 7. Detail of Mount Vernon District, Fairfax County, Virginia, 1879 (source: 

(Stephenson, Cartography of Northern Virginia, 1981, Plate 76), 

approximate vicinity of Fort Hunt indicated. 
33

Census of that year indicated that the Pelton household consisted of Julius Pelton, a 46-

year-old farmer, his wife, Anna (Annie) M. Pelton, 43, and a 9-year-old black girl named 

Sally Pollard. The Peltons were transplanted New Englanders; Julius was born in 

Massachusetts, and Annie in Connecticut. Just as the Lintons had exemplified the influx 

of Northerners into Fairfax County in the years before the Civil War, the Peltons were 

representative of the second wave of Yankee newcomers who took up land in the 

neighborhood in the postwar years. Meanwhile, in March 1882, Eckhardt and his wife 

Sarah Jane of Washington, D.C., transferred their 100 acres, now known as “Piney 

Grove,” to Louisa J. Grau of St. Michaels, Talbot County, on Maryland’s Eastern Shore. 

The value of buildings on both farms had declined considerably in recent years, dropping 

from $1,000 to $600 on the Grau tract, and from $1,000 to $500 on the Peltons’ new 

farm.15

 An 1890 map drafted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a proposed 

“National Road” from Washington, D.C., to Mount Vernon, offers a relatively detailed 

picture of the landscape of the property that would soon become Fort Hunt (Figure 8). 

Two buildings, evidently representing the former Jerome Linton farmstead now occupied 

by the Peltons, are situated at the end of a farm road that ultimately connected the 

property with the main road to Alexandria. These structures would have been situated in 

the southwestern portion of the present Fort Hunt Park, near Sheridan Point. Curiously, 

however, the Grau farmstead at “Piney Grove,” which should have been situated a short 

distance to the north, does not appear on the map. It is possible that the main house was 

no longer standing by that date; the Grau family does not appear in the 1900 Federal 

Census for Fairfax County, suggesting they lived elsewhere by this date. However, land 

tax records still indicate buildings worth $600 on their land at this time, so their absence 

on the Corps of Engineers map may simply have been an oversight.16

Between 1874 and 1882, the steamboat Mary Washington operated between 

Washington, Alexandria, and Mount Vernon, ferrying tourists and mail along the 

Potomac River route. But, in subsequent years, planners once again looked to improve 

the land route south into the county. After the success of the first trolley line in 

Richmond, a syndicate was formed in 1892 to bring an electric railway to Alexandria. 

The New Alexandria Land and River Improvement Company set about purchasing 1,600 

acres of land between Alexandria and Mount Vernon for a right-of-way, and within four 

months, the Washington, Alexandria, & Mt. Vernon Electric Railway had been 

completed. This new form of transportation had a profound effect on the Mount Vernon 

area. Significant residential development would not begin immediately: the Snowdens 

subdivided portions of their property along the new rail line, but could sell only a few 

lots. However, with 30 trains operating between Mount Vernon and Alexandria each 

day, 1.74 million people were soon using the railway each year. Mount Vernon students 

now had the opportunity to attend schools in Washington, D.C., and rapid access to urban 

markets gave a tremendous boost to the area’s dairy industry.17 The Pelton and Grau 

families no doubt grasped the potential economic benefits of the new rail line, which ran 

 

15 Fairfax County Deed Book Z-4: 34, B-5: 161; Federal Census 1880, Fairfax County Population 

Schedule; Netherton, et al., Fairfax County, 410; Fairfax County Land Tax Records, 1885-90. 16 Federal Census, 1900, Fairfax County Population Schedule; Fairfax County Land Tax Records, 1890. 

17 Netherton et al., Fairfax County, 477-81. 
34

Figure 8. Portions of Alexandria and Fairfax Counties, Virginia, Showing the Route 

Surveyed for a National Road from Washington D. C. to Mount Vernon, 

Virginia, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1893, Fairfax County Regional 

Library, Fairfax, Virginia (approximate vicinity of Fort Hunt indicated). 

 
35

only a short distance north of their farms. Though they could not have envisioned the 

rapid suburbanization of their neighborhood over the next 50 years, they were about to 

face a more tangible and immediate transformation of their quiet, rural way of life—not 

in the form of commuting civil servants, but in concrete bunkers and 8-inch guns. 
36

CHAPTER 4: 

“THEM CRAZY SOLDIERS” 

1893 - 1917

In the mean time we have acquired great riches and apparently dreamed 

that prosperity should inspire friendship and not envy in less favored 

peoples—forgetting that riches are a temptation, and that the plunder of 

one of our sea-ports might abundantly reimburse an enemy for the 

expenses of a war conducted against us. 

Report of the Board on Fortifications 

or Other Defenses, 18861 

By the mid-1880s, the United States was well on its way to becoming an international 

power, with economic and “imperial” interests around the globe. The “New Navy” that 

emerged during this period replaced the antiquated Civil War era fleet, launching the 

United States into the age of “gunboat diplomacy.” At the same time, American military 

planners recognized that the nation’s aging system of coastal defense had become 

dangerously outdated. Congress responded to these concerns by passing an act on March 

3, 1885, stipulating that President Grover Cleveland would appoint a board to “examine 

and report at what forts fortifications or other defenses are most urgently required, the 

character and kind of defenses best adapted for each, with reference to armament; the 

utilization of torpedoes, mines, or other defensive appliances, and for the necessary and 

proper expenses of said Board . . . .”2

 

In due course, Cleveland appointed the Board on Fortifications or Other Defenses, 

otherwise known as the Endicott Board, after its President, Secretary of War William C. 

Endicott. The Board consisted of two officers of the Engineer Corps, two officers of the 

Ordnance Corps, two officers of the line of the Navy, and two civilians. The Board 

divided the task of reporting to Congress among six committees, charged with compiling 

a wide variety of information, from the penetration and effect of shot on armor, to the 

size and armament of foreign naval vessels, and the character and extent of existing 

defenses for the most important American ports.3

 

 The Endicott Board formally presented their findings to Congress the following 

year. Though the report included reams of technical data, its overarching message was 

abundantly clear. The United States, the Board found, was simply not equipped to repel a 

seaborne attack by a major naval power. “Without enlarging upon this subject,” they 

declared, “it suffices to state that the coast fortifications, which in 1860 were not 

surpassed by those of any country for efficiency, either for offense or defense, and were 

entirely competent to resist vessels of war of that period, have, since the introduction of 

rifled guns of heavy power and of armor plating in the navies of the world, become 

 

1

 Robert Greenhalgh Albion, Makers of Naval Policy, 1798-1947 (Annapolis, 1980): 349-50; William C. 

Endicott et al., Report of the Board on Fortifications or Other Defenses Appointed by the President of 

the United States Under the Provisions of the Act of Congress Approved March 3, 1885 (Washington, 

1886): 6. 2

 Board on Fortifications, Report, 3. 3

 Board on Fortifications, Report. 
37

unable to cope with modern iron or steel-clad ships of war; far less to prevent their 

passage into the ports destined for attack.”4

The Board made numerous recommendations for beefing up America’s coastal 

defenses. To begin with, the report ranked the 11 ports where “fortifications or other 

defenses are most urgently required.” These included, in descending order of 

importance: New York, San Francisco, Boston, The Great Lakes ports, Hampton Roads, 

New Orleans, Philadelphia, Washington, Baltimore, Portland (Maine), and the Rhode 

Island ports in Narragansett Bay. With respect to Washington, D.C., the Board noted that 

the channel of the Potomac River narrowed considerably above Mount Vernon, above 

which point the capital could easily be shelled. Protection for the upper Potomac was 

particularly important since the existing defenses at Fort Wool and Fort Monroe in 

Hampton Roads could not bar foreign vessels from the Chesapeake Bay, and Fort 

Washington, at the confluence of Piscataway Creek and the Potomac, alone could not 

effectively repel a naval assault on Washington. The Board recommended that the 

Potomac River defenses be updated to include a total of 13 “disappearing” guns, 

including seven 12-inch, and six 10-inch breech-loading rifled pieces, at a cost of 

$683,000. With an additional $520,000 for masonry and earthwork fortifications, and 

$120,500 for submarine mines and other equipment, the total cost of constructing 

adequate defenses for Washington was projected to be $1,323,500, or 3.5 percent of the 

estimated $37,965,000 necessary for improving the entire nation’s seacoast 

fortifications.5

 

In March 1890, the Army’s Engineer Board recommended the construction of a 

coastal artillery battery at Sheridan’s Point, to operate in coordination with Fort 

Washington to defend the capital from naval assault. At this time, the Board urged the 

purchase of the farms then owned by the Peltons, Graus, and Linton heirs, for a total of 

nearly 300 acres. On August 18th of that year, the 51st Congress passed an “act making 

appropriations for fortifications and other works of defense, for the armament thereof, for 

the procurement of heavy ordnance for trial and service, and for other purposes.” The act 

allocated $500,000 “for the procurement of land, or right pertaining thereto, needed for 

the site, location, construction, or prosecution of works, for fortifications and coast 

defenses,” and empowered the Secretary of War to initiate legal condemnation 

proceedings, if necessary, to acquire privately held land for these purposes.6

 

Annie and Julius Pelton had been living at Sheridan’s Point for 10 years when the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers first approached them about purchasing the land in 1890. 

The Peltons initially were receptive to the idea of selling, but they could not reach an 

agreement with the Corps of Engineers concerning the price. The government 

subsequently launched condemnation proceedings to obtain the land “for the site, location 

and construction of batteries and works for fortifications and coast defenses.” On 

September 15, 1892, the U.S. Circuit Court for the Eastern District at Alexandria upheld 

the condemnation of the tract. Ironically, the court established the appropriate 

compensation at $13,576.87, more than the Peltons had wanted to begin with. On June 

 

4

 Board on Fortifications, Report, 5. 5

 Board on Fortifications, Report, 16, 22, 24, 28, 182. 6 Records of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, General Correspondence, Document File 16228/1; 

The Statutes at Large of the United States of America, from December, 1889, to March, 1891, and 

Recent Treaties, Conventions, and Executive Proclamations, vol. XXVI (Washington, 1891): 315-20, 

NA RG 77. 
38

27, 1893, the Clerk of the Fairfax County Court duly registered the deed to the federal 

government, and the property became public land.7

 The task of building the new defensive works at Sheridan’s Point was given to 

Major Charles J. Allen, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and preparatory work began in 

earnest in the later months of 1896. Working with a total budget of $100,000, Allen 

initially estimated the cost of construction, including gun emplacements, platforms, 

ammunition hoists, conveyors, cranes, storage batteries for electrical lighting, and a 

wharf to receive supplies at $77,110. The largest single expense would be the 7,150 

cubic yards of concrete for the emplacements, which alone accounted for $35,750. The 

funds remaining in the budget after construction, Allen suggested, should be allocated to 

“wear and tear of plant, profits, contingencies of engineering, inspection, etc.” The Corps 

of Engineers advertised the project for bid in November 1896, and awarded the contract 

to the Baltimore firm of Douglas and Andrews on December 16th. Allen was pleased to 

report that the low bid had been so low, in fact, that now he could afford to build three 

emplacements rather than the two he had planned.8

 Douglas and Andrews were authorized to begin work at Sheridan’s Point as of 

December 27, 1896, with an anticipated completion date of September 1, 1897. While 

the project was ongoing, the construction inspectors and sub-inspectors, some with their 

families, lived on-site in the former Pelton/Linton farmhouse. It appears that no other 

sizable buildings were situated on the property at this time, since Allen complained that 

he had no place to store the three disappearing 8-inch gun carriages that were scheduled 

to arrive by water. As the September 1st deadline loomed, it became clear that the 

construction work would not be completed according to schedule, and Allen granted the 

first of six extensions to the contractor. The pace of work became “exceedingly slow” in 

the early months of 1898, as the freezing temperatures hindered the progress of the 

concrete work. Some portions, in fact, had to be re-poured. By March, however, the 

pace of construction accelerated in response to events overseas. War with Spain now 

appeared imminent, and the Army was anxious to have the Sheridan’s Point battery 

operational as soon as possible. Though the emplacements were not entirely finished, 

Allen authorized the Alexandria firm of Littlefield, Alvord & Co. to mount the three 8- 

guns. The armaments were ready for service by April 1st, fully 20 days before war was 

declared, as Allen proudly pointed out (Figure 9).9

 

 As the Sheridan’s Point battery (later known as Battery Mount Vernon) was being 

armed to defend against a potential Spanish armada, Battery K of the 4th U.S. Artillery 

occupied the post and took control of the guns, rubbing shoulders with the contractors 

who were frantically trying to finish the emplacements. Soon the artillerymen were 

joined by several companies of a Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry regiment, who went 

into temporary camp at the post. Construction of the battery would outlast the brief war 

with Spain, however. Douglas and Andrews finally completed their work on August 15, 

1898, nearly a year past the original deadline. Measuring approximately 420 feet long by 

90 feet wide, the concrete battery was now an imposing figure on the landscape along the 

 

7

 Fairfax County Deed Book O-5: 587; P-5: 323. 

8

 Chief of Eng., Gen. Corr., Doc. File 16228/1, 13, 15, RG 77. 

9

 Chief of Eng., Gen. Corr., Doc. File 16228/34, 36, 37, 42, 62, NA RG 77. 
39

Figure 9. Plan of Battery Mount Vernon, 1902 (record of armament at Fort Hunt 

cartographic records, NA RG 77, Drawer 252, Sheet 7-14). 
40

western edge of the Pelton tract. And its 8-inch rifled guns, mounted in three 

emplacements 135 feet apart, promised a hot reception to potential invaders.10 

Though the guns were now manned, it would still be several months before the 

fortifications were fully operational, as Allen completed the necessary inspections and 

testing of the equipment, and worked out minor problems with the physical plant, such as 

doors that already were warping. Allen also received permission to move the old 

Pelton/Linton farmhouse to another location on the reservation, since it was in the 

battery’s line of fire. But, on the whole, the Major was satisfied with the final result. 

“Considering that the structure was put up by contract, at low prices,” he remarked to the 

Chief of Engineers, “the general quality of the work was very good.” He also was 

pleased to report that $6,600 remained in the construction budget, which he 

recommended be spent on an electric-light plant for the post. By order of President 

McKinley, on April 13, 1899, the Sheridan’s Point post was officially named “Fort 

Hunt”, in honor of the late Brevet Major General Henry Jackson Hunt (1819-1889), an 

artillery officer who had seen distinguished service in the Mexican and Civil wars, and 

later had been governor of the Soldiers’ Home in Washington. Finally, on December 21, 

1899, three years after ground was broken at Sheridan’s Point, Allen recommended that 

the Corps of Engineers officially turn the reservation over to the troops.11 

 In September 1898, soon after the work on the main 8-inch gun battery had been 

completed, Allen submitted plans for two smaller batteries (later known as Batteries 

Porter and Robinson). Armed with a 5-inch rapid-firing gun on balance pillar mounts, 

both emplacements were designed to draw enemy ships into range of the main battery’s 

guns. After considerable debate concerning the proper positioning of the new batteries, 

Allen was ordered to begin construction in October 1898 with a total budget of $14,484. 

One battery (Robinson) would be situated approximately 135 yards from the river, while 

the other (Porter) would be located 420 yards from the left flank of the 8-inch gun 

battery. Construction began almost immediately and proceeded through September 1899. 

Though by now the emplacements were ready to receive the ordnance, the guns 

themselves were not available. In fact, Allen would have to wait another year before he 

could resume work on the project. In December 1899, he informed the Chief of 

Engineers that the cost of materials had increased in the interim, and that he would 

require an additional $1,900 to complete the work. The gun mounts arrived at Fort Hunt 

on January 1, 1901, though the guns themselves would not arrive until June 1902. After 

months of delay, the 60-foot-square concrete batteries were turned over to the artillery in 

August 1902, nearly two years overdue (Figure 10).12 

 While the work on the two 5-inch batteries was ongoing, Allen initiated yet 

another project at Fort Hunt: the construction of a battery commander’s station, an 

observation tower equipped with range-finding and sighting equipment for directing the 

fire of the guns. In July 1899, Allen submitted the plans for the construction and location 

of the structure, and a proposed cost of $4,259. Situated along the western edge of the 

Pelton tract, approximately 263 feet northwest of the left flank of the 8-inch battery, the

 

10 Chief of Eng., Gen. Corr., Doc. File 16228/48, 57, 62, NA RG 77. 11 Chief of Eng., Gen. Corr., Doc. File 16228/48, 57, 62; CIS Index to Presidential Orders & 

Proclamations (Washington, 1987), General Orders, 1899 No. 71; Stewart Sifakis, Who Was Who in 

the Civil War (New York, 1988): 326-27, NA RG 77. 12 Chief of Eng., Gen. Corr., Doc. File 27716/1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, NA RG 77. 
41

Figure 10. Plan of Batteries Porter and Robinson, 1902, (record of armament at Fort 

Hunt cartographic records, NA RG 77, Drawer 252, Sheet 7-16). 
42

concrete tower measured approximately 30 feet tall and 15 feet square. A steel platform 

was situated 20 feet above ground: above the platform level the concrete walls were 2 

feet thick; below they were 2.5 feet. Construction of the battery commander’s station 

proceeded without delay, and the tower was turned over to the garrison in August 1901. 

Allen was pleased to report that the project had come in under budget by $1,069.73.13 

 The last major construction project Allen undertook at Fort Hunt was a battery of 

three 15-pounder rapid-firing guns (later known as Batter Sater). He began work in June 

1900 with a budget of $15,100; but, as with the two 5-inch gun emplacements, he soon 

ran into unanticipated delays. Though the three emplacements were ready to receive their 

guns by the summer of 1901, the ordnance did not arrive from the Driggs-Seabury Gun 

and Ammunition Company of Derby, Connecticut, until November 1903. Though Allen 

was forced to request an additional $1,823.70 to complete the job, he was able to finish 

the construction work and mount the guns without further delay. The completed battery 

was turned over to the troops in January 1904. The new position was situated 

approximately 300 yards east of the original 5-inch battery (Mount Vernon), and was of 

similar concrete construction, measuring 110 feet long and 60 feet wide (Figures 11 and 

12).14 

Though Fort Hunt was now fully armed, its four batteries were still known by 

temporary letter designations. In early 1900, the Chief of Engineers had solicited 

suggestions for naming the new coast artillery installations then under construction 

around the country. Since McKinley had already named Fort Hunt, Allen suggested 

calling the original 8-inch gun position “Battery Scott,” after General Winfield Scott, a 

native Virginian whose distinguished Army career had spanned 50 years, from the War of 

1812 through the beginning of the Civil War. For the smaller rapid-firing gun batteries 

that were still under construction, Allen proposed the names “Vernon” and “Fairfax.” 

When President Theodore Roosevelt finally ordered the official naming of Fort Hunt’s 

batteries on May 25, 1903, however, Allen’s suggestions were largely ignored. The first 

and largest position of 8-inch guns was named “Battery Mount Vernon,” in recognition of 

Washington’s neighboring estate. The two 5-inch rapid-firing emplacements were 

designated “Battery Robinson,” for First Lieutenant Levi H. Robinson, killed in action 

with Indians near Laramie Peak, Wyoming, on February 9, 1874, and “Battery Porter,” 

honoring First Lieutenant James E. Porter, who died fighting the Sioux Indians at Little 

Big Horn River, Montana, June 25, 1876. The last emplacement of 15-pounder guns, 

Lieutenant William A. Sater, killed on July, 1, 1898, at the Battle of San Juan, Cuba.15 

 When the first contingent of artillery and infantry arrived at Sheridan’s Point in 

the spring of 1898 the only permanent structure on the post was the former Pelton/Linton 

house, and it was occupied by the construction inspectors. For several months the troops 

lived under canvas until permanent frame structures could be built. By early 1900, 

however, the majority of Fort Hunt’s public buildings had been completed, including 

housing for officers, non-commissioned officers, and enlisted men, both married and 

single. Officers and NCOs were accommodated in more spacious semi-detached 

 

13 Chief of Eng., Gen. Corr., Doc. File 32043/1-3, 12, 14, NARA RG 77. 14 Chief of Eng., Gen. Corr., Doc. File 35223/1, 5-7, 9, 15, 19, NA RG 77. 

15 Chief of Eng., Gen. Corr., Doc. File 23284/27; CIS Index to Presidential Orders, General Orders 1903 

No. 78, NA RG 77. 
43

Figure 11. Plan of Battery Sater, 1902 (record of armament at Fort Hunt cartographic 

records, NA RG 77, Drawer 252, Sheet 7-19). 
44

Figure 12. Battery Sater, 1923. This emplacement’s three 15-pounder rapid firing 

guns were removed in 1917. All four batteries remained overgrown and 

neglected until 1942, when the National Archives renovated them to store 

flammable nitrate film (National Archives 111-SC-92122). 
45

Figure 13. An aerial view of Fort Hunt, 1923. Taken by fliers from nearby Bolling 

Field, this image shows the four abandoned gun emplacements (center), 

the wharf house (top center), Battery Commander’s Station (lower left) 

and part of the post hospital (top left) (National Archives, AGO doc. File 

680,41 RG 407). 
46

residences, while the majority of the enlisted men bunked in communal barracks. At 

least 23 support structures also were built at Fort Hunt between 1900 and 1918, including 

a mess hall, hospital, barns, storehouse and equipment buildings, power plants, stables, a 

wharfhouse, and latrines (Table 1; Figures 14-22). 

Table 1. Post Buildings at Fort Hunt, 1898-1929.16

Building 

Number 

Purpose Construction 

Date 

Remarks 

1 Double-set officers’ quarters 1900 

2 Double-set officers’ quarters 1900 

3 Administration Bldg., Post HQ 1900 

4 Barracks (14 rooms, 91 men) 1900 

5 Fire Station/Non-comm. staff quarters 1900 

6 Quartermaster and Commissary storehouse and office 1900 

7 Mess Hall 1900 

8 Recreation, Gymnasium, School Room, Bowling Alley 1900 bowling alley added 1903 

9 Bakery (later radio station) 1900 

10 Hospital 1900 

11 Guard House 1900 

12 Non-comm. Staff quarters, double-set 1905 

13 Ordnance Storehouse 1905 

14 Old Quartermaster and Commissary storehouse and 

shed 

1898 demolished 1914 

15 Wagon Shed 1907 

16 Old Stable, Plumber’s Shop, Tool House 1898 

17 Temporary Hospital, Enlisted Men’s quarters 1898 sold and removed 1923 

18 Coal shed 1907 

19 N.C.O. quarters (old pump house) 1900 enlarged 1903 

20 Oil house 1900 

21 Stable 1900 

22 Non-comm. staff quarters, double-set 1900 

23 Non-comm. staff quarters, double-set 1900 

24 Coal shed 1900 

25 Pumping and power plant 1910 

26 Post lavatory ca. 1900 

27 Power plant coal house 1903 

28 Wagon shed/stable 1903 

29 Frame building, enlisted men’s quarters (old Pelton 

house) 

ca. 1880 demolished 1916 

30 Barn, flagstaff barn unknown, 

flagstaff 1905 

barn demolished 1910 

31 Married enlisted mens’ quarters 1898-99 sold and removed 1923 

32 Carpenter’s shop, teamster’s quarters, saddle shop 1898 

33 Reservoir (concrete) 1909 

34 Water tank (30,000 gals.) 1909 

35 Wharf house/boat shelter 1922 

36 Temporary officers’ quarters 1918 changed to NCO quarters 1923 

37 Temporary officers’ quarters 1918 changed to NCO quarters 1923 

38 Temporary Mess Hall (120 men) 1918 

39 Temporary Lavatory (120 men) 1918 

40 Temporary Barracks (60 men) 1918 

41 Temporary Barracks (60 men) 1918 

 

16 Office of the Quartermaster General, Historical Record of Buildings, Fort Hunt, NA RG 92 (Entry 

1067). 

48

Figure 15. The post hospital, 1923, later code-named “The Creamery”. (National 

Archives , 111-SC-92125). 
49

Figure 16. Enlisted men’s barracks, 1923. Fort Hunt’s Finance School occupied this 

building in the early 1920s (National Archives, 111-SC92124). 
50

Figure 17. Two double-set NCO’s quarters, and the single NCO quarters, 1923 (third 

from left) which still stands (National Archives, 111-SC-92119). 
51

Figure 18. Two double-set officers’ quarters and Administration Building, 1923. 

These buildings were home to the post commander and his subordinate 

officers (National Archives, 111-SC-92129). 
52

Figure 19. Fort Hunt’s parade grounds, 1923. The post flagpole and water tower are 

visible to the left, with the enlisted men’s barracks in the center (National 

Archives, 111-SC-92130). 
53

Figure 20. Two of the temporary of the World War I buildings, 1923. They were 

removed soon after this photo was taken (National Archives, 111-SC92117). 
54

Figure 21. Warehouse and attached office, 1923. These were typical of Fort Hunt’s 

ca. 1900 utilitarian buildings (National Archives, 111-SC-92131). 
55

Figure 22. Fort Hunt’s wharf and wharf house, 1923. Fort Washington is visible 

across the river (National Archives, 111-SC-92120). 
56

Fort Hunt boasted water and sewer connections to most major buildings, a post 

school for the children of officers and men, as well as recreation and athletic facilities, 

including a bowling alley. Although the first electrical power plant at Fort Hunt was 

intended solely to furnish power and light to the gun emplacements, most public 

buildings on the reservation were wired for electricity by 1902. In fact, the degree to 

which the post depended on electric power became evident when the main generator 

failed in the summer of 1907. In his capacity as Quartermaster Officer, First Lieutenant 

C. M. Condon complained that the post lacked sufficient non-electric lamps, and that at 

night the sentries could barely find their way around the post, which was now in “total 

darkness.” “The post is badly crippled without the plant,” he concluded.17

Though the Board of Engineers had recommended as early as 1890 that the 

government purchase the Pelton, Grau, and Linton tracts for the planned Sheridan’s Point 

reservation, the Corps of Engineers had been satisfied for several years with the 90-acre 

Pelton farm alone. Rather than opposing the construction of the fortifications, William 

Grau regularly offered his neighboring property to the government. He had been 

approached by the Corps of Engineers at the same time as the Peltons in 1890, but then 

heard nothing more over the following years. In 1892, he withdrew his initial offer of 

$65 per acre, claiming that the construction of the new electric railway line had raised 

property values as much as 60 percent in the area.18 

As construction of Battery Mount Vernon was winding down in the spring of 

1898, and war with Spain seemed inevitable, the Corps of Engineers once again took an 

active interest in the neighboring property, though not in the form that Grau would have 

preferred. Major Allen wrote to Grau in New York City, asking his permission—in case 

of war—to cut brush and trees on the lower portion of his farm that interfered with 

Battery Mount Vernon’s guns. Grau agreed, though he would come to regret the 

decision. “You may imagine my feeling,” he recalled, “when I was able to visit my farm, 

and saw every standing tree cut down, five acres of solid timber ruined, besides shade 

trees in the pasture for cattle, one oak tree among them, which stood there since George 

Washington owned the place, and was a beauty to look at . . . .”19

By 1901, Grau was using every argument he could muster to sell his land to the 

government: he and his neighbors would soon subdivide the land into building lots, that 

would increase the asking price considerably, he claimed; the cutting of trees on the 

property, meanwhile, had compromised the value of his property as farmland, and he was 

having difficulty finding tenants; he also was considering selling the land to someone else 

who might build a house on elevated ground that would obstruct the fort’s guns. Finally, 

in a letter to Secretary of War Elihu Root himself, he used strategic concerns to bolster 

his case: “I would further like to draw attention to the Honorable Secretary,” he noted, 

“that Fort Hunt has no protection from an attack by land whatever: in case of war a small 

body of men could take guns and turn them on the city of Washington.” Presumably, the 

acquisition of his farm would allow for a more vigorous defense of the nation’s capital.20

 

17 Office of the Chief of Engineers, Gen. Corr., Doc. File 38958, NA RG 77. 

18 Chief of Eng., Gen. Corr., Doc. File 17156/1, 2, 8, NA RG 77. 

19 Chief of Eng., Gen. Corr., Doc. File 17158/8, NA RG 77. 

20 Chief of Eng., Gen. Corr., Doc. File 17158/10, 51; Alexandria Gazette, “Price Fixed by Commission,” 

1 April 1903; Fairfax County Deed Book N-6: 282, NA RG 77. 
57

 Necessity, rather than Grau’s persistence, ultimately convinced Major Allen that 

the government should acquire the adjoining property. As Fort Hunt expanded, it had 

become evident that more land would be required to construct additional post buildings. 

Ownership of the Grau tract would also solve the problem of tree cover blocking the lineof-sight downriver. As had happened with the Pelton tract, Grau and the Corps of 

Engineers could not agree on a selling price. The issue was complicated by the fact that 

Grau had recently spent a considerable sum dredging the river channel and constructing a 

brick-making plant on his property. Once again, a condemnation case was heard in 

Federal Court, which decided on March 31, 1903, that Grau would be paid $28,800 for 

the 100-acre tract, as well as an additional $8,800 for the buildings and machinery on the 

property.21

 The Grau tract was the last major land purchase made to augment Fort Hunt. On 

June 1, 1906, however, the federal government acquired a right-of-way for a roadway to 

serve the post. The road was on the edge of the 100-acre parcel that Lewis Linton had 

willed to his daughters, and in compensation the government paid $100 to the 

beneficiaries of the Linton estate, including F.G. Percival, Ellen Steward, Deborah C. 

Fowler, and Charles H. Fowler. The right-of-way consisted of a 30-foot strip along the 

northwest corner of the reservation, running a distance of 1,152 feet. According to this 

arrangement, the Lintons could continue to use the road, though the government would 

be responsible for its maintenance, as well as the construction of a “substantial fence” 

along their side of the right-of-way. Once the new road had been constructed, the 

existing roadway across the Linton property would be abandoned. Subsequently, on 

October 11, 1906, the government paid $50 to John and Sarah B. Miller for a tract of 

1.633 acres adjoining the northeast boundary of Fort Hunt. This would be the final 

addition to the reservation, which now included 197.413 acres, acquired by the 

government at a total cost of $42,526.87.22

No foreign power challenged Fort Hunt’s guns during the years it served as a 

coast defense installation, and its defenders never fired a shot in anger. The monthly post 

returns dutifully submitted to the Department of the Army detail, were for the most part, 

a mind-numbing routine of garrison activities, punctuated by target practice, official 

inspections, parades, and annual training exercises at Fort Monroe in Hampton Roads. 

From April 1899 until August 1903, Fort Hunt was manned alternately by Batteries K, A, 

and N of the 4th U.S. Artillery, which rotated between Forts Hunt, Washington, and 

Monroe. 

In 1901, however, the U. S. Army Artillery was reorganized into field artillery 

batteries and 82 coast artillery companies. The Army subsequently established Coast 

Artillery districts, and Fort Hunt was included in the Artillery District of the Potomac, 

headquartered across the river at Fort Washington. After February 1901, the post was 

garrisoned permanently by the newly formed 47th Company of the Coast Artillery Corps 

(CAC).23 

 

21 Fairfax County Deed Book U-6:342;V-6:162. 22 Fairfax County Deed Book U-6:342;V-6:162 

23 Returns from U.S. Military Posts, 1800-1916: Fort Hunt, Virginia, 1899-1913. Microcopy 617, Rolls 

499-500. When the Coast Artillery Corps was created, the 47th Company was formed from Battery N, 

4th Artillery, which had already seen service at Fort Hunt, NA. 
58

During this period Fort Hunt operated as a one-company post, occupied by a 

contingent that varied in size between 80 and 120 men. The post commander typically 

ranked as a captain, though occasionally a first lieutenant was given interim authority 

during personnel changes. The commanding officer was usually assisted by two or three 

lieutenants and a surgeon, all of whom necessarily wore a number of hats. For example, 

in December 1904, post commander Captain Arthur F. Curtis oversaw the activities of 

First Lieutenant Willis C. Metcalf, who served as Ordnance Officer, Post Treasurer, 

Summary Court Officer, Officer in charge of the Post School and Post Library, Range 

Officer, Artillery Engineer, and Surveying Officer; First Lieutenant Alphonse Strebler, 

who filled the role of Recruiting Officer, Quartermaster and Commissary Officer, 

Superintendent of Athletics, Adjutant, Battery Officer, and Officer in Charge of the 

Bowling Alley; and Surgeon James W. Hart who, in addition to his medical duties, also 

acted as Exchange and Surveying Officer. Non-commissioned officers at the post grew 

in number and specialization over the years, eventually including an Ordnance Sergeant, 

Commissary Sergeant, Post Quartermaster Sergeant, Master Electrician, Electrician 

Sergeant First Class, Fireman, and Hospital Corps Sergeant First Class. The fort also 

regularly employed three civilians, including a clerk at $75 per month, an engineer at 

$60, and a part-time “scavenger” at $9.24

 Fort Hunt occasionally hosted other units during special training exercises. In 

May 1905, several other artillery detachments, including the 14th Company CAC from 

Fort Screven, Georgia, and the 19th Company from Fort Caswell, North Carolina, arrived 

at Fort Hunt to participate in the Joint Army and Navy exercises of the Artillery District 

of the Potomac from June 11th through the 17th. And during the summer of 1908, nearly 

800 men of the District of Columbia Militia went into camp at the post in conjunction 

with the joint Army and Militia Exercises. Training for the resident 47th Company 

eventually became more rigorous, as well. In September 1912, the post commander 

received orders that the men should make daily practice marches in the vicinity of the 

post. The men were then instructed in the skills of outpost duty, advance guard, rear 

guard, signaling, road sketching, entrenching, concealment, wagon packing, individual 

cooking, latrine and sink digging, and general field service regulations. “Greatest 

distance marched in one day,” noted the commanding officer, “eighteen miles.”25 

Daily life at Fort Hunt may have been characterized by dull military routine, but 

the occasional desertion or barroom brawl in Alexandria served to enliven the monotony 

at the Potomac River post.26 And, in August 1902, Fort Hunt suffered its first and only 

casualty in the line of duty when a Private Singleton accidentally shot himself with his 

own rifle while on guard. “Chances for recovery favorable,” read the laconic entry in 

that month’s official post return. Fort Hunt’s soldiers undoubtedly looked forward to the 

change of scenery afforded by the steamship trip en route to the annual service practice 

held at Fort Monroe in the late summer or fall. In the absence of invading foreign 

 

24 M-617, rolls 499-500, NA. 

25 M-617, rolls 499-500, NA.

26 In the summer of 1898, while Fort Hunt’s first battery was still under construction, military officials 

expressed concern that the “mixing of soldiers” from Sheridan’s Point and nearby Camp Alger in 

Fairfax County “often terminated in great disorders.” Daily Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), 

“Restricting Passes to Soldiers,” 28 June 1898. 
59

gunboats, Fort Hunt’s soldiers also became fodder for the endless round of parades, 

ceremonies, and dedications that characterized official life in Washington, D.C. Every 

February, a contingent from Fort Hunt marched in the Washington’s Birthday parade in 

Alexandria. They likewise suffered through frequent unveilings of statues in the capital, 

including those of Casimir Pulaski, Thaddeus Kosciusko, John Paul Jones, and Philip 

Sheridan. The 47th Company went furthest afield in their ceremonial duties in the spring 

of 1909, when one officer and 75 men made a three-day trip to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, 

to participate in the dedication of a monument to the Regular Army. Even their 

equipment was occasionally drafted into service for the public benefit: in February 1909, 

Fort Hunt’s searchlights were transported to Washington to help illuminate the Capitol 

during the week of President Taft’s inauguration.27 

 But in the early months of 1905, the tedium of garrison duty was briefly and 

dramatically interrupted, and the post racked with scandal. In the span of just a few 

weeks, the post commander was arrested, court-martialed, and transferred, while one of 

his lieutenants deserted the Army. The trouble began innocently enough for commanding 

officer Captain Arthur F. Curtis on December 1, 1904, with a visit of a Colonel Greer of 

the Ordnance Department. According to Curtis’ later testimony, Greer requested a test 

firing of Battery Sater’s three new 15-pounder rapid-firing guns. Judging it unsafe to fire 

down river, since the view was obscured by the intervening high ground, Curtis ordered 

the gunners to deliver six shots directly across the Potomac and up Piscataway Creek, at a 

range of 3,000 to 3,300 yards. No one involved gave the incident a second thought; at 

least not until a letter arrived at the War Department from an irate Maryland farmer. 

“Sir,” wrote George Lowis of Accokeek Post Office, on December 12, 

I am compeled to complain to you about your officers and soldiers at Fort 

Hunt firing canons over my farm. There was five shot came on my place on 

the first of this month which I have got & will show you if required & my 

crop of corn is laying out in the field rotning because I cant get any help to 

go out there to help me to save it on account of them crasey soldiers shooting 

up in the land. Pleas let me know what I am to do & how I am to make a 

living for my family if I cant gather my crops.28

When no reply came, Lowis tried again on the 24th. “I have the honor of writing you this 

secont complaint,” he began, 

as my first one was not answered. I take it for granted that you did not get it. 

It is this, that since you soldiers have been firing projectiles all over my farm, 

I have lost all my crop that I have been all of one seson working on, as all of 

my hands left the field & will not work there any more, as they say there is 

no telling when they are going to shoot there again. My corne is laying 

under the snow & I think I aught to be paid something for my loss as I am a 

 

27 M-617, rolls 499-500, Gen. Corr. File 38958/135, NA RG 77. 

28 Office of the Adjutant General (Military Secretary’s Office), General Correspondence, Doc. File 

953409, NA RG 94. 
60

pore man & have a family to suport. Hoping you will give this your kind 

attention.29

By now, the Military Secretary’s Office in Washington was indeed giving his complaint 

their full attention. In his own defense, Captain Curtis explained that he had taken this 

course of action to accommodate the visiting Colonel Greer, and that none of the officers 

present had observed any ricochets from the shots. “There has never been a shot fired 

“over” any private property,” he claimed. 

Mr. Lewis’s [sic.] statement to that effect is therefore false and 

misleading, as is also the implication that by frequently firing up 

Piscataway Creek this garrison has prevented him from harvesting his 

crops. Mr. Lowis might easily, at any time, have assured himself of 

immunity from all danger of the kind complained of, by rowing over to 

this post, and lodging his complaint.30

 

Unfortunately, the War Department took a dim view of Curtis’ actions, and on February 

4th, the Chief of Staff of Army Headquarters, Department of the East, forwarded to Curtis 

the following comments of the Chief of Artillery: 

Accepting the facts as stated in the letter of the Commanding Officer, Fort 

Hunt, dated December 21, 1904, the firing to test the 15-pdr. guns and 

mounts (Battery Sater) was improperly conducted. Shots should not be fired 

in narrow channels or landlocked waters, except at ranges sufficiently long to 

ensure “no richochet.” This rule is clearly indicated in paragraph 57, G.O. 

141, W.D., 1904. An examination of the range table for the service 15-pdr. 

R.F. gun would have shown that for the ranges used—3,000 to 3,300 yards—

a ricochet was practically inevitable. Assuming that it was the duty of the 

senior artillery officer present to exercise all necessary precautions for safety, 

he should have pointed out to Colonel Greer, Ordnance Department, that 

there was no safe water range at Fort Hunt to be used in making the desired 

tests, provided that such was the case. However, it is the opinion of the 

Chief of Artillery that there was a safe range down the river, which would 

have been under full observation from the depression position finding tower 

of Battery Mount Vernon, and that such range could have been safely 

employed for the test. It is the judgment of the Chief of Artillery that 

Captain Curtis, A.C., is clearly responsible for the manner in which the test 

was conducted, and for its consequences. 

But accidentally bombarding a local farmer would soon be the least of Curtis’ 

worries, for by the time he received the reprimand he was under arrest, charged with 

misrepresenting the disposition of post accounts to his commanding officer, neglecting to 

keep proper accounts and, most seriously, with embezzling federal funds. For Curtis, this 

 

29 Adj. Gen., Gen. Corr., Doc. File 953409, NA RG 94. 

30 Adj. Gen., Gen. Corr., Doc. File 953409. NA RG 94 
61

Figure 23. Arthur F. Curtis (then a first lieutenant) in Manilla, Phillipine Islands, 

1899 (National Archives, AGO Doc. File 4318 ACP 85, RG 94). 
62

was the beginning of a downward spiral in his personal and professional life that would 

ultimately bring an embarrassing end to his 20-year Army career. 

A West Pointer who graduated near the top of his class, Curtis had shown great 

promise as a junior artillery officer. But, as his wife later recounted, his character 

appeared to have changed considerably when he returned from war service in the 

Philippines. In his private life, Curtis was continually overwhelmed with debt, his 

official file literally bulging with the irate letters of merchants from Maine to South 

Carolina demanding payment for bills that were months, sometimes years, overdue. To 

compound his financial problems, while serving at Fort Moultrie, South Carolina, one of 

his subordinates stole more than $800 from the Post Exchange and deserted. Curtis was 

held responsible for the theft, and required to reimburse the Army at the rate of $75 per 

month. And, unfortunately, by the time Curtis was posted to Fort Hunt in November 

1903, it appears that he was suffering from full-blown alcoholism. Only a month after 

his arrival, Curtis’ commanding officer requested that he be transferred to Fort 

Washington where he could be observed more closely. “He is addicted to the excessive 

use of intoxicating liquors,” Colonel B. K. Roberts reported, adding that “he should not 

have the latitude and freedom of a post commander.” However, the Army chose to 

ignore these warnings, a decision that would only allow Curtis to make a further 

shambles of his career.31

Late in 1904, while the Lowis incident was ongoing, Colonel Roberts found 

reason to suspect that Fort Hunt’s commander also was responsible for certain serious 

discrepancies in the post accounts. As a result, Curtis was placed under house arrest at 

the post on January 9, 1905, to await trial by general court martial. During his 

confinement, the captain clearly was becoming emotionally unhinged. At this time he 

wrote to one of his many creditors, a Dr. Percy G. Brown of East Boston, Massachusetts, 

who had delivered one of his children in 1897 and still not been paid. In an 

excruciatingly forthright letter, Curtis admitted that: 

you must consider me a perfect “chump” for not replying. Yet, if you 

could realize the struggle I have had ever since I went to the Philippines—

a struggle that is far from ended—you would, I know, rather be inclined to 

sympathy than to blame. At this date I am at probably the worst crisis of 

my life. I hope to pass through it, and soon be a free man again, but just at 

present I am almost distracted. Like a wounded dog, I have, through false 

pride, concealed my troubles from my family and friends, in the hope that 

something might turn up to change the aspect of things: but nothing has as 

yet materialized, and I am in a fix. I can only request that you will not at 

this time take any action against me that will increase my difficulty, but 

that you will continue to give credence to my word that I will surely pay 

you as soon as the storm blows over. Thanking you for your kind 

consideration in the past, and relying upon a continuance of the same. I 

remain, with kindest regards and best wishes from Mrs. Curtis, Anna, and 

Buster, Yours Sincerely, A. F. Curtis, Capt. Arty. Corps.32

 

31 Office of the Adjutant General, Appointment, Commission and Personal Branch, Document File 4318 

ACP 85, NA RG 94. 32 Adj. Gen., Doc. File 4318 ACP 85, NA RG 94. 
63

 

In March 1905, a military court determined that Curtis had gravely neglected his 

duties in managing Fort Hunt’s accounts, but found no conclusive evidence of criminal 

wrongdoing. They subsequently sentenced him to be reduced 15 files on the lineal list of 

Captains of Artillery and officially reprimanded him. Though Curtis had escaped with a 

relatively light sentence, he continued steadily on his course of self-destruction. 

Transferred from Fort Hunt to the Presidio in San Francisco, he was hospitalized on 

several occasions for “chronic alcoholism” and numerous minor injuries sustained while 

intoxicated, including a broken hand from striking an “unknown person” in the city. In 

the following months, Curtis was charged twice more for drunkenness on duty and 

“conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.” Mercifully, the Army allowed Curtis 

to resign before his third court martial in March 1906, after which he disappears from the 

official record.33 

Incredibly, while Curtis was in detention at Fort Hunt awaiting trial, First 

Lieutenant Alphonse Strebler was also arrested for embezzling post funds. A 30-year-old 

native of Alsace-Lorraine, Strebler had begun his military career 12 years earlier as an 

enlisted man in the infantry. He was commended for gallantry in action while serving in 

the Philippines, and given command of a detachment of Philippine Scouts, a Filipino 

counterinsurgency force. Strebler served with distinction, and was responsible for 

capturing high-ranking rebel leader General Vicente Lucban. In recognition, he was 

recommended for a Regular Army commission. The promotion was granted, but at the 

time the only vacancy was in the Artillery Corps. Strebler was the first to admit that he 

lacked the qualifications and education necessary to be an effective artillery officer, but 

his continual requests to be transferred back to the infantry were ignored. Despite his 

poor showing in training courses, and the recommendations of his immediate superiors 

that he was better suited to another position, the Army saw fit to keep Strebler in the 

artillery. And so, he arrived for duty at Fort Hunt in May 1903, just a few months before 

Captain Curtis took command. Strebler’s brief tenure at Fort Hunt was unexceptional, 

until an enlisted man fingered him for embezzlement and fraud. In an affidavit sworn in 

Fairfax County Court, Private Thomas Bradley claimed that in July 1904, Strebler had 

called him into his office and asked him to falsely endorse a government check made out 

to an Alexandria contractor who had recently painted the quarters at Fort Hunt. At the 

officer’s request Bradley took the check to Washington, cashed it with a liquor merchant 

and paid Strebler’s bill there, then used the remaining funds to settle Strebler’s personal 

accounts at various other businesses in Washington and Alexandria. Bradley claimed, 

perhaps somewhat disingenuously, that he had only followed orders and was aware of no 

wrongdoing. He thought nothing of the episode until he later overheard the 

Quartermaster Sergeant and a clerk mention that the contractor had been demanding 

payment for the painting job, but that the check had somehow disappeared. At this point, 

Bradley reported the incident to acting post commander First Lieutenant Willis C. 

Metcalf.34 

Digging through Strebler’s confiscated files, an Army investigator found that the 

lieutenant had been using his position as Quartermaster, Commissary, and even Athletics 

 

33 Adj. Gen., Doc. File 4318 ACP 85, NA RG 94. 

34 Office of the Adjutant General (Military Secretary’s Office), General Correspondence, Document File 

73551, NA RG 94. 
64

Figure 24. When Lieutenant Alphonse Strebler broke arrest and fled Fort Hunt he 

destroyed all photographs of himself in his quarters. Acting post 

commander Lieutenant Metcalf found this image of Strebler on the base 

and forwarded them for identification purposed to the War Department. In 

this image, Strebler (at right, in uniform) poses with what appears to be 

the Fort Hunt football team. Strebler had used his position as Athletics 

Officer to steal post funds. The building directly behind the men is the 

post hospital, while the water tower, and two double-set NCO’s quarters 

are visible in the left background (National Archives, AGO Doc. File 

680.41, RG 407). 
65

Figure 25. Lieutenant Strebler in happier times, dressed in his summer whites 

(National Archives AGO Doc. File 73551, RG 94). 
66

Officer to skim money from various post accounts. Strebler was placed under arrest in 

his quarters on February 9th, leaving Metcalf the only post officer not under suspicion of 

theft. It is unclear whether Strebler and Curtis may have colluded in any of these shady 

financial dealings. No such claim surfaced during Curtis’s court martial, through 

fragmentary documentation in Strebler’s personnel file indicates that the two officers had 

applied jointly for a loan from a local bank. Perhaps further evidence linking the men 

would have emerged at Strebler’s trial, but the following day he broke arrest and fled Fort 

Hunt. Searching his quarters, Metcalf discovered that Strebler had destroyed all 

photographs of himself before escaping. Three months later, the errant officer still had 

not been apprehended, and was dropped from the rolls of the Army as a deserter.35 

 Garrison service would continue at Fort Hunt in subsequent years with no 

occurrence to rival the drama and intrigue of the Curtis and Strebler incidents. 

Meanwhile, mobilization around the time of the First World War initiated a 

reorganization of the establishment at Fort Hunt, and ultimately brought an end to its 

period of active service. Immediately following U.S. entry into the war, the nation’s 

Coast Artillery districts were reorganized and all companies were renumbered by station. 

In April 1917, the 47th Company, Coast Artillery Corps, was re-designated the 1st

Company, Fort Hunt. Two months later a 2nd Company was established, and housed in 

new temporary barracks at the post. But this reorganization would be short-lived. In 

September 1917, the two units became the 1st and 2nd Companies, Coast Defense 

Command of the Potomac, subsumed under the new Middle Atlantic Coast Artillery 

District.36 

Despite this flurry of bureaucratic activity, Fort Hunt’s days of defending the 

District were numbered. By 1917, German U-boats posed a far greater threat to 

American territory and commerce than conventional warships and, consequently, Fort 

Hunt no longer served a compelling defensive purpose. In response to the overwhelming 

need for armament in Europe, guns of various size were removed from non-essential 

coastal defense installations and shipped to France, where they were frequently mounted 

on railway cars and used in support of American infantry operations. In August 1917, 

Fort Hunt’s guns were requisitioned for use “on railway mounts abroad,” and removed. 

Meanwhile the Chief of Coast Artillery ordered that all repair or upgrading work on the 

emplacements should be discontinued. After 19 years of service, Fort Hunt was suddenly 

superfluous.37

 

35 Adj. Gen., Gen. Corr., Doc. File 73551, NA RG 94. 

36 Order of Battle of the United States Land Forces in the World War (1917-19), Zone of the Interior. 

Vol. 3, Part 2 (Washington, 1949), 1203. 37 Order of Battle, vol. 3, part 1: 152; NA RG 77, Chief of Eng., Gen. Corr., Doc. File 38958/299. 
67

CHAPTER 5: 

A NEW DEAL FOR AN OLD FORT 

1918 - 1942 

Stripped of its guns in the summer of 1917, Fort Hunt became merely a convenient 

location to house troops in the vicinity of Washington, D.C. The artillery did maintain a 

token presence at the post for the next several years, though resident units were plagued 

by nearly constant reorganization. This busy reshuffling, however, belied the fact that, 

with its armament now trained on the Germans, Fort Hunt could not have stopped a 

hostile dinghy from reaching the capital city.1

Fort Hunt briefly entered the Jazz Age in 1920, with one of the Coast Artillery 

officers allegedly running a “speakeasy” out of his quarters. This period saw a marked 

decline in the garrison’s morale, with the junior officers of Fort Hunt and Fort 

Washington feuding with their commanding officer, Colonel Wilmot E. Ellis. A heavyhanded career Army man, Ellis alienated most of his subordinates, who described him 

variously as “neurasthenic,” an “old Army fossil,” and an “irritable crank.” The Adjutant 

General’s Office received so many complaints about his behavior from soldiers and local 

citizens that the Inspector General’s Office launched an investigation into conditions at 

both posts. Facing an inquiry himself, Ellis attempted to turn the tables on his rival 

officers. On April 28, 1920, Ellis proceeded to Fort Hunt, arbitrarily assumed command, 

and made a surprise inspection of the quarters occupied by Lieutenant Victor N. 

LaMarre, the alleged bootlegger. “It was repeated to me,” Ellis later recounted, “it was 

common talk that he was engaged in this business and his house was a rendezvous 

(presumably for the purpose of obtaining liquor) for Captains Gray and Goorick.” 

Perhaps LaMarre was innocent, or his “still” well hidden, but Ellis found no 

incriminating evidence. Within a matter of weeks, the Inspector General’s Office 

recommended that the colonel was “temperamentally unfit for command.” He 

subsequently was forced to retire, while the remaining post officers were scattered to 

other commands.2

 

In an ironic twist, Fort Hunt—the scene of various fiscal irregularities in earlier 

years—briefly became the site of a U.S. Army Finance School in the early 1920s. When 

the United States entered the First World War in 1917, no centralized agency existed to 

handle the finances of the War Department. In the progressive spirit of efficiency and 

bureaucratic reorganization, the Army created the Finance Service in 1919, which was 

then absorbed by the new Finance Department the following year. In 1921, the War 

Department established a Finance School at Fort Hunt to train enlisted men of the 

Finance Department and other branches. Though the program was equipped to handle 

classes of 35 students, enrollment at the Fort Hunt school never reached these limits. In 

fact, by May 1923, there were only 23 men remaining at Fort Hunt: 2 officers and 8 men 

of the coast artillery company, 2 ordnance men, and 2 instructors and 9 students of the 

Finance School. By now, the War Department was considering whether to abandon the 

post entirely. A recent study of the nation’s harbor defenses by the War Plans Division 

 

1

 Order of Battle of the Unites States Land Forces in the World War (1917-1919), Zone of the Interior, 

vol. 3, part 2 (Washington, 1949), p. 1203. 2

 File 330.14, Office of the Adjutant General, Central Files, NA RG 407. 
68

had recommended that both Forts Washington and Hunt be discontinued by the spring of 

1924, the projected completion date of new coast defenses at Cape Henry, Virginia. The 

War Department could no longer justify the expense of maintaining a small garrison in an 

obsolete fort; the Finance School was subsequently transferred to new quarters in 

Washington, while the remaining artillerymen were detached to Fort Washington. By the 

end of 1923, only a caretaker remained at Fort Hunt.3 

With land valued at $80,000, and 26 buildings, a water plant, and wharf worth 

$309,725.55, the War Department understandably was eager to find a new use for Fort 

Hunt. And there was certainly no shortage of imaginative proposals from interested 

parties. The City of Alexandria expressed interest in turning the post into a municipal 

park and bathing beach; the District Commissioners considered the property as the site of 

an Industrial Home; the National Guard of the District of Columbia eyed the land as a 

potential training ground; and numerous developers and private citizens would have 

jumped at the chance to buy the land for agricultural or residential development. 

Reminiscent of George Washington’s experimentation with various crops at the River 

Farm, the Secretary of Agriculture also briefly considered establishing a “pathological 

station” at Fort Hunt to support the field activities of the Bureau of Plant Industry.4

 

But one proposal, above all, received the most serious consideration. In 

November 1923, Russell R. Whitman, President of the Roosevelt Military Academy in 

Englewood, New Jersey, wrote to Secretary of War, John W. Weeks. Whitman explained 

that his school was seeking to relocate to the Washington area, and his Board of 

Trustees—including Colonel Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., son of the former President—felt 

the Fort Hunt site would be an ideal location. From the outset, the War Department was 

receptive to the idea, clearly enchanted with the school’s ambitious object: “to imbue the 

youthful generation with the red-blooded Americanism practiced and preached by the late 

Theodore Roosevelt.” But, after much optimistic correspondence, the deal began to 

unravel when it became clear that the property could be transferred only by act of 

Congress. The War Department offered a generous five-year lease at $5,000 per year, 

with the understanding that the existing buildings and emplacements would be 

maintained, and that the Army be allowed to re-occupy the post in case of national 

emergency. Unfortunately, Whitman explained, the Board of Trustees simply could not 

raise the funds needed to relocate the school without the security of owning the land. By 

the time Fort Hunt was officially declared surplus on April 5, 1924, the Roosevelt 

Academy deal was off. The next generation of red-blooded Americans would have to be 

forged elsewhere.5

Fort Hunt sat vacant over the next four years. All usable equipment was removed 

from the installation, but—since the War Department foresaw the use of the post by the 

D.C. National Guard—the existing buildings were left relatively intact. In the summer of 

1925, the Adjutant General’s Office recommended that three of the temporary World 

War I buildings, including two barracks and a bath house, be demolished, since they 

already were “falling to pieces and a fire hazard.” Otherwise, Fort Hunt remained idle 

 

3

 Order of Battle, vol. 3, part 1, pp. 207-20; File 602.1, Office of the Adjutant General, Central Files, 

RG 407, NA. 3 File 680.41, Office of the Adjutant General, Central Files, NA RG 407. 4 File 680.41, Office of the Adjutant General, Central Files, NA RG 407. 5

 File 680.41, Office of the Adjutant General, Central Files, RG 407, NA. 
69

until it was re-garrisoned in January 1928. At that time, the headquarters and 

headquarters company of the 16th Infantry Brigade transferred to the Potomac River post 

from Fort Howard, Maryland. The new contingent was relatively small, so Fort Hunt 

was designated a sub-post of Fort Humphreys, Virginia, for general supply, and a subpost of Fort Washington for Signal Corps supply.6

Elements of the 16th Infantry Brigade remained at Fort Hunt for the next three 

years. In the spring of 1931, the War Department permitted an African-American ROTC 

unit to train at the installation; these troops would subsequently return to drill at the site 

over the next two years. The black trainees established their temporary quarters, mess, 

and lavatory west of Battery Mount Vernon and south of the range-finding station. But, 

in a reprise of the post closure in 1923, the War Department once again realized that Fort 

Hunt’s meager military value did not justify the expense of its upkeep, and the 

installation once again was slated for disposal in May 1931. The 16th Infantry Brigade 

detachment was transferred, and by October Fort Hunt was once again unmanned. This 

time, however, the old fort would find an eager patron.7 

 As early as the 1880s, a group of Alexandria businessmen had proposed building 

a “national road” from Washington to Mount Vernon to accommodate the growing 

number of tourists making the “pilgrimage” to the home of the first president. The 

development of the Washington, Alexandria & Mount Vernon Electric Railway in the 

1890s temporarily forestalled any serious road-building efforts; but thanks to Henry Ford, 

by the 1920s many visitors were arriving at Mount Vernon by automobile. Local roads—

virtually unchanged since Washington’s day—were ill suited to this increased vehicle 

traffic, and modern travelers were faced with a long and visually unsatisfying trip 

“through crowded commercial districts, over hazardous railroad crossings, around 

dangerous curves, and along narrow, poorly maintained roads.”8 

In 1924, the United States Commission for the Celebration of the Two Hundredth 

Anniversary of the Birth of George Washington was authorized to construct a “suitable 

memorial highway” in time for the planned bicentennial celebrations of 1932. The 

highway would provide a direct, yet scenic, route between the capital and Mount Vernon, 

and include ample green space and parks for public recreation. On May 23, 1928, 

Congress passed “an act to authorize and direct the survey, construction, and maintenance 

of a memorial highway to connect Mount Vernon, in the State of Virginia, with the 

Arlington Memorial Bridge across the Potomac River at Washington.” The Bureau of 

Public Roads would conduct the work under the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture, 

who was given the power to condemn land for the proposed route.9

 

Construction of the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway—the first modern road 

built by the federal government—began in 1929 and was completed in January 1932. 

Immediately it became a model of parkway design. Widely praised as “America’s Most 

 

6

 Files 602.1, 311.12, 330.321, Office of the Adjutant General, Central Files, RG 407, NA. 

7

 Files 313.6, 354.1, Office of the Adjutant General, Central Files, RG 407, NA; “Fort Hunt, Virginia” 

(map), 5/1/31, National Park Service, National Capital Region, Map 4, 117.6-2 8

 Timothy Davis, Highways in Harmony: George Washington Memorial Parkway, Virginia, Maryland, 

Washington, D.C. (Washington, 1994). 9

 U.S. 45 Stat. 721; Davis, Highways in Harmony; EDAW, Inc., Cultural Landscape Report, Mount 

Vernon Memorial Highway, vol. 1 (Alexandria, Virginia, 1989). 
70

Modern Motorway,” the road incorporated such novel features as limited access with 

separated entrances and exits, overpasses to avoid congestion at intersections, broad, treelined right-of-ways, “colonial” style signage and concession buildings, and a thoughtful 

use of the existing landscape to provide scenic views while ensuring that the drive was 

easy and safe. The right-of-way traversed the easternmost portion of Fort Hunt as it 

followed the Potomac River, essentially cutting the reservation off from its former river 

frontage. But the construction of the parkway would have broader implications for Fort 

Hunt. This obscure post may have retained little military value, but now it was easily 

accessible from Washington, and lay along a well-traveled tourist route. As a result, Fort 

Hunt would come to host an impressive array of visitors unimaginable in previous 

years.10 

Soon after the highway was completed, the Director of Public Buildings and 

Public Parks of the National Capital, Lt. Col. U. S. Grant III—who, incidentally, had 

served as trustee of the Roosevelt Military Academy during its earlier negotiations for the 

Fort Hunt site—purchased the land from Secretary of War John B. Shuman under the 

authority of the Capper-Crampton Act of 1930. Now, for the first time in nearly 40 

years, the property once again came under civilian authority. The Office of Public 

Buildings and Public Parks of the National Capital subsequently maintained Fort Hunt 

until 1933, when the functions of that agency were assumed by the newly expanded 

National Park Service.11 

 By the time the Mount Vernon Memorial Parkway was opened to motorists, the 

United States was mired in the worst depression in its history. Though joblessness, 

hunger, and despair cut across all social groups and regions, it was the veterans of World 

War I who initiated the most organized and vocal demand for government assistance. 

The idea of a “bonus” for veterans already had a long and complicated ideological and 

legislative history, but it was the Great Depression that brought the idea to the forefront 

of public discourse. 

Veterans groups with considerable political clout, particularly the American 

Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, had lobbied vigorously since 1919 for 

additional payment they felt they had earned for their war service. Though the American 

economy of the mid-1920s was robust, most legislators still were reluctant to authorize 

the immediate payment of billions of dollars in compensation to a single group of 

citizens. By 1924, however, Congress and veterans’ groups had reached what appeared 

to be an ideal compromise solution. Rather than issuing payment immediately, the 

government would invest the bonus funds so that by 1945, the projected date for 

disbursal, each veteran would receive a more valuable “Adjusted Service Certificate” 

worth $1,000. This plan initially received widespread support. But with the stock 

market crash of 1929, and the severe global economic depression that ensued, the bonus 

payment date of 1945 began to look very distant to veterans who had lost their jobs, and 

whose families were now going hungry.12

 As the depression dragged on, veterans across the country looked to the bonus—

money they felt the government owed them—as critical to their economic survival. The 

 

10 46 Stat. 59; Davis, Highways in Harmony. 11 U.S., 46 Stat. 482; Executive Order 6166). 

12 Donald J. Lisio, The President and Protest: Hoover, Conspiracy, and the Bonus Riot (Columbia, 

Missouri, 1974). 
71

bonus movement soon coalesced under the impromptu leadership of Walter W. Waters, 

an unemployed former Army sergeant from Portland, Oregon. Beginning on May 11, 

1932, Waters led a group of veterans on a cross-country trip to Washington, D.C., where 

they planned to lobby Congress for immediate payment of the bonus. Thousands of 

veterans from across the nation soon joined what came to be known as the “Bonus 

Expeditionary Force,” and by the time the marchers converged on the capital they had 

national press coverage. As many as 20,000 veterans flooded into the District in the 

summer of 1932, in one of the longest and most massive protests the city had ever seen. 

Though local citizens feared the worst, District Police Superintendent Pelham D. 

Glassford was sympathetic to the veterans, and personally worked to obtain food and 

shelter for the visiting protestors. At the height of the march, the Bonus Army occupied 

27 separate camps throughout the District, though the largest and most prominent was 

located on the Anacostia mud flats in southeast Washington.13

 Despite the efforts of Chief Glassford and various local and federal organizations, 

living conditions at Anacostia and the other temporary camps were far from ideal. Public 

health officials warned repeatedly that the sprawling settlements were a potential 

breeding ground for disease. In response, President Herbert Hoover ordered Frank T. 

Hines, Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs, to provide a 300-bed hospital for the marchers 

at Fort Hunt. Construction of this temporary facility was supposed to be kept secret, 

since Hoover was anxious to avoid setting a precedent for direct federal relief for the 

veterans, or any other group. However, Alexandria’s mayor, Edmund F. Ticer, got wind 

of the plan, and entered “a vigorous protest against the use of Fort Hunt for the purpose 

of hospitalization of these men that are physically unfit to continue the drive on 

Congress.”14 Ticer’s protests were duly registered and ignored, and construction of the 

the hospital went forward. On August 18, 1932, Hines officially thanked Army Chief of 

Staff, General Douglas MacArthur, for his assistance: 

My Dear General, 

Under date of June 11, 1932, the Veterans’ Administration decided 

to open a temporary hospital in order that sick veterans among the bonus 

marchers camping in Washington might receive appropriate care and 

treatment. 

 Through your kind offices, Fort Hunt, Virginia, was designated as 

the place where the emergency hospital should be established. Through 

the kindness of the Surgeon General of the Army, a station hospital was 

furnished from the Brooklyn Depot, which arrived at Fort Hunt, June 13, 

1932. The hospital was opened for patients on the afternoon of June 15, 

1932, and continued to receive patients up until July 31st. All patients 

were evacuated from the hospital by August 5th, and it was officially 

closed August 12, 1932. Many courtesies were extended during the 

organization and development of this hospital by the Commanding 

Officers of the various Posts in the vicinity of Fort Hunt. 

 

13 Lisio, The President and Protest. 14 Lisio, The President and Protest; AG 240 Bonus, Correspondence of the Adjutant General’s Office, 

1926-1939, RG 407, NA.
72

 I wish to take this occasion to personally thank you for your 

cooperation and aid given the Veterans’ Administration in carrying 

through to a successful conclusion this emergency hospital, rendering as it 

did, care and treatment to the sick ex-servicemen who were temporarily 

camped here in the District.15

Initially, the compelling presence of the bonus marchers appeared to be paying 

off, but on June 17, 1932, the Senate crushed a Bonus Bill passed by the House. Though 

Congress was about to take its summer recess, and the Bonus Army appeared defeated, 

Waters remained with the majority of the marchers in the District to continue the protest. 

Eager to see them on their way, Hoover authorized $100,000 in transportation “loans” to 

allow the veterans to return home. But few took the President up on his offer. Hoping to 

begin the process of “repatriating” the marchers, Secretary of War Patrick J. Hurley 

urged Hines to let the women and children of the Bonus Army take up temporary 

residence at nearby Fort Hunt. But Hines refused, fearing his department inevitably 

would become responsible for all the marchers. The timing and character of the veterans’ 

evacuation was soon solved by force. In what would become a public relations disaster 

for Hoover—and arguably cost him re-election—the marchers were evicted forcibly from 

their camps on July 28th by Army troops, under direct orders from General MacArthur. 

In the wake of the infamous “Bonus Riot,” the remaining veterans straggled out of the 

city.16

Though Hoover’s perceived mishandling of the bonus march in the summer of 

1932 undoubtedly gave a significant boost to his Democratic opponent, Franklin D. 

Roosevelt, in that year’s presidential election, FDR’s stance on the bonus issue actually 

differed little from Hoover’s. Roosevelt opposed the bonus payment, particularly at a 

time when fiscal stringency in government seemed essential. In fact, Roosevelt’s 

“Economy Act” of March 1933 angered many by cutting certain existing benefits to 

veterans. Once again, the bonus payment issue became the subject of political debate, 

but this time the cause was taken up by the Veterans National Liaison Committee, a 

group with explicit ties to the American Communist Party. So, while the initial protest of 

1932 had generally been apolitical—even overtly anti-communist—the second bonus 

march was influenced more heavily by the Left. As a result, the 1933 protest attracted 

fewer veterans, and garnered far less public interest and support. Roosevelt was also 

much savvier in handling the marchers than Hoover had been. Between May 7th and 12th, 

approximately 3,000 delegates to the bonus convention arrived in Washington by car, 

bus, and train. But this time government officials were ready. Veterans Administration 

Chief Hines had secured the use of Fort Hunt to house the marchers before their planned 

arrival date. By now the reservation was occupied by only a small ROTC contingent, and 

the distance of the post from the capital promised to keep the protestors bottled up at a 

comfortable remove from anxious citizens and legislators. When they arrived in the 

District the veterans were driven to Fort Hunt by bus, where they were housed in the 

 

15 AG 240 Bonus, Adjutant General’s Office, RG 407, NA. 

16 Elements of the 16th Infantry Brigade, formerly posted at Fort Hunt, participated in the “Bonus Riot;” 

earlier, they had helped set up the temporary hospital. AG 240 Bonus, Adjutant General’s Office, RG 

407, Lisio, The President and Protest. 
73

existing buildings and in tents. The VA generously footed the bill for housing and 

feeding the veterans.17

Hoover had been widely criticized for not visiting the first bonus marchers, so 

Roosevelt was careful to ensure that he maintained an “official” presence among the 

protestors, even if he did not make a personal appearance. On May 13th, FDR’s 

secretaries Louis Howe and Stephen Early met the Bonus Army at Fort Hunt and stayed 

for “chow,” enjoying “generous helpings of baloney, macaroni, potatoes, prunes, bread 

and butter and coffee.”18 And, in what would be the most publicized event of the second 

Bonus March, Eleanor Roosevelt paid a visit to Fort Hunt on May 16th. In her memoirs, 

the First Lady recalled her surprise when, on one of her frequent drives with Louis Howe, 

he suggested they stop at Fort Hunt to see the bonus marchers. “When we arrived,” she 

recalled, 

he announced that he was going to sit in the car but that I was to walk 

around among the veterans and see just how things were. Very 

hesitatingly I got out and walked over to where I saw a line-up of men 

waiting for food. They looked at me curiously and one of them asked my 

name and what I wanted. When I said I just wanted to see how they were 

getting on, they asked me to join them.19

Mrs. Roosevelt’s brief visit to Fort Hunt made national news, and the following 

day the New York Times reported her visit in detail: 

Mrs. Roosevelt, accompanied by Louis Howe, secretary to the President, 

visited the bonus camp at Fort Hunt late this afternoon, waded through 

mud ankle deep to inspect the site and food the men were eating, and then 

led them in singing “There’s a Long, Long Trail,” after she had asked 

them how many knew the words and they had shouted, “We all do.” In a 

brief address to the men who congregated in the big convention tent to 

hear her, Mrs. Roosevelt said she was sorry she could not talk to them 

about the matter they had in mind. “I can tell you that I have always had a 

deep interest in soldiers and never have forgotten the war days,” she said. 

“I lived in Washington then and worked in a canteen in the railway yard; I 

served many sandwiches and lots of coffee. I saw the boys when they 

came back and often I went to the hospitals, so I saw two sides of the 

war.” She was interrupted by a tremendous cheer, and continued. “I 

never want to see another war. I would like to see that everyone had fair 

consideration, and I will always be grateful to those who served their 

country. I hope we will never have to ask such service again and I hope 

that you will carry on in peace times as you did in the war days, for that is 

 

17 The Army’s Finance Department figured the value of supplies used by the bonus marchers at Fort Hunt 

at $11,126.46. This included the cost of 427 blankets and one bugle sling that “disappeared” after the 

march, and one pyramidal tent damaged by fire. AG 240 Bonus, Adjutant General’s Office, RG 407, 

NA; Roger Daniels, The Bonus March: An Episode of the Great Depression. (Westport, Connecticut, 

1971). 18 “Roosevelt Aides Praise Camp,” New York Times, May 14, 1933, p. 29. 

19 Eleanor Roosevelt, This I Remember (New York, 1949), p. 112. 
74

the duty of every patriotic American.” A Negro veteran whose breast bore 

many decorations stepped forward and was introduced. He sang “Mother 

Machree” and the First Lady applauded him.”20

Though most of the veterans had gladly welcomed Eleanor Roosevelt’s visit in 

the spirit of goodwill she obviously intended, the more hard-bitten among them perceived 

the political purpose of the short stop-over. “Hoover sent the army” sneered one 

marcher; “Roosevelt sent his wife.”21

 The second Bonus March of 1933 ended far less dramatically than the first. On 

May 19th, the veterans were bussed from Fort Hunt to Washington. They then were 

allowed to march from the Washington Monument to the gates of the White House, 

where FDR spoke briefly to a small delegation. Though the President ultimately took no 

action on the bonus question, he shrewdly solved the problem of dispersing the veterans 

by offering to enroll all willing veterans in his new “Forest Army,” the Civilian 

Conservation Corps (CCC). A few of the hard-line Communists grumbled at the notion 

of Roosevelt’s “forced labor camps,” but the overwhelming majority of men—2,657 out 

of the roughly 3,000 marchers—enrolled in the CCC as the convention broke up. The 

Veterans Administration, meanwhile, provided the remaining vets with transportation 

home from Fort Hunt, and the camp was emptied after May 22nd.

22 

 When Roosevelt authorized the enrollment of the bonus marchers in the CCC, the 

program had been in existence less than two months. What began as a temporary 

solution to the critical problem of youth joblessness ultimately became one of the most 

popular and long-lived projects of Roosevelt’s New Deal, employing 2.5 million men 

over a period of nine years. When FDR took the presidential oath of office in March 

1933, at least 25 percent of young men aged 15 to 24 were totally unemployed, while 

another 29 percent worked only part-time. At the height of the Depression, one quarter 

of a million teenagers were essentially homeless, wandering the country in search of 

work. As governor of New York, Roosevelt had considered the idea of putting young 

men to work on forest conservation projects, and several states had already initiated 

similar efforts. Less than a week after taking office, FDR consulted with the secretaries 

of agriculture, interior, and war, and sketched out a plan by which unemployed youths 

would be recruited and organized by various federal agencies, and used to perform 

important conservation work. Roosevelt signed the Federal Unemployment Relief Act 

into law on March 31, 1933, instituting Emergency Conservation Work, popularly known 

as the Civilian Conservation Corps, or CCC.23 

Though various changes were made to the program over the course of its nineyear existence, the basic aims and methods of the CCC remained consistent. Enrollment 

was open to young men between the ages of 18 and 25 (later expanded to include those 

 

20 “Bonus Camp Viewed by Mrs. Roosevelt,” New York Times, May 17, 1933, p. 10. 21 Daniels, The Bonus March, p. 339n. 22 Daniels, The Bonus March, p. 222. 23 Though the press consistently referred to the program as the Civilian Conservation Corps, Emergency 

Conservation Work (ECW) did not officially become the CCC until 1937. John A. Salmand, The 

Civilian Conservation Corps, 1933-1942: A New Deal Case Study (Durham, North Carolina, 1967), v, 

3-25; John C. Paige, The Civilian Conservation Corps and the National Park Service, 1933-1942

(Washington, D.C., 1985), 3-10. 
75

aged 17 to 28) who were American citizens, in good health, and with no physical 

handicaps. Enrollees were provided with food, shelter, and clothing; in return they were 

expected to send $25 of their $30 monthly pay home to their families. Each enrollment 

period lasted six months, and participants could remain in the program for up to two 

years. Though the CCC was designed primarily to employ young men, classified as 

“Juniors,” FDR ultimately allowed the enrollment of veterans—as in the case of the 

bonus marchers—Native Americans, and residents of American territories. “Most of the 

youths,” noted a contemporary description of CCC membership, 

came from impoverished families caught in the Depression. They were in 

their late teens or early 20s. And all had known hunger. They had grown 

up in the streets and cluttered alleys of the tenement districts, 

undernourished, undereducated, underprivileged—forgotten flotsam on 

the backwash of an economic system which temporarily had broken down. 

Altogether too many of them were tough, embittered and anti-social.24

The CCC was a complex organization, relying on the support and direction of a 

number of state and federal entities. The basic organizational unit of the CCC was the 

company, comprised—at least on paper—of 200 enrollees. The company was posted at a 

camp, which might be located in a state or federal park, or on other federal or private 

lands. The camp commander, who had authority over all internal camp functions, was 

either a regular or reserve Army officer. The commander was assisted by a number of 

civilian employees, while the Army also provided a part-time doctor, dentist, chaplain, 

and educational advisor. A civilian camp superintendent representing the host agency 

was responsible for overseeing the various work projects conducted by the enrollees. The 

superintendent also had the discretion to hire a number of older and more experienced 

“locally employed men” (LEMs) as foremen and equipment operators. The work projects 

undertaken by the CCC varied widely by camp and region, but most involved forest 

improvement and fire suppression, road, bridge, and trail building, the construction of 

campgrounds and recreation-related structures, survey work, flood control, tree disease 

and insect control, and general landscaping. Though forest conservation and park 

improvement occupied most of the CCC companies across the country, a number of parks 

also employed the enrollees in building and maintaining historical and interpretive 

exhibits and facilities.25

 Civilian Conservation Corps camp NP-6, located at Fort Hunt, was first occupied 

on October 17, 1933, at the beginning of the CCC’s second enrollment period. By this 

date, the property was under the authority of the National Park Service, so the work 

program undertaken by the Fort Hunt enrollees was conducted within the National 

Capital Parks system. During the first six-month period, 200 enrollees of Company 1241, 

comprised of young men from New York and Virginia, lived and worked under the 

authority of Camp Commander Captain E. C. Marshall (U.S. Army Reserve), and 

National Park Service Camp Superintendent R. W. Martin. Thirty-one of the enrollees 

were detailed to camp work, while the rest labored at clearing dead timber and 

 

24 Paige, The CCC and the NPS, 73-76. 25 Paige, The CCC and the NPS, pp. 11-18. 
76

underbrush, performing tree surgery, constructing bridle paths, and landscaping in the 

National Capital Parks.26 

 When Company 1241 first arrived at Fort Hunt at the end of 1933, the enrollees 

were housed in tents and the remaining Army buildings. Since most CCC camps around 

the country had to be built from scratch, the Army had designed a sturdy, all-purpose 

building for CCC use. These inexpensive, “pre-fabricated” structures were comfortable, 

weatherproof, and easy to ship and assemble; with only slight alteration they could serve 

as administrative and recreational buildings, mess halls, and barracks. Once erected, they 

were usually creosoted and covered with tar paper, though occasionally they were painted 

brown or green. By October 1935, Fort Hunt’s enrollees had put up 18 new portable 

buildings. Only two structures, the officers’ mess (frame) and the oil house (masonry) 

were of “rigid,” or more permanent construction. Coal stoves heated the living and 

working spaces, and many of the buildings had water and sewer connections. Except for 

a few service structures, all the buildings were wired for electricity. Table 2 summarizes 

the function and characteristics of the CCC structures in use at Camp NP-6 by February 

1942.27

The work of CCC Co. 1241 was interrupted in May 1934 by the third and final 

Bonus March of disgruntled World War I veterans. Prompted by the failure of yet 

another bonus bill in Congress, about 1,500 protestors came to Washington in what has 

been described as the “smallest, the most Communist-dominated, and the least noticed” 

of the marches. On this occasion, the arrangements were handled by Harry L. Hopkins, 

the Federal Relief Administrator, whose agency ultimately spent $30,000 to 

accommodate and feed the veterans during their convention of May 12-27, 1934. 

Following the precedent set by the previous year’s march, Hopkins arranged once again 

to have the veterans housed at Fort Hunt, where they were left essentially to their own 

devices at a safe distance from official Washington. The veterans, including 270 

African-American representatives, hailed from 45 states; their average age was 41. 

About 500 of the men occupied the temporarily abandoned camp buildings, while the rest 

lived in tents.28 

Though they were given national radio time, as well as a typewriter and 

mimeograph machine that they used to produce a camp newspaper, the third Bonus 

March fizzled, garnering no legislative or popular support. In a subtle editorial comment 

on the protest, the New York Times lead story on the camp included a photograph of 

veterans pitching horseshoes on the grounds of Fort Hunt, titled “Throwing Ringers 

While Awaiting Bonus.” But most would not be idle long. Once again, Roosevelt 

authorized the enrollment of the marchers in the CCC. Nearly 600 applied, and 565 were 

accepted.29

 

26 Division Inspection Reports, 1934-42, Fort Hunt, Records of the CCC, NA RG 35. 

27 Paige, The CCC and the NPS, pp. 70-71; Office of the Chief of Engineers, Historical Record of 

Civilian Conservation Corps Buildings, Third Corps Area (Virginia), Camp NP-6, NA RG 77. 28 In May 1934, the Army shipped 225 pyramidal tents with hoods from Fort George G. Meade, 

Maryland, to the Washington Quartermaster Depot for use at Fort Hunt. AG 240 Bonus, Adjutant 

General’s Office, RG 407, NA

29 Daniels, The Bonus March; New York Times, “Bonus March Leaders Deny Split in Ranks,” May 12, 

1934, p. 1, and “Bonus Colony Increased 100; Split Denied,” May 13, 1934, p. 1 (2nd section). 
77

Table 2. CCC Buildings at Fort Hunt, 1935-1942. 

No. Designation Size 

(feet) 

Construction Rooms Capacity Water Sewer Sinks Lavatories 

1 Recreation Hall 20 x 100 frame, portable 2 100 no no 0 0 

 *Recreation Hall 20 x 85 frame, portable 1 100 no no 0 0 

 *Post Exchange 20 x 15 frame, portable 1 -- no no 0 0 

2 Infirmary 20 x 40 frame, portable 6 6 yes yes 2 1 

3 Barrack “A” 20 x 140 frame, portable 1 50 no no 0 0 

4 Barrack “B” 20 x 140 frame, portable 1 50 no no 0 0 

5 Barrack “C” 20 x 130 frame, portable 1 46 no no 0 0 

6 Barrack “D” 20 x 140 frame, portable 1 50 no no 0 0 

7 Administrative 20 x 140 frame, portable 5 -- yes yes 1 1 

 *Orderly Room 20 x 40 frame, portable 2 -- no no 0 0 

 *Technical Room 20 x 40 frame, portable 2 -- yes yes 1 1 

 *Supply Room 20 x 60 frame, portable 1 -- no no 0 0 

8 Mess Hall 20 x 170 frame, portable 4 200 yes yes 6 0 

 *Mess Hall 20 x 110 frame, portable 1 200 no no 0 0 

 *Kitchen 20 x 30 frame, portable 1 -- yes yes 4 0 

 *Store Room 20 x 30 frame, portable 1 -- no no 0 0 

 *Scullery 10 x 10 frame, portable 1 -- yes yes 2 0 

9 Bath House 20 x 45 frame, portable 2 27 yes yes 2 12 

10 Latrine 20 x 37.5 frame, portable 1 19 yes yes 0 0 

11 Officer’s Mess 22 x 22 frame, rigid 1 8 no no 0 0 

12 Officer’s Quarters 20 x 40 frame, portable 7 5 yes yes 0 2 

13 Technical Quarters 20 x 80 frame, portable 11 10 yes yes 0 2 

14 Army Garage 24 x 60 frame, portable 1 4 no no 0 0 

15 Education Building 20 x 130 frame, portable 7 80 no no 0 0 

16 Oil House 10 x 16 masonry, rigid 1 -- no no 0 0 

17 Garage 24 x 60 frame, portable 1 5 no no 0 0 

18 Garage 24 x 60 frame, portable 1 5 no no 0 0 

19 Garage 24 x 60 frame, portable 1 5 no no 0 0 

20 Blacksmith Shop 20 x 20 frame, portable 1 -- yes yes 1 0 

 When the last of the bonus marchers de-camped, CCC Company 1241 reoccupied Fort Hunt and resumed operations. A typical day for the enrollees began with 

reveille at 6:00 am. The boys had a half-hour to wash and dress before doing 15 minutes 

of calisthenics. After exercising, they ate breakfast, made their beds, cleaned the 

barracks, and policed the grounds. Food at Fort Hunt was plain, but ample and 

nourishing. A typical day’s menu (in this case, for Tuesday, March 1, 1938) included: 

Breakfast: oranges, corn flakes, egg omelet, fried potatoes, coffee, fresh milk, 

butter, and bread. 

Lunch: beef stew, dumplings, mashed potatoes, lima beans, cole slaw, jam, hot 

cocoa, and bread. 

Dinner: boiled franks, sauerkraut, creamed corn, mashed potatoes, pickled beets, 

bread pudding, coffee, bread and butter. 

79

Complaints about the food at Fort Hunt were few, particularly since many of the 

boys—who came mainly from urban Pennsylvania—were not accustomed to getting 

three square meals a day. Bread was made daily in the camp bakery, fresh fruits and 

vegetables were bought locally, the meat was delivered from area butchers on contract, 

and canned goods were shipped from a central warehouse in Pennsylvania. In only one 

instance did the menu provoke official consternation. On September 27, 1939, 53 

enrollees became violently ill after breakfast, and spent an uncomfortable day in the camp 

infirmary. The incident provoked a flurry of anxious correspondence. When laboratory 

analysis of the remains of the morning meal yielded no definitive answers, the Adjutant 

General’s Office closed the books on the incident by declaring that the smoked ham had 

been contaminated. Camp officers were understandably suspicious of the official 

explanation, since some of the stricken had not consumed any meat. But the real reason 

for the retching would remain a mystery, since the evidence had been entirely eaten.30 

Nausea notwithstanding, the company typically was at work, or at least en route 

to the job site, by 8:00 am. During the month of July 1938, for example, CCC Company 

2387—which had replaced Co. 1241 at Fort Hunt in October 1937—performed a variety 

of jobs throughout the National Capital Parks system, including planting and maintaining 

trees and shrubs along the parkway, improving beaches, top-soiling and grading, 

preparing the soil and repairing damage to the parks, digging ditches for mosquito 

control, and helping to restore historic structures across the river at Fort Washington, 

Maryland. However, not all the CCC work was hard, outdoor labor. Between 1933 and 

1938, some 20 of the enrollees worked under eight Park Service technical personnel, 

building relief maps and models for many large East Coast parks at Fort Hunt’s “Model 

Laboratory.” Whatever their task, the company took a one-hour lunch at noon, then 

continued to work until 4:00 pm, when they returned to camp. Before dinner, the boys 

had the opportunity to participate in a variety of sports and other recreational activities. 

Basketball, pool, ping-pong, and card games were camp favorites. Fort Hunt’s company 

also distinguished itself in baseball and track and field competitions with other CCC 

camps.31 

During the evening hours, the boys were encouraged to take a variety of academic 

and practical courses offered under the direction of the camp’s educational advisor. Fort 

Hunt’s enrollees could choose from a variety of subjects, including the traditional core 

courses in arithmetic, English, and mathematics. More popular, however, were the 

vocational programs in auto mechanics, carpentry, journalism, radio, surveying, truck 

driving, typewriting, cooking, photography, weaving, health and safety, and foreman 

training. Staff members gave weekly lectures on topics covering health, safety, courtesy, 

vocations, and employment, and films were shown regularly on the camp’s 16mm 

projector. Fort Hunt also boasted an enviable camp library, “well equipped” with 

“tubular chrome furniture, adequate heat, good ventilation, and excellent lighting.” 

Enrollees had access to more than 1,500 books, as well as a variety of magazines and 

newspapers, including the CCC’s own weekly paper, Happy Days. Camp officers 

 

30 Division Inspection Reports, 1934-42, Fort Hunt, Records of the CCC, NA RG 35. 

31 Paige, The CCC and the NPS, pp. 79-80; Division Inspection Reports, 1934-42, Fort Hunt, Records of 

the CCC, NA RG 35. 
80

Figure 27. First Aid Instruction, CCC Co. 2387, Fort Hunt late 1930s (National 

Archives, 35-SU-2L-11). 
81

regularly suggested, however, that increasing the stock of popular fiction, particularly 

westerns and mysteries, would further boost camp literacy.32

After an evening of instruction and camp meetings, “lights out” came at 10:00 

pm, and a bed check was made at 11:00 pm. All enrollees worked 8 hours a day, 40 hours 

per week, Monday through Friday. Weekends were reserved for cleaning the camp and 

recreational activities, though the company sometimes worked on Saturdays to make up 

for time lost to inclement weather. The company made occasional weekend field trips 

into Washington to visit museums and other attractions. But Saturday nights were most 

anxiously awaited, since the enrollees were allowed to attend movies and dances in 

Alexandria and the surrounding area. Camp members also put on musical or theatrical 

productions, such as the “blackface Christmas comedy” the boys staged for the 

Alexandria Elks Club. Clowning aside, the CCC also had a serious concern for the boys’ 

spiritual health. On Sundays the enrollees were encouraged to attend church services. A 

“contract clergyman” conducted a weekly service at Fort Hunt, while camp members 

were also transported to Alexandria to attend other churches.33 

 For the most part, no serious disciplinary lapses occurred at Fort Hunt during the 

CCC occupation. However, considering the difficult backgrounds of many of the 

enrollees, not to mention the expected high-spiritedness of a community of young men in 

close quarters, it was inevitable that certain problems would arise. Desertions plagued 

every CCC camp and district, particularly in the latter years of the program when the 

quality of recruits began to diminish and the increasing availability of permanent jobs 

lured enrollees away from the program. Fort Hunt was no exception to this trend. 

Between July 1940 and June 1941, for instance, Company 2387 lost 82 boys through 

“dishonorable desertion,” a considerable number, since company strength rarely reached 

the 200-man target. In a scenario uncannily reminiscent of the financial improprieties at 

Fort Hunt 35 years earlier, CCC officials discovered in October 1940 that the camp 

canteen steward had embezzled the post exchange fund over the course of a year. A 

subsequent investigation revealed that the perpetrator had conspired with another enrollee 

who drove the mail truck to steal certain pieces of mail.34 

Fort Hunt also witnessed a brief “strike” in May 1941. During that month, 50 

members of Camp SP-19 at Westmoreland State Park in Baynesville, Virginia, were 

detailed on detached service to Fort Hunt. The day after they arrived, 25 of them refused 

to go back to work after lunch, and 17 were subsequently dismissed from the CCC. 

Seventeen more enrollees were sent from Baynesville to Fort Hunt as replacements, but 

they, too, refused to work. Special Investigator Ross Abare interviewed a number of the 

individuals involved, and filed a particularly incisive and sympathetic report concerning 

the cause of the disturbance. Some of the enrollees complained that when they arrived 

the Fort Hunt boys had stolen their possessions, while others griped that the lunch they 

were served on their first day did not live up to Baynesville standards. But Adare 

perceived a deeper concern. “Here we have a group of boys,” he noted, “enrolled into the 

CCC only six weeks ago, on an average.” 

 

32 Division Inspection Reports, 1934-42, Fort Hunt, Records of the CCC, NA RG 35. 

33 Paige, The CCC and the NPS, pp. 82; Division Inspection Reports, 1934-42, Fort Hunt, Records of the 

CCC, NA RG 35. 34 Division Inspection Reports, 1934-42, Fort Hunt, Records of the CCC, NA RG 35. 
82

These boys quite naturally looked forward to their life in the CCC with 

some misgiving. Finding themselves at the Baynesville Camp, having 

been assigned there from the enrollment point in Pennsylvania, it is 

probable that all were agreeably surprised by the camp itself, by the 

reception which they were given by the entire personnel of the camp, both 

enrolled and supervisory, and by the camp life itself as it unfolded to them 

day by day. At the end of the six weeks the average member of this group 

is just passing from what might be termed the rookie stage to that of an 

established full-fledged member of the camp, now ready and eager to 

accept his place and his full responsibility within the company. Now, just 

at this point this member is suddenly selected, without any prior warning 

or notice, for transfer to another camp where everyone and everything is 

strange to him, and what happens? He does not stay at the new camp even 

long enough to become acquainted. He does not even give the new camp 

a fair trial. He stays only until the realization of what has happened comes 

to him, that all about him is again strange, that he is again regarded much 

as a rookie would be, that he has to establish himself all over again, and it 

is too much for him and in desperation he seeks the only way out which he 

can see, refuse to work and probably they will send me back. That is 

exactly the case in this instance. Not one of those who refused to work 

had originally wanted a discharge from the CCC for it has been definitely 

established that their first request was to be returned to Baynesville as 

exemplified by the slogan they adopted of “Back to Baynesville or 

Bust.”35 

In the end, the CCC authorities were not as understanding as Adare, and all those 

who refused to work were dishonorably discharged from the Corps. Aside from the 

Baynesville incident and a relatively unexceptional rate of desertion, the Fort Hunt CCC 

camp was in every other respect a model facility. Given its admirable reputation and 

proximity to the capital, the camp received its fair share of VIP visitors, including a 

future British Prime Minister and two reigning monarchs. 

During an unofficial goodwill visit to the United States, the Right Honorable 

Anthony Eden, M.C., M.P., paid a brief visit to Fort Hunt on Tuesday, December 13, 

1938. Formerly Britain’s high-profile foreign secretary, the handsome, 41-year-old 

“Lord Eyelash” briefly escaped a throng of female admirers while touring the CCC camp 

on his way back to the capital from Mount Vernon. “Four platoons of the fresh-faced 

boys, drawn ready in parade formation, stood in military quiet as Eden, Camp 

Superintendent C. S. Watson, Camp Commander Capt. Blair Henderson and Assistant 

CCC Director James S. McEntee passed through the lines,” reported the Washington 

Post. 

Rapidly the group walked through a dormitory, where shoes, bedding and 

duffle had been stowed for the inspection, past the recreation hall, where a 

radio was blaring “Flat-Foot Floogie with the Floy-Floy,” and into the 

mess-hall, where photographers vainly implored Eden to pose beside an 

 

35 Adare to Charles H. Kenlan, 24 May 1941, CCC Division Inspection Reports, Fort Hunt, NA RG 35. 
83

impressive display of freshly-baked berry pies—his only refusal to pose 

throughout the day. Eden told McEntee that he was deeply impressed 

with the camp’s efficiency, and was startled when the latter told him that 

there were 300,000 youths enrolled throughout the Nation. “You mean 

30,000, don’t you?” said Eden. He was perceptibly impressed when 

McEntee repeated the 300,000 figure.36

Clearly intrigued by the possibility of initiating a similar program in his own country, 

Eden requested more detailed information about the CCC to bring back to Britain. “And 

perhaps now,” opined a CCC reporter in Happy Days, “while he is on the ocean en route 

home, he is learning some more surprising things about the CCC.”37

 Though George Washington had entertained numerous foreign dignitaries at 

Mount Vernon, the general undoubtedly would have been amazed to learn that, 140 years 

after his death, the King and Queen of England would set foot on his modest River Farm. 

The capital was abuzz during June 1939, while President Roosevelt and the First Lady 

hosted King George VI and Queen Elizabeth on the southern leg of their North American 

tour. On Friday, June 9th, the monarchs visited Mount Vernon, where they laid a wreath 

on Washington’s tomb. On their way to Arlington National Cemetery, the royal 

motorcade pulled up at CCC Camp NP-6. In her memoirs, Eleanor Roosevelt described 

her second visit to the site in vivid detail: 

On the way home we stopped at Fort Hunt to visit a Civilian Conservation 

Corps camp. My husband, of course, could not walk with the king and 

queen, but I have a vivid recollection of that visit; it taught me a great 

many things. 

The king walked with the commander of the camp towards the boys who 

were drawn up in two lines in the broiling sun. A large bulletin board had 

been put up with pictures of the various camps throughout the country, 

showing the different kinds of work done by the boys, but he did not stop 

to look at it then. 

As we went down the long line, the king stopped at every other boy and 

asked questions while the queen spoke to the intervening boys. I, of 

course, walked with the queen. At the end of the first line, the 

commandant was prepared not to go down the second one, but the king 

turned automatically and started down. He asked really interested 

questions, such as whether they were satisfied with their food, what they 

were learning and whether they thought it would help them to obtain work 

and lastly, how much they were earning. He had explained to us 

beforehand that for a long time he had had a summer camp where boys 

 

36 Sidney Olson, “Eden, at Washington’s Tomb, Finds Peace After Busy Day,” The Washington Post, 

Wednesday, December 14, 1938, p. 1. 37 “Anthony Eden Oh’s and Ah’s While Learning of American CCC in Virginia Camp,” Happy Days, 

Saturday, December 17, 1938, p. 11. 
84

from the mining areas of Great Britain went. He had been deeply troubled 

to find that many boys had no conception of doing a full day’s work, 

because they had never seen their fathers do a day’s work, many of Great 

Britain’s miners having been on the dole for years. This spoke volumes 

for the condition of the mining industry in Great Britain, but the king 

seemed interested chiefly in the effect it had on these young men; he 

wanted to set up something as useful as the CCC camps in Great Britain. 

When we reached the end of the second row of boys, the commandant 

said: “Your Majesty, the day is so hot that, while the boys have prepared 

their barracks and mess hall for your inspection, we shall all understand if 

you do not feel it wise to cross the field in this sun.” The king responded: 

“If they expect me to go, of course I will go.” That was a kind of noblesse 

oblige that I had not often seen in our own officials with whom I had 

inspected CCC camps and NYA activities and other projects. 

The queen and I followed slowly across the field in the hot sun, and I saw 

one of the most thorough inspections I have ever witnessed. They looked 

at the shelves where supplies were kept, and when they heard the boys 

made their own equipment, they had tables turned upside down to see how 

they were made; they looked into the pots and pans on the stove, and at the 

menu; and when they left there was very little that they did not know. In 

the sleeping barracks the king felt the mattresses and carefully examined 

shoes and clothes. 

Finally we trudged back across the field and when we reached the bulletin 

board with all its pictures, the queen murmured gently in my ear that the 

heat had made her feel very peculiar and did I think she could return to her 

car. I assured her that no one would mind and we went back and sat in the 

car while the king examined every picture. 

After arrangements were made to send him a full set of pictures, the motor 

cavalcade started off for Arlington Cemetery . . . .38

 “King and Queen Get Chummy with Men at CCC Inspection,” proclaimed the 

bold headline of the next day’s issue of Happy Days, which devoted the entire front page 

to the royal visit, and profiled the excited enrollees of Company 2387 who had “chinned” 

with the Windsors. After days of hectic preparations, the CCC boys now had plenty of 

time to “compare experiences, and fix the details in mind for the home folks.”39 

 Less than three months after the King and Queen visited Fort Hunt, Hitler invaded 

Poland, drawing Europe into the Second World War. By 1940, President Roosevelt and 

Congress were making serious preparations for possible U.S. involvement in the 

European conflict. The reserve military officers who had served as CCC camp 

 

38 Eleanor Roosevelt, This I Remember (New York, 1949), 192-93. 

39 Happy Days, Saturday, June 10, 1939, pp. 1, 20; “George Keenly Interested in CCC Cuisine,” The 

Washington Post, Saturday, June 10, 1939, p. 5. 
85

Figure 28. Exhibit of national CCC activities prepared for the visiting royals, Fort 

Hunt, June 1939 (National Archives, 35-GE-2C). 
86

Figure 29. CCC Director Robert Fechner and Camp Commander, Captain Blair E. 

Henderson, escort the King and Queen, and the First Lady on their 

inspection of Fort Hunt, June 1930, (source: Happy Days, Saturday, June 

10, 1939, National Archives). 
87

commanders gradually were called up to active duty, and enrollees increasingly were 

used to perform national defense work. In 1941, Fort Hunt was designated a “Defense 

Camp” by the War Department, and renamed CCC Camp NP(D)-6. Enrollees trained in 

civil defense procedures, and work projects were geared towards improving war 

readiness. For example, in the summer of 1941 part of Company 2387 was detached to a 

temporary “side camp” at Fort Belvoir, where the enrollees participated in base 

improvement projects, while others worked in Arlington to help build a “Transient 

Camp,” or recreational facility for servicemen on leave.40 

Nationwide enrollment in the CCC dwindled throughout 1941 as young men 

found jobs in the burgeoning defense industry or the military. When the United States 

finally declared war on the Axis powers in December, the fate of the CCC was sealed. 

After considerable debate, and over the President’s objections, Congress decided to 

terminate the program as of July 2, 1942. Along with dozens of other CCC camps around 

the country, Camp NP(D)-6 at Fort Hunt was “liquidated” at the end of the 18th

enrollment period in March 1942. But the post would not remain idle for long. After 

nine years of helping hundreds of young men survive the Depression, Fort Hunt now had 

an important part to play in winning the war.41 

 

40 Paige, The NPS and the CCC, 29-34; Division Inspection Reports, 1934-42, Fort Hunt, Records of the 

CCC, NA RG 35. 41 Paige, The NPS and the CCC, 29-34; Division Inspection Reports, 1934-42, Fort Hunt, Records of the 

CCC, NA RG 35. 
88

CHAPTER 6: 

“P.O. BOX 1142”: FORT HUNT IN WORLD WAR II 

1939 - 1945 

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Fort Hunt had been 

preparing for war for nearly two years. Even before the Civilian Conservation Corps 

contingent was redesignated as a “Defense Camp,” the War Department established a 

secret radio monitoring station on the site, a “listening post” designed to collect critical 

information from potential enemies of the United States. 

The Signal Intelligence Service was created as a field agency of the Chief Signal 

Officer in 1938, a product of the United States military’s preparations for an impending 

world war. The mission of this specialized Signal Corps branch was to perform 

“intercept work,” monitoring radio traffic from the four countries that posed the greatest 

perceived threat to American national security: Mexico, Japan, Germany, and Italy. In 

addition to basic radio monitoring, the Signal Intelligence Service also included 

cryptoanalytic and translation units that rendered the intercepted transmissions useful to 

Army intelligence. Though seriously undermanned, and perennially hard-pressed to find 

and retain qualified technicians, the service performed a valuable strategic function in the 

pre-war period.1

In September 1939, Chief Signal Officer Major General J. O. Mauborgne wrote a 

memorandum to the Army’s War Plans Division recommending that a monitoring station 

be established in the vicinity of Washington, D.C. This new post, he proposed, would be 

manned by a new detachment of the 2nd Signal Service Company, Signal Intelligence 

Service, then stationed in Hawaii and Panama. The Secretary of War agreed and, within 

a matter of weeks, had secured the approval of the National Park Service and the CCC to 

locate the monitoring station at Fort Hunt. According to this arrangement, the 26 enlisted 

men of the 2nd Signal Service Company detachment would set up shop in the old post 

hospital and mess with the CCC company, while the Chief Signal Officer lived off-base 

and commuted in a “reconnaissance car” provided by a nearby light tank unit. In return, 

the War Department would compensate the CCC for the use of the hospital building, then 

being used by the enrollees for recreational and educational purposes.2

 

In late September and early October 1939, the Army renovated the old hospital at 

a cost of $4,280. By the end of October, the Signal Corps personnel had moved in with 

their specialized “eavesdropping” gear, including radio sets, tape recording machines, 

radio antennae, and other receiving equipment. Due to its limited size, the unit was 

attached to the 17th Signal Service Company for administrative purposes, and was 

supplied by Fort Myer, Virginia. Within a short time the monitoring station was up and 

running, providing military intelligence to the War Department. In February 1940, the 

Army once again upgraded the hospital building. This time, they installed 650 feet of 

 

1

 AG 321.924 Signal Intelligence Service, Correspondence of the Adjutant General’s Office, RG 407, 

NA. 2

 AG 321.924 Signal Intelligence Service, Adjutant General’s Office, RG 407, NA. 
89

steel fence around the building “to keep out unauthorized visitors,” ostensibly the CCC 

enrollees, who must have been curious about the secret goings-on within their camp.3

 

But the Signal Intelligence Service monitoring station was only a prelude to more 

significant classified operations. In fact, the official entry of the United States into World 

War II ushered in the most dramatic, and well-publicized, chapter of Fort Hunt’s history. 

Though the post’s suburban neighbors scarcely realized the importance of the site, during 

the war years Fort Hunt served both Army and Navy intelligence-gathering branches as a 

special interrogation center for enemy prisoners of war. But even the interrogators did 

not know that the installation also housed the War Department’s super-secret MIS-X 

program, which communicated via coded correspondence with American POWs in 

European camps, and created and coordinated the shipment of “escape and evasion” kits 

disguised as humanitarian aid packages. Only within the past 15 years—with the 

declassification of archival material, and the persistent investigations of former MIS-X 

operative, Lloyd Shoemaker—has this remarkable episode of Fort Hunt’s history come to 

light. 

 Throughout 1941, the dreaded German “wolfpacks” of U-Boats had exacted a 

terrible toll on Allied shipping in the North Atlantic. The U.S. Office of Naval 

Intelligence (ONI) correctly predicted that, should the United States enter the war, the 

first Axis prisoners of war would likely be German merchant seamen and submariners. 

In preparation, ONI detached a young naval reserve officer, Lieutenant Harry T. 

Gherardi, to London between June and December 1941 to study British methods of 

interrogating POWs. As a result of this study, the Army and Navy jointly determined 

that a centralized interrogation system would yield the most positive results, and agreed 

that all POWs would become the responsibility of the Army when they arrived in the 

United States. Citing the amount and quality of military intelligence the British were 

obtaining from their prisoners, the report also recommended that the Secretary of War 

establish at least two “detailed interrogation centers,” one in California, and the other in 

the vicinity of Washington, D.C. When initial attempts to imitate the British model of 

housing POWs in impressive country estates proved impractical, other less luxurious sites 

were considered. Once again, Fort Hunt’s facilities and proximity to the capital proved 

attractive to military authorities. By May 15, 1942, the Secretary of War had obtained a 

special use permit from the Department of the Interior allowing the Army to establish a 

“Joint Interrogation Center” at Fort Hunt. The permit was granted for the duration of the 

war plus one year, and included all the Fort Hunt property, except the “old powder 

magazines and antiquated gun emplacements” then serving as the National Archives 

Nitrate Film Depository.4

 

The day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, top National Archives officials had 

convened a “Committee on Protection Against the Hazards of War.” Meeting regularly 

over the following weeks, the committee developed plans and procedures to protect 

archival materials from sabotage or enemy attack. One of their most serious concerns

 

3

 AG 321.924 Signal Intelligence Service, Adjutant General’s Office, RG 407, NA. 

4

 Records of the War Department General Staff, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, Intelligence Division, 

Captured Personnel and Materials Branch, Enemy POW Interrogation File (MIS-Y), 1943-45, 

Interrogation Center, CPM, Box 360, NA RG 165; John Hammond Moore, The Faustball Tunnel: 

German POWs in American and Their Great Escape (New York 1978), 30.
90

 was the storage of motion pictures and still photographs comprised of cellulose nitrate 

film. Prone to decomposition even under benign conditions, nitrate film was also 

extremely flammable; the collection could literally vanish in a flash, releasing toxic 

fumes that posed a serious threat to archives personnel. In January 1942, the National 

Archives began searching for a temporary film storage facility. Having considered, and 

rejected, a potential site in Yorktown, Virginia, the committee decided to use the 

abandoned gun emplacements at Fort Hunt. By July, contractors had renovated and 

waterproofed the 4 batteries, creating 45 storage vaults with the capacity for 13,428 cubic 

feet of material. The National Archives subsequently transferred their nitrate motion 

picture and still photographic holdings to Fort Hunt, and offered the remaining space to 

other federal agencies. Ultimately, the Nitrate Film Depository accepted materials from 

the War Department, Veterans’ Administration, Navy Department, Library of Congress, 

Treasury Department, Lend-Lease Administration, Post Office Department, 

Reconstruction Finance Corporation, Agriculture Department, and Office of Strategic 

Services.5 

Almost immediately, however, the Archives staff realized the shortcomings of the 

Fort Hunt facilities. The batteries were prone to dampness, and 12 vaults were so wet that 

they were essentially unusable. Although representatives of the Archives were to be 

allowed periodic access to Fort Hunt to check the condition of the materials, in reality 

their monitoring was minimal, particularly since the post commander had prohibited 

women from entering the reservation. Proposals for building new storage facilities at 

Fort Hunt were entertained, but never approved. By the middle of 1945, archivists had 

moved all the still photos and much of the motion picture film back to the National 

Archives Building. By now, plans were underway for a temporary film storage facility at 

Suitland, Maryland. The Suitland depository was completed in April 1946, and by the 

end of the year all remaining film had been removed from Fort Hunt.6

 

While the National Archives was working to protect the nation’s historical record, 

the Department of the Interior also sought to protect the physical integrity of Fort Hunt 

during its wartime occupation. The special use permit issued to the War Department 

outlined the following provisions and conditions: 

1. That precaution shall be taken to preserve and protect all objects of a 

geological and historical nature. 

2. That wherever possible, structures, roads, as well as trees, shrubs and 

other natural terrain features, shall remain unmolested. 

3. That every precaution shall be taken to protect the area from fire and 

vandalism and personnel and equipment shall be made available by the 

Permittee for fire suppression within the area. 

 

5

 Records of the National Archives, Audio Visual Records Branch, 1941-1961, Records Relating to the 

Fort Hunt, Virginia, Depository and Nitrate Film, Box 1, NA RG 64. 6

 Fort Hunt Depository and Nitrate Film, Box 1, NA RG 64; National Archives. Thirteenth Annual 

Report of the Archivist of the United States for the Year Ending June 30, 1947. (Washington, 1948). 
91

4. That the War Department is granted permission to erect additional 

housing facilities if and when the necessity arises therefore, the exact 

location of such structures to be determined by the Superintendent, 

National Capital Parks, and the proper Army authorities. That the 

buildings shall be constructed generally in accordance with 

preliminary layout plans to be submitted by the War Department and 

approved by the National Park Service, Department of the Interior. If 

such plans should be modified or supplemented, the National Park 

Service shall be furnished with copies of the altered plans. 

5. That upon the termination of the use of the area by the War 

Department, within one year after the President has declared the 

present war to be ended, all buildings and other structures except those 

of a strictly military technical character erected by it on land covered 

by this permit shall be transferred to the Department of the Interior or 

shall be removed by the War Department and the site restored as 

nearly as possible to its condition at the time of the issuance of this 

permit, at the option of the Secretary of the Interior. 

6. Structures of a strictly military technical nature, disposition of which is 

not otherwise covered by this permit, shall be removed by the War 

Department at the expiration of the need for same and the site restored 

as nearly as possible to its condition at the time of issuance of this 

permit.7

 

By the end of May 1942, the Army’s Chief of Engineers had allocated $217,000 

for the necessary construction at Fort Hunt, now known by its code name of “P.O. Box 

1142,” the post’s Alexandria mailing address. For a time, the Army had logistical 

difficulties obtaining the necessary state-of-the-art sound equipment for recording 

interrogation sessions and monitoring POW conversations, but the main prison facility 

had been completed by July 22, 1942. Within a week the furniture had been received, 

telephones were installed, and 14 listening machines were ready for operation.8 

Meanwhile, the War Department had been working out the administrative details 

of the new interrogation system. The Prisoner of War Branch of the Army’s Military 

Intelligence Service (MIS) had a subdepartment, MIS-Y, concerned exclusively with 

interrogating POWs; the Navy’s equivalent was known as Op-16-Z. Both Joint 

Interrogation Centers, Fort Hunt and its West Coast counterpart in Byron Hot Springs, 

California, would come under the jurisdiction of the Provost Marshal General, though the 

facilities would be available for use by both MIS and ONI. The War Department was 

careful to note that these centers were to be classified as “Temporary Detention Centers,” 

not POW camps. This semantic distinction had important ramifications in the context of 

 

7

 MIS-Y, Interrogation Center, Box 360, NA RG 165. 

8

 MIS-Y, Interrogation Center, Box 360, NA RG 165. 
92

international law. The Geneva Convention of 1929 specifically outlined the rights and 

privileges of POWs (e.g. diet, exercise, access to mail, etc.), some of which would have 

impeded the interrogation strategies. Though it would become a point of contention later 

in the war, the War Department remained steadfast in its position that the interrogation 

centers were sui generis.

9

Initially, the Fort Hunt interrogation center fell under two distinct commands. 

The portion of the reservation inside the prisoner enclosure—the “Interrogation Center” 

proper—was the responsibility of the Chief of MIS, Colonel Catesby ap Jones. The 

remainder of the installation fell under the immediate authority of the Post Commander, 

who coordinated the normal functions of the 400-man garrison, including service, supply, 

and POW mail. After several months of operation, however, it became clear that this dual 

system of command was simply not working as efficiently as hoped. After numerous 

recommendations for change, in April 1943 the Assistant Chief of Staff of Army 

Intelligence (G-2) dispensed with the Post Commanders, and placed the Senior Military 

Intelligence Officer in charge of the entire camp. This consolidation of command 

reportedly resulted in significantly smoother operations.10

Table 3. Commanding Officers, Joint Interrogation Center, Fort Hunt, 1942-45. 

Commanding Officer Dates 

Col. Daniel W. Kent 7/1/42 – 10/21/42 

Col. Russell H. Sweet 10/21/42 – 2/1/43 

Col. John L. Walker 2/1/43 – 7/18/45 

Col. Zenas R. Bliss 7/18/45 - end 

In less than two months, Fort Hunt was transformed from a small, undermanned 

post into a bustling military facility of key strategic importance. While the Army made 

use of the existing buildings—including the remaining ca. 1900 fort buildings and the 

CCC barracks—they also constructed numerous new temporary buildings. By the time 

the Fort Hunt interrogation center opened its doors in July 1942, the reservation boasted 

87 buildings, including barracks, latrines, and mess halls for the garrison troops, officers 

quarters, and numerous supply and physical plant buildings (Table 4). The general layout 

of the post remained essentially the same, however, with the majority of buildings 

arrayed around the central parade ground (Figure 30).11 

 

9

 MIS-Y, Interrogation Center, Box 360, NA RG 165; Moore, Faustball Tunnel. 37. 10 MIS-Y, Interrogation Center, Box 360, NA RG 165. 

11 Utility Survey, Ft. Hunt, Va. (February 1945), National Capital Parks, National Park Service, Map File 

117.6-86. 
93

Table 4. Structures at Fort Hunt, February 1945 (entries without a “T” denote original 

Fort Hunt post buildings; the identity of the POW buildings was masked).

Building No. Description Building No. Description

T-1 Barracks T-107 Officers’ Quarters

T-2 Barracks T-108 Officer’s Quarters

T-3 Barracks T-109 Officers’ Quarters

T-4 Storeroom T-110 Officers’ Latrine

T-5 Barracks T-111 Officers’ Quarters 

T-6 Barracks T-112 Officers’ Latrine

T-7 Barracks 114 Stable

T-8 Barracks T-115 Small Office

T-11 Post Headquarters 118 Dwelling

T-15 Recreation Buildings 119 Supply Room

T-16 Substation 120 Coal Shed

T-20 Guard House T-121 Gate House

T-21 Gas Pump & Oil Storeroom T-122 Well House

T-22 Garage T-123 Utilities

T-23 Garage 124 Water Reservoir (underground)

T-24 Repair Shop & Garage 125 Well House

T-25 Garage 126 Water Tower

T-26 Carpenter Shop T-127 Warehouse & Office 

T-27 Grease Rack 128 “Creamery” (old Hospital)

T-30 Storeroom T-129 School & Office

T-31 Latrine 180 Flag Pole

T-32 Latrine 201 Old Emplacement

T-33 Latrine 202 Old Emplacement

T-35 Mess Hall 203 Storeroom

T-36 Officers’ Quarters 204 Tool Room

T-37 Infirmary 208 Storeroom

T-38 Barracks T-210 “Office” (Monitoring Building)

T-39 Barracks T-212 “Special Building” (Enclosure B)

T-40 Latrine T-214 Hutment

T-41 Fire House T-215 Hutment

T-42 Barracks T-216 Hutment

T-43 Barracks T-250 Villa

T-45 N.C.O. Quarters T-301 Guard Tower

T-46 Post Exchange T-302 Guard Tower

T-47 Tower T-303 Guard Tower

T-50 N.C.O. Club T-304 Guard Tower

T-52 Barracks T-305 Sentry Box

101 Officers’ Quarters T-306 “Special Office” (Editing and Evaluations)

T-102 Office T-307 “Special Office” (Intelligence Operations)

103 Office T-308 “Special Office” (Intelligence Administration)

104 Swimming Pool T-309 Stand By 10 KWA Set

105 Brick Storeroom T-310 “School” (Enclosure A)

T-105A Office T-312 Library, Maps & Files 

T-106 Carpenter Shop T-315 Hutment

95

The largest and most imposing of the temporary wartime buildings at Fort Hunt 

were the POW compounds. The first, known as “Enclosure A,” was first occupied in 

August 1942; situated in the southwest portion of the reservation, it was somewhat 

removed from the rest of the camp (Figure 31). This self-contained complex included a 

two-story rectangular structure with 22 rooms for POWs. Nineteen of the rooms were 

designed to hold 3 prisoners each, while the remaining 3 rooms were for solitary 

confinement. This building also included five interrogation rooms, a kitchen, guard 

room, control officer’s room, and miscellaneous store rooms. Two single-story buildings 

within the compound contained the offices of the MIS and ONI personnel and their 

technical equipment. These buildings were attached to the east side of the main building 

in the form of a double crossed “T.” An Evaluation Building and Document Section 

Building were also located nearby. The compound was surrounded by two “cyclone” 

wire fences separated by a 15-foot-wide grassy corridor. Four guard towers, one in each 

corner of the rectangular compound beyond the wire, overlooked the buildings and 

grounds.12

By 1944, interrogation activities at Fort Hunt had increased so significantly that 

the Army built a second POW compound, known as “Enclosure B” (Figure 32). This 

complex, which was operational by April, was situated directly south of the old Battery 

Mount Vernon. The new facility was of radically different construction, incorporating 

numerous improvements recommended on the basis of practical experience with the 

original POW compound. Enclosure B consisted of four wings radiating from a central 

hub surmounted by a guard tower. The Administration Building was located at the outer 

entrance of the west wing, and the kitchen was separated from the guard room by the 

main entrance corridor leading through the south wing. The main building contained 24 

two-man POW rooms, five interrogation rooms, an assembly room, welfare officer’s 

room, and control officer’s room. The processing section was housed in the south wing, 

and included reception, disrobing, shower, medical examination, and clothing issue 

rooms. Each wing had its own latrine and guard room. The complex had four “exercise 

pens” with wire barrier and wood screening erected parallel with the POW room 

windows to prevent contact between prisoners. The pens were enclosed by concrete 

walls and “cyclone” fence, topped by barbed wire. An additional level of security was 

provided by an electrical contact system along the walls that registered in the central 

guard tower and Control Officer’s office.13 

As a “Detailed Intelligence Center,” Fort Hunt was designed for the “scientific” 

and intensive interrogation of enemy POWs suspected to possess “long term technical or 

strategic information.” The Army (MIS-Y) and Navy (Op-16-Z) interrogation branches 

offered the following guidelines for selecting and classifying POW subjects: 

1. Target information respecting industrial centers, bombing damage, 

etc., which could reasonably be expected from an intelligent prisoner 

coming from the area in question. 

 

12 MIS-Y, Interrogation Center, Box 360, NA RG 165. 

13 MIS-Y, Interrogation Center, Box 360, NA RG 165. 
96

Figure 31. “Enclosure A,” Fort Hunt Detailed Interrogation Center, World 

War II. This was the original POW compound used by Army and 

Navy intelligence branches. U-Boat commander Werner Henke 

was shot and killed attempting to escape over this wire in June 

1944 (National Archives, G-2 (MIS-Y), CPRM Branch, Box 360, 

RG 165). 
97

Figure 32. “Enclosure B,” Fort Hunt Detailed Interrogation Center, World 

War II. Built in 1944, this second POW compound incorporated 

new security measures, including a central guard tower (center) 

and concrete outer walls (National Archives, G-2 (MIS-Y), CPM 

Branch, Box 360, RG 165). 
98

2. Signal personnel, tank crews, machine gunners, ordnance personnel, 

artillerymen, may be swiftly included in a tentative selected list 

without too much detailed screening. 

3. Prisoners known to have been previously employed by munitions 

plants, armament or airplane manufacturers, chemical works, etc., may 

be assumed to be capable of providing valuable details respecting 

these particular plants, etc. 

4. S.S. ABWEHR and SICHERHEITS DIENST personnel may usually 

be selected upon recognition, unless such personnel is abundantly 

available. 

5. Often selections may be made in conformity with particular requests, 

because of previous party affiliations, previous record of alleged 

criminal record, or because of some record of service which may make 

their information useful to a special agency, such as Psychological 

Warfare, OSS, AMG, FBI, the State Department, the Treasury 

Department.14

The first assessment of a POW’s intelligence potential was made “in the field,” 

aboard ship in the case of captured U-Boats, or in “First Detailed Interrogation” facilities 

just behind the front lines. If a prisoner appeared to possess significant information, he 

was earmarked for shipment to Fort Hunt. Similarly, POWs arriving at the major 

debarkation ports of Newport News, Brooklyn, and Boston were quickly examined, and 

all potentially useful subjects identified. As the war progressed, and the number of 

POWs arriving in the United States mounted, the War Department established a special 

holding camp for “marked” POWs at Pine Grove Furnace, Pennsylvania, in May 1943. 

Prisoners remained at the 3300th Service Unit, POW Camp at Pine Grove Furnace, until 

space was available at Fort Hunt. They were then transported via Fort Meade, Maryland, 

to Fort Hunt in unmarked, windowless Army buses (Figure 33). The POWs were not 

meant to know their final destination (they were sometimes told they were at Fort 

Belvoir) though several astute prisoners did ascertain their general location. At least one 

German “guest” realized he was at Fort Hunt. He had lived in Alexandria before the war, 

and had often “parked” with various girlfriends nearby along the river.15

With an increasing number of POWs to choose from, the Army and Navy 

interrogation specialists could afford to be more selective about who they interviewed at 

Fort Hunt. At times, only 20 percent of the prisoners being held at Pine Grove Furnace 

ever made it to P.O. Box 1142. With time and experience, the interrogation procedures 

employed to extract information from the inmates also became more sophisticated and 

effective.16 

 

14 MIS-Y, Interrogation Center, Box 360, NA RG 165. 

15 MIS-Y, Interrogation Center, Box 360, NA RG 165; Moore, Faustball Tunnel, 37. 16 MIS-Y, Interrogation Center, Box 360, NA RG 165. 
99

Figure 33. One of the windowless Army buses used to transport POWs to and from 

Fort Hunt, World War II (National Archives, G-2, (MIS-Y), CPM Branch, 

Box 360, RG 165). 
100

The tenure of a POW at Fort Hunt followed a well-established procedure: after 

arriving at the post and surrendering all personal possessions, the prisoner was placed in 

his room, which contained two beds, two benches, and a built-in table (Figure 34). The 

Evaluation of Documents Officer then examined the confiscated materials, including 

personal letters, snapshots, and the like. The newcomer would be briefly discussed at the 

next meeting of the Interrogation Officers, and the information gathered from the initial 

screening process would be outlined. The prisoner was then assigned to the appropriate 

intelligence section (Air, Geographic, Army, etc.) for interrogation. Finally, the section 

head would pick the interrogating officer best qualified by temperament and experience 

to handle that particular prisoner.17 

After three to six hours of preparatory work, the Interrogating Officer would meet 

the prisoner in an interrogation room, while simultaneously notifying the monitor to 

commence recording the discussion. To put the prisoner at ease, the interrogator would 

typically assume the rank (and often the service) of his interviewee. Though he was 

briefed on what type of information to seek, each interrogator was given the latitude to 

develop his own questioning style. Some made liberal use of liquor and cigarettes to get 

the POW to relax and “open up,” while others took a more confrontational tack, pressing 

the prisoner on politics and the conduct of the war.18 

Some prisoners were cooperative, others not; some were gregarious and talkative, 

while others simply clammed up. Officers, who presumably had more useful intelligence 

at their disposal, received considerably more time and attention. A low-ranking enlisted 

man probably had less vital information to provide, and might get only a cursory 

debriefing. Interrogators recognized that loyalty to the Nazi Party was also a fairly 

reliable indicator of how helpful—or obstructionist—a prisoner might be under 

questioning. Statistical records compiled from the interrogations at Fort Hunt in 1944-45 

indicate that just over half (51.2 percent) of the POWs were categorized as “anti-Nazi,” 

while the remainder appeared to harbor Nazi sympathies. Interestingly, officers tended to 

have stronger Nazi leanings (64.5 percent Nazi vs. 35.5 percent anti-Nazi), while the 

enlisted men were somewhat less enthusiastic about Hitler’s regime (55.1 percent antiNazi vs. 44.9 percent Nazi).19

 Fort Hunt’s Interrogating Officers conducted nearly 5,000 interviews with POWs 

during the war. As an example of an interrogation, the following is a verbatim transcript 

of a session with Matrosenobergefreiter (Seaman 1st Class) Johann Mycke dated 

September 8, 1942. Mycke’s submarine, the U-210 was sunk in the North Atlantic by a 

Canadian ship, the H.M.C.S. Assiniboine, on August 6, 1942. The sub’s captain, Rudolf 

Lemcke, one other officer, and four crewmen were killed in the action; 21 men were 

transferred to a nearby British ship and brought to England, while Mycke and 15 of his 

crewmates were handed over to the Americans and sent to Fort Hunt for questioning.20 

 

17 MIS-Y, Interrogation Center, Box 360, NA RG 165. 

18 MIS-Y, Interrogation Center, Box 360, NA RG 165. 

19 MIS-Y, Interrogation Center, Box 360, NA RG 165. 

20 Navy Department, Final Report on the Interrogation of Survivors from U-210 Sunk by H.M.C.S. 

Assiniboine, August 6, 1942. Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Serial No. 4 (Washington, D.C. 

1942). 
101

Figure 34. A typical POW double room, Fort Hunt Detailed Interrogation Center, 

World War II (National Archives, G-2 (MIS-Y), CPM Branch, Box 30, 

RG 165. 
102

Typically, the interrogator would open with a few “softball” questions, aimed at 

getting the prisoner to relax. The interrogator probably already knew most of this basic 

information, but the informal chatting paved the way for more intensive probing. 

Q. How old are you? 

A. 37. 

Q. Pretty old. 

A. Not too old (laughing). 

Q. I see you are tattoed, too. 

A. I have had that since I was 18 or 19 years old. 

Q. Is that right. That was when you were quite young. 

A. That is right. 

Q. Do you want a cigarette? 

A. Yes, thank you, this is the first one today. 

Q. Are you a Bavarian? 

A. No, I am from the Rhineland. 

Q. What part of the Rhineland are you from? 

A. Koblenz. 

Q. When is your birthday? 

A. 28th of November, 1904. 

Before long, the conversation would turn to the prisoner’s current situation, and 

the events surrounding his capture. 

Q. What boat did you belong to? 

A. U-Lemke. 

Q. That was the U-210, right? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When were you taken prisoner? 

A. 6th of August, 1942. 

Q. You were captured by a Canadian ship, right? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When did you come here? 

A. I don’t know exactly, but we have been here for about four weeks 

now. Do we actually stay here in America? 
103

Q. Yes, you are an American prisoner of war. 

A. I did not know where I belonged to either Canada or America. 

Q. You are definitely an American prisoner of war. 

A. As you most probably know, I used to work on American boat. 

Q. What line did you work for? 

A. I worked for almost every line there is. 

Q. I see. Do you speak English? 

A. I used to speak, however, I was not here in the last seven years and 

would have to brush up on it before I could carry on a conversation 

in English. I am a diver now. 

Usually the interrogator would inquire about family members and friends, hoping 

to gain information about the prisoner’s home and Germany, as well as details of living 

conditions and morale. 

Q. Do you have friends or relatives in America? 

A. Yes, I do have some relatives here by the name of Mike, but 

unfortunately I do not know where they live. 

Q. Mike, did you say? 

A. Yes, sir, he is an uncle of my father, but I don’t know where he lives. 

Q. Don’t you know anybody else, maybe a friend? 

A. There is a captain whom I know, in fact, I was on his boat. His name 

is Kowalsky. 

Q. Do you know where he lives? 

A. I am sorry I don’t. It was long ago that I knew him. He was German 

born, but an American citizen. 

Q. I see. Is your father still living? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where does he live? 

A. In Hamburg. 

Q. What is his name? 

A. Anton. 

Q. Did you notify him of your being a prisoner? 

A. I wrote to my wife but not to my father. 
104

Q. So you are married? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is your wife’s first name? 

A. Annaliese. 

Q. Do you have any children? 

A. Yes, one boy. 

Q. Where do they live? 

A. In Hamburg, too. 

Q. Exactly where do they live? 

A. Hamburg—21, Schumannstrasse 47. 

Q. Well let us do a little talking. How is everything at home? 

A. Well, there is not much to say. I have always been working but 

when war broke out I had to switch over to the navy and learn 

something entirely new. It took me almost two years to become a 

diver. Before the war I was not given the opportunity to advance, at 

one time I was out of work for two years, I never had any money at 

all and never was able to save any money at all. Those were terrible 

times. One did not know what to do. 

Q. I can see that. 

A. When the present German Government took over, I was not at home 

and when I finally returned to Germany, I trusted them very little. I 

was very pessimistic as to their ability to remove the enormous 

unemployment we had at that time and to their ability to improve the 

conditions in Germany altogether. However, I was more and more 

convinced that they were really doing a job and I must now say that 

everything has turned out fine. 

Discussions with the POWs naturally gravitated to politics, with interrogators 

probing to determine how sympathetic a prisoner was to the Nazis. 

Q. I can readily understand that some people feel happy under the 

present German regime. They found jobs and are pretty well off. 

However, sometimes I am wondering how the German people could 

sit back and watch the Nazi’s preparing themselves for another war. 

A. I don’t think Germany did prepare for war, it only wanted to prepare 

enough so as to be able to defend her borders. That is just like in any 

other country. I don’t think America would want to yield any of her 

land and Germany now wants to protect what is hers and used to be 

hers. And to protect your frontiers you must have an army. We did 

not want any war. 
105

Q. What do the Germans say about our being in the war? 

A. We are very sorry that the Americans interfered and were finally 

drawn into it. Germany had to declare war on America. 

Q. The Germans declared war upon us after the Japanese had made their 

sudden attack on American land and property. 

A. I guess both sides have their own opinion about that. We had a pact 

with Japan and it was part of the pact that called us to the aid of 

Japan in case she is at war with another country. 

Q. That may be true, but why did Japan not come to the aid of Germany 

when Germany attacked Russia? 

A. Our Fuehrer said that the German-Russian war has nothing to do 

with Japan. Japan did not attack America as such. She is only 

fighting for her liberty. She wants liberty of the seas so as to 

continue her trade. They are not interested in coming over here and 

taking America. What would they do here? And the same goes for 

us, we are a country of 90 million people and we have to eat. We 

want our colonies returned to us. After all they belonged to us. 

Where can we get the food for 90 million people? Why doesn’t 

England give us our colonies back. In fact we were not even ready 

for war with England. That is the truth and I am at liberty to say so. 

We still had hopes that England would give in and until the very last 

minute, we did not give up hopes for an understanding between 

England and Germany, after all England has enough for both 

England and Germany to live on. 

Q. Don’t you think the Germans think about what happened in 1918? 

A. Sure we do. That is exactly what we are trying to avoid. 

Q. You know what happened in ’17 and ’18? No food or anything. 

A. We are in a different position today. 

Q. How long do you think you can hold out economically? America 

hasn’t even started! And Russia, that is something else again. Why 

are you at war with Russia? What happened to all of your 

friendliness? 

A. We found papers of Russia’s intentions. Russia was all right until 

she started to fortify her frontiers. We gave part of Poland to her and 

then wasn’t satisfied and took more. Why did she start to fortify her 

borders? 

Q. Maybe she was afraid of you? 

A. We had no intentions of attacking Russia, and she did not have to be 

afraid on account of her might. She was very well armed. We 

recognized the Russians as a mighty people. If the Russian soldiers 
106

were as good as the German soldiers, I don’t think we could have 

made any advances, because they have very modern war material 

and are armed to the teeth. Just imagine what would have happened 

if Russia would have attacked Germany—there would have been a 

revolution and that is why we had to attack first. 

Q. You attacked them because you were afraid they might become too 

strong? 

A. Bolshevism must be exterminated because they have always 

threatened to take over the whole world. 

Q. Well, let’s not argue about it any more. Forget about it. Were you in 

the Navy in 1918? 

A. No. I was much too young, then. 

Q. But they used to employ young people, too. 

A. I made my first trip to England in 1919. That time we brought some 

material to England but we were not even allowed to go on land. 

Interrogators were instructed to elicit detailed information on what effect the 

Allied bombing campaign was having on German defenses, industry, and the civilian 

population. 

Q. Does your wife work? 

A. No. She is at home. 

Q. How is the food in Germany today; do you get enough? 

A. Most of it is rationed on account of the war. However, what we have 

is evenly being distributed and nobody dies of starvation. We have 

eggs, butter, meat, etc. 

Q. I see. Well, I understand you employ prisoners of war in factories, 

etc. Is that right? 

A. Some Polish prisoners are working on farms, etc., but we have quite 

a number of Italian workmen who came across the border to work in 

factories and build houses and all that. We have some French 

prisoners who are given complete liberty of moving around. You 

can meet them on streets and street cars. Of course, Germans are not 

allowed to talk to them. Some of them escaped to France and they 

come back after a while to find themselves a job. 

Q. What did Kiel look like after it had been bombed. Did you observe 

much damage? 

A. Oh, yes quite a bit, but mostly apartment houses instead of military 

installations. Of course, that can’t be helped you cannot always hit 

your objective, we know that our fliers don’t always hit what they 
107

are trying to hit. Besides, Kiel is an old city and one bomb is liable 

to destroy a whole block. 

Q. How about Hamburg, any damage there? 

A. Yes, Hamburg has been bombed pretty severely and that is why I 

would like to know about my people. I don’t even know if they are 

alive. 

Q. Well, let’s hope that nothing has happened to them. 

A. Yes, but it makes one nervous. 

Q. Of course. 

(Prisoner now complains that everything was taken away from him, that 

he has had nothing to smoke and so forth) 

Q. Were many people killed during the raid on Kiel? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did they score any hits on boats in the harbor, such as the 

Scharnhorst, etc. 

A. Yes, they scored a hit on the Scharnhorst but the Gneisenau was not 

there at the time. Nobody knows where she is. 

Q. Were then any sailors on the Scharnhorst when she was hit? You see 

I only read it in the papers. 

A. No. There was a (Wohnschiff) ship laying right next to the 

Scharnhorst which was used as a barracks. This ship received a 

direct hit and burned down and that is where they had enormous 

losses of live. You see I was in Kiel at that time and I know what 

went on. 

Q. Did you see the aircraft carrier “Graf Zeppelin” at the time you were 

in Kiel? 

A. Well, I heard once that this particular ship had never been 

completed, in fact, it was supposed to have been dismantled. I have 

never seen it. 

Q. You have never seen it? 

A. No sir. However, I have seen sketches and pictures of what it was 

supposed to look like after its completeness. 

Q. I am greatly surprised that the Germans don’t make any use of their 

airships. They built two big airships and they don’t use them at all. 

A. The Hindenburg burned down here in America, as you most 

probably know. 
108

Q. I watched it burn down. That was terrible. Were you ever in Berlin? 

A. Once, for only about 5 hours. 

Q. Have you been in France since the outbreak of the war? 

A. No, sir. 

Q. When did you actually join the Navy? 

A. In 1935. 

In the early stages of the war, the Allies were eager to gain as much information 

about German U-Boat operations as possible. Interrogators attempted to gather technical 

and ordnance information, details about crew composition and officers—any data that 

would help them in the Battle of the North Atlantic. 

Q. Was that last trip of yours, your first and only trip? 

A. Yes, sir. Despite me being a seamen, I have always done ground 

duty. I received my training on a schoolship and afterwards I was 

entrusted with the training of other seamen. I was in charge of some 

little camp later on, and then I was put on this ship for active duty. 

Q. Your captain was a good man was he not? 

A. Oh yes, he was a very fine and understanding man. We told him all 

our troubles and he would always give us a helping hand. He was 

very popular. 

Q. Some of the other boys told me the same thing. 

A. One could talk to him about everything. Sometimes he would call 

me in his office and talk to me for hours and hours. 

Q. Room is very restricted on a U-boat, is it not? 

A. Yes, it is very narrow. 

Q. I know your commander. I met him once in Baltimore. He was on 

the Karlsruhe then. 

A. Is that right, I was in Baltimore once myself. 

Q. Were you really? 

A. Yes, sir. I liked it there too. I met some nice people and that is why 

I was a little surprised when I first came here. We had no towels, no 

soap, and we had no comfort at all. 

Q. We were not quite prepared then. 

A. Can you tell me if we will be shipped out of here soon? 
109

Q. I cannot tell, but you won’t stay here very much longer. There is 

something else I want to ask you. Do you have any good friends or a 

good comrade in Germany? You see it could happen that you could 

become sick one of these days and in the event that your family does 

not live at its old address any more, we could write to your friend 

and have him contact your family. 

A. Of course, I have friends there, but most of them are seamen, too, 

and I don’t even know if they are still at home. They are being 

drafted just like, me and, as a rule, a seamen is never at home. He 

spends most of his time on the sea. 

Q. Well, I just thought I’d like to help you that way. 

A. Thank you.21

After each session, the Interrogating Officer would write a report offering an 

estimate of the prisoner’s personality and presumed veracity, and summarizing the 

potentially important information gathered from the discussion. This report was then 

forwarded to the Chief Interrogating Officer, who sent the material on to the Army and 

Navy Evaluation Sections, where it was dispersed accordingly within MIS and ONI. In 

addition to the formal questioning of POWs, the interrogators at Fort Hunt also made use 

of microphone monitoring devices hidden in the ceilings of the prisoners’ rooms. Hoping 

to obtain significant information from conversations between fellow inmates, monitors 

listened in on headphones daily between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm, unless special 

circumstances required longer monitoring. Direct transcriptions were then made from the 

taped conversations, translated into English, and forwarded through the same channels as 

the formal interrogations. In numerous instances, however, prisoners either discovered 

the hidden bugs, or otherwise deduced that they were being recorded. Most responded by 

keeping their conversations to a minimum, though a few wags “entertained” the monitors 

with explicit conversations, and even mock interrogations.22

As questioning procedures were refined and perfected throughout the war, the 

length of the POW’s stay at Fort Hunt diminished considerably. During the first 3 

months of operation, POWs remained for an average of 29 days. By the last year of the 

war, few were at Fort Hunt longer than a week. When their interrogation period was 

over, POWs were sent on to permanent detention camps across the United States, 

including those large facilities in Crossville, Tennessee, and Papago Park, Arizona. 

Despite the boredom and uncertainty of prison life, most prisoners found the conditions at 

Fort Hunt to be relatively benevolent. The food was good, questioning sessions were 

generally relaxed and informal, and they had access to ample reading material, most 

notably the New York Times, and the Christian Science Monitor, which the prisoners 

believed to be the most objective in their war reporting. Discipline, of course, was strict, 

but not punitive. Prisoners were expected to obey orders promptly, and were forbidden to 

 

21 Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, Intelligence Division, Captured Personnel and Materials Branch, Enemy 

POW Interrogation File (MIS-Y), 1943-45, Reports, U-Boats, Ships, and other Naval Material, Box 

730, NA RG 165. 22 MIS-Y, Interrogation Center, Box 360, NA RG 165; Moore, Faustball Tunnel, 41-44. 
110

Figure 35. Chief Monitor Control Board, Enclosure A, Fort Hunt Detailed 

Interrogation Center, World War II. Each interrogator’s POW assignment 

is listed in the standing chart (National Archives, G-2 (MIS-Y), CPM 

Branch Box 360, RG165. 
111

Figure 36. Interior of the Administration Building, Enclosure A, Fort Hunt Detailed 

Interrogation Center, World War II (National Archives, G-2 (MIS-Y), 

CPM Branch, Box 360, RG 165). 
112

speak to other POWs in the latrine or through open windows. No gambling or betting 

was permitted, nor was writing on or smearing windows. Enlisted prisoners were 

responsible for the cleanliness of their rooms. Any infraction of these rules would result 

in a prisoner losing his “buying privileges” in the prisoner canteen, though such 

opportunities were admittedly restricted anyway. The most serious complaint concerning 

camp conditions was offered by Jürgen Quaet-Faslem, captain of the U-595. A 

confirmed Nazi, Quaet-Faslem arrived at Fort Hunt in December 1942. Almost 

immediately he lodged a complaint with Swiss monitoring authorities that he was not 

being allowed the proper exercise opportunities stipulated by the Geneva Convention. 

Under pressure from the State Department, the Secretary of War argued that the weather 

conditions at the time of his stay had limited outdoor activity. Nonetheless, by May 

1943, the Army had revised its procedures at both Joint Interrogation Centers to address 

the concerns about prisoner exercise.23 

Of the 3,451 POWs who passed through Fort Hunt between 1942 and 1945, only 

one ever attempted to escape. Kapitänleutnant Werner Henke, the 35-year-old 

commander of the U-515, was captured by the U.S. Navy on Easter Sunday, April 9, 

1944. One of Germany’s most successful naval officers, Henke was already well-known 

to Allied intelligence. But, despite his fearsome reputation, he did not fit the stereotype 

of the ruthless U-Boat commander. “He was impetuous, ill-disciplined, hot-headed, and 

outgoing,” writes his biographer; “a daredevil and ladies’ man; a U-Boat commander 

with an extensive collection of American jazz and Cole Porter phonograph records. His 

indiscretions almost resulted in his discharge from the navy before he became one of its 

most decorated heroes. . . . He was indeed a “lone wolf.” What Henke feared the most, 

however, was being turned over to the British. Earlier in the war he had sunk an unarmed 

British transport, the Ceramic. Claiming that he had ordered the survivors machinegunned in the water, British propagandists declared in a radio broadcast that, if captured, 

Henke would be tried as a war criminal. When he arrived at Fort Hunt on May 3, 1944, 

his captors already had learned of his weakness, and they wasted no time in exploiting it. 

Midway through one interrogation session, a civilian ONI employee disguised as a Royal 

Canadian Mounted Police officer burst into the room and demanded Henke’s extradition 

to Canada. In reality, the British had no definite plans to try the U-Boat captain; but 

when he learned that he would, in fact, be sent north, Henke assumed that this was an 

automatic death sentence.24 

On June 15, 1944, the day before he was to leave Fort Hunt, Henke took his usual 

exercise at 6:00 pm in the prisoner’s yard of Enclosure A. Just before the session ended 

at 7:00 pm, Henke suddenly vaulted the inner 10-foot fence, and dashed to the main wire. 

He was halfway up the second fence when a burst of gunfire rang out from a nearby 

guard tower. Henke was killed instantly.25

The importance of the interrogation operations at Fort Hunt during the Second 

World War is difficult to measure but, without question, the information gathered from 

the thousands of POWs who passed through the camp between 1942 and 1945 was 

 

23 MIS-Y, Interrogation Center, Box 360, NA RG 165; Moore, Faustball Tunnel, 49. 24 Timothy P. Mulligan, Lone Wolf: The Life and Death of U-Boat Ace Werner Henke. (Westport, 

Connecticut, 1993). 25 Mulligan, Lone Wolf, 1-2. 
113

invaluable to the Allied war effort. Both Army and Navy intelligence branches derived 

critical information concerning enemy military operations, weapons technology, and the 

effectiveness of the Allied bombing campaign on domestic war production, 

infrastructure, and morale. And, while American interrogation experts painstakingly 

worked to beat Hitler with microphones and tape recorders, a small group of men at Fort 

Hunt were secretly waging war on Germany from within. 

The Second World War was revolutionary in the way it was fought, with highly 

mobile, mechanized armies, massive aerial bombardment of military and civilian targets, 

rapid communication, and critical technological innovations such as radar and jet 

propulsion. And, as the face of warfare changed, so did the role of the prisoner of war. 

Before World War II, those combatants unfortunate enough to be captured by the enemy 

were considered to have no further military function. But when Hitler’s invasion of 

Poland precipitated another European war, Great Britain began to reevaluate the potential 

use of the POW. During the First World War, they noted, 107,000 British prisoners had 

escaped from German camps with no organized assistance. However, a similar mass 

exodus would be difficult under the Nazi regime. Hitler had personally ordered all POW 

camps to be situated in distant eastern Europe; and, even if a prisoner did manage to 

escape, he would have to make his way through a closely-monitored police state. If they 

were to gain their freedom, POWs could no longer be left to their own devices.26 

In late 1939, the British created MI-9 to address the new situation faced by 

POWs. An inter-service department of the Prisoner of War Branch staffed by 

representatives of the Army, Navy, and Royal Air Force, MI-9 was charged with 

developing escape devices and letter codes to aid British servicemen—primarily air 

crews shot down over Europe—in the process of “escape and evasion.” More 

importantly, this new organization instilled in Britain’s fighting men the will to escape. 

Understanding that every escape attempt tied up valuable German manpower and 

resources, and shook civilian morale, MI-9 stressed that it was now a POW’s duty to 

resist his captor in every possible way. POWs now had their own unique war to fight, 

along the “barbed wire front.”27

By the time the United States entered the war in December 1941, MI-9 had 

already perfected their methods of assisting POWs. Select aircrewmen were trained in 

secret letter codes that they used to communicate with MI-9 when captured, and by now 

British intelligence was in daily contact with POWs across Europe. Under the guise of 

fictitious humanitarian organizations, MI-9 was also busy smuggling packages into POW 

camps containing such useful items as extra-sharp gigili saws, maps, compasses, forged 

passports and currency. By early 1942, MI-9 had helped roughly 750 Allied prisoners to 

escape from German camps.28 

 Like it or not, the United States military had much to learn from the British about 

POWs. When Major General Carl Spaatz arrived in London to make arrangements for 

bringing the Army Eighth Air Force to England, he was astounded by the work of MI-9. 

Without delay, he recommended that the War Department detail an American officer to 

 

26 Lloyd R. Shoemaker, The Escape Factory: The Story of MIS-X, the Super-Secret U.S. Agency Behind 

World War II’s Greatest Escapes. (New York, 1990), pp. 7-8. 27 Shoemaker, Escape Factory, 8-10. 28 Shoemaker, Escape Factory, 8-9. 
114

serve as a liaison with the British to study their techniques. They chose the 42-year-old 

Captain Robley E. Winfrey, a former professor of civil engineering at Iowa State 

University. In March 1942, British Air Vice-Marshall Charles Medhurst came to the 

United States to discuss the work of MI-9 with Chief of Staff George C. Marshall and 

Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson. In October, the War Department informed MIS 

Chief Colonel Catesby Ap Jones that Fort Hunt would become home to another POW 

department known as MIS-X. Unlike MIS-Y, the new MIS-X program would be kept 

ultra-secret. Only top War Department officials and the President would know of its 

existence; even Fort Hunt’s post commander would not be certain what was going on 

within his own camp. The new branch would be comprised of five subsections: 

interrogation, correspondence, POW locations, training and briefing, and technical. Their 

assigned tasks were to: 

a. Indoctrinate Air Force [A-2 and ground force S-2] intelligence officers 

who will in turn instruct air crews in the various Theaters of Operation 

on evasion of capture when forced down or captured in enemy 

territory. 

b. Instructions on escape—including the instilling of escape psychology 

in combat airmen and communicating plans for escape to American 

prisoners of war by means of codes. 

c. Instructions in proper conduct after capture and to inform intelligence 

officers of the rights of prisoners of war under international law. 

d. To secure military information from American or Allied escaped 

prisoners on their return to Allied territory. 

e. To obtain by means of codes from prisoners of war still in captivity 

information concerning locations of prisoners, conditions of 

imprisonment, opportunities for escape, reasons for failure in attempts 

to escape, and other pertinent intelligence. 

f. To assist in the preparation and distribution of escape kits, and 

emergency kits containing maps, money, and other necessities to be 

furnished air crews on missions and to incorporate new ideas and 

improvements in such equipment. 

g. Plan and carry on correspondence with prisoners of war by means of 

codes which will be taught to key personnel of this organization. 

h. To maintain close liaison with the British MI-9 branch, which is 

conducting similar operations.29

 

29 Shoemaker, Escape Factory, 10-13. 
115

With these ambitious goals laid out, the first task of the new MIS-X chief Colonel 

Edward Johnston was to assemble the personnel required for these sensitive operations. 

After several months working with MI-9 in England, Captain Winfrey was the natural 

choice to head up MIS-X activities at Fort Hunt. Officers could be obtained without 

much difficulty, but MIS-X needed technicians and craftsmen with special skills. All 

Army units along the East Coast were asked to provide the names of men with experience 

in cabinetmaking, radio operation, electronics, and printing.30 After five months of 

background checks and administrative procedures, Winfrey had his specialized team. 

Meanwhile, Colonel Jones was preparing Fort Hunt to receive the MIS-X men. The 

“nerve center” of the secret program would be the old post hospital, which had recently 

housed the 2nd Signal Service Company detachment. Renovations to the building, now 

known by the code name “Creamery,” were completed in November 1942. Here Winfrey 

set up the Correspondence Section, and began teaching a handpicked group of officers 

the codes that would be used to communicate with POWs. When they had mastered the 

technique, these “briefers” were then dispersed throughout the country and abroad to 

train American airmen to became “Code Users,” or “CUs.”

By special agreement with the Director of Censorship, the clerks at the censorship 

department’s Manhattan sorting office scanned all incoming POW mail for the names of 

known CUs. When one appeared, it was flown by military air shuttle to Bolling Field in 

Maryland, where it was picked up by an MIS-X officer. Back at the Creamery, one of 14 

cryptoanalysts of the Correspondence Section would decode the message, and pass it 

along through the chain of command. The decoders would then compose return 

messages to the POW on civilian stationary, posing as family members or girlfriends. 

This secret correspondence continued undiscovered throughout the entire war, and by this 

means MIS-X was in regular contact with virtually every German POW camp.31 

 With the Correspondence Section operational, Colonel Jones ordered the 

construction of a building to house the Technical Section. When completed in December 

1942, this building—known as the “Warehouse”—consisted of a center section flanked 

by two wings measuring 75 feet by 25 feet. Security was tight, and access to the building 

was through a single door. In addition to Winfrey’s small 15-foot-square, unheated 

office, the Warehouse included a large technicians’ wing, where supplies were received 

and the Technical Section staff designed and built escape and evasion materials. The 

floor of the technicians’ wing was reinforced in one section to support the weight of a 

printing press used to counterfeit German Reichmarks. A smaller room measuring 25 by 

50 feet, known as the “Shop,” was located off the rear of this wing. It included a table 

along the entire length of one wall, six freestanding workstations, and another table in the 

rear for counting currency. Across from the Shop were solid-core double doors with 

security locks that led to the technical wing’s loading dock. The opposite wing of the 

Warehouse, also 75 feet long by 25 feet wide, contained the briefing room, with chairs 

and a blackboard. Two guards lived in the Warehouse, in a 10-foot-square cubicle with 

attached bathroom and shower. The remainder of the MIS-X men bunked and messed 

with the rest of the camp’s personnel.32

 

30 Shoemaker, Escape Factory, 15-19. 31 Shoemaker, Escape Factory, 20-22. 32 Shoemaker, Escape Factory, 23-24. 
116

 In February 1943, three officers and nine men of the Technical Section began 

operations in the Warehouse. According to the Geneva Convention, POWs were entitled 

to receive parcels from family members and humanitarian organizations. Employing the 

same techniques that had proven so effective for MI-9, MIS-X established two fictitious 

relief organizations, the “War Prisoner’s Benefit Foundation” and “Servicemen’s Relief,” 

as a cover for smuggling escape and evasion materials into the camps. They deliberately 

chose not to use Red Cross packages as vehicles for these goods, for fear of 

compromising the critical aid work of that organization. Since the Germans would 

almost certainly scrutinize the packages, it was essential that the Technical Section devise 

ways to hide escape aids within seemingly mundane items. After much trial and error, 

the craftsmen became expert at hiding compasses and tissue-paper maps in the handles of 

shaving brushes, shoe brushes, and Ping-Pong paddles. Checkerboards were steamed 

apart, and maps, documents, and currency inserted. Shoe heels could easily contain other 

materials.33 

But even with the best equipment, there was a limit to what Fort Hunt’s 

technicians could produce on their own. Once again, the Americans looked to the British 

for inspiration. By now, MI-9 was having considerable success getting commercial 

manufacturers to do their work for them. Following suit, MIS-X contacted various 

American companies, who—sworn to secrecy—agreed to make their products with 

hidden materials. The F.W. Sickle Electronics Company of Chicopee, Massachusetts, 

manufactured a specially designed miniature radio transmitter, 48 of which were then 

secreted in baseballs by the Goldsmith Baseball Company of Cincinnati. The U.S. 

Playing Card Company, also of Cincinnati, inserted map segments within special peelaway cards. Boston’s Gillette Razor Company magnetized their double-edged blades so 

that when balanced on a stick or string the “G” in Gillette pointed north. The Army’s 

supplier of uniform buttons, the Scoville Company of Waterbury, Connecticut, agreed to 

hide small compasses within five million buttons, with the threaded screw reversed to 

fool suspicious inspectors. And, when the R. J. Reynolds Company donated hundreds of 

cartons of cigarettes, the MIS-X technicians used the packs to hide crystal radio 

receivers. Though they never knew the purpose or destination of these special items, the 

majority of these patriotic companies never charged the government for their services.34

 By 1944, the MIS-X operatives at Fort Hunt were sending between 80 and 120 

parcels each day to German POW camps. Though the size of shipments varied, the 

procedure remained consistent. Making sure to use distinctive packaging materials to 

differentiate between the two invented relief organizations, the MIS-X technicians would 

assemble a number of packages. Some would be “straight,” containing only legitimate, 

unaltered items. The rest would be “loaded” with hidden escape and evasion aids. Since 

the Correspondence Section was now in communication with most camps, a coded letter 

would warn the POWs in advance that a “loaded” shipment was en route, and would 

include instructions on how to find the hidden goods. The Postmaster General also made 

an unprecedented exception, allowing the MIS-X relief packages to be specially 

postmarked and put into the regular mail stream unimpeded. Occasionally an emergency 

situation would require special procedures: perhaps a groups of POWs planned to exploit 

an impending transfer or other opportunity to make an escape attempt, and needed a 

 

33 Shoemaker, Escape Factory, 29-31. 34 Shoemaker, Escape Factory, 104-113. 
117

delivery of equipment in short order. In such cases, MIS-X would stuff unmarked parcels 

with undisguised escape items such as guns, civilian clothing, radios, wire-cutters, and 

counterfeit money. Though this was a risky procedure, these “Super-Dupers”—or 

“Dynamites” to the British—occasionally passed undetected through German inspection 

and into the hands of the POWs. If discovered, however, they were not associated with 

the dummy MIS-X relief organizations, so did not jeopardize their normal operations.35 

 Ultimately, the MIS-X smuggling program became a victim of its own success. 

By late 1944, POWs were sending coded letters back to Fort Hunt asking them to stop 

shipment of escape items: they simply had no more room in their quarters to hide more 

materials. By this time, escape had become an increasingly dangerous proposition. After 

D-Day, Hitler issued his infamous Kommando Order, which created “Death Zones” 

throughout Europe in areas around munitions, armament, and experimental plants. Any 

POW captured in these zones was subject to summary execution. Both MI-9 and MIS-X 

responded by informing prisoners that they were no longer expected to attempt escape, 

though they might continue resistance efforts at their own discretion. Late in the war, as 

Germany’s infrastructure and transportation network crumbled, mail shipments to POW 

camps also became increasingly sporadic, and packages sent by MIS-X did not always 

reach their intended destination.36 

For these reasons, in March 1945 the MIS-X program began to wind down its 

correspondence and technical operations. The European war was clearly reaching its 

conclusion, and MIS-X was ordered to prepare to debrief the thousands of American 

POWs expected to return shortly to the United States. But the end of MIS-X came 

sooner than expected. Germany surrendered to the Allies on May 8, 1945, and 

immediately MIS-X was ordered to cease operations. Throughout the summer, Pentagon 

officials debriefed the program’s participants. Japan surrendered on August 14th, and on 

August 20th, the War Department ordered all MIS-X records at Fort Hunt destroyed. For 

the next 36 hours, the men burned records non-stop, all but obliterating the history of one 

of the most secret, and successful, military intelligence operations in American history.37 

During World War II, 95,532 United States servicemen fell into enemy hands. Of 

these, 737 managed to escape and return to their commands. Most did so with the help of 

MIS-X. Through their correspondence with the POW camps, MIS-X also collected 

critical intelligence from behind German lines, and had an immeasurable effect on the 

morale of the prisoners. A closely guarded secret during and after the war, none but a 

handful of men who served with MIS-X had any idea how Fort Hunt had helped to fight 

fascism.38 

 

35 Shoemaker, Escape Factory, 30-31, 119-20. 36 Shoemaker, Escape Factory, 116, 137, 200-01. 37 Shoemaker, Escape Factory, 202-04. 38 Shoemaker, Escape Factory, 216. 
118

CHAPTER 7:

FORT HUNT AS PUBLIC SPACE 

1946 - 2000

With the end of World War II, Fort Hunt’s brief resurgence as a military installation drew 

to a close. The MIS-X program had been shut down and its records destroyed, while the 

process of repatriating Axis prisoners of war in the United States began in earnest. Under 

the terms of the special use permit granted by the Department of the Interior in May 

1942, the War Department was to turn over the Fort Hunt property within one year of the 

war’s end. In June 1946, the Secretary of the Interior began to inquire about the status of 

the transfer; but the Army was not quite ready to abandon the installation, and requested 

use of 30 acres of the installation for another year to continue intelligence operations. By 

October 1946, however, all intelligence personnel had moved to Mitchell Field, New 

York, leaving only a small detachment to guard the post. The War Department declared 

Fort Hunt surplus on November 15, 1946, and the last troops left within a week.1 

Until the final transfer of the land back to the National Park Service (NPS) could 

be accomplished, Fort Hunt came under the jurisdiction of the Military District of 

Washington, which maintained a small security and fire-fighting detachment on the post. 

In late 1946 and early 1947, the Army Corps of Engineers began the process of removing 

dozens of temporary wartime buildings. When the NPS finally reoccupied the property 

in January 1948, only a handful of buildings and structures remained, including one 

former NCO’s quarters (Bldg. #118), one double-set officer’s quarters (#101), the old 

post hospital (#128), the stables (#114), the NPS museum laboratory and storehouse (#15 

and # 105), a utility buildings (#123), the pump house (#125), the battery commander’s 

station (#47), water tower (#126), and the four artillery batteries. From January through 

September 1948, the Museums Division of the NPS maintained a laboratory at Fort Hunt, 

constructing exhibits for the museums at the Manassas National Battlefield Park and the 

Guilford Courthouse National Military Park. In June of that year, the Military District of 

Washington relinquished control over Fort Hunt, turning over security to the U.S. Park 

Police.2

 

 As was the case in the 1920s when the Army first abandoned the post, Fort Hunt 

in the late 1940s and early 1950s was a tempting tabula rasa, inviting numerous 

proposals for future use. This part of northern Virginia was becoming heavily 

suburbanized in the postwar years, and green space was increasingly at a premium. As 

such, most plans focused on recreational uses of the area. Golf courses, swimming pools, 

 

1

 Files AG 322, AG 370, AG 601.52, Central Decimal Files, Office of the Adjutant General, NA RG 

407. 2

 File 12-48, Central Classified Files, 1937-1953, George Washington Memorial Parkway, Office of the 

Secretary, Department of the Interior, NA RG 48; National Park Service Central Classified Files, 

1933-1949, George Washington Memorial Parkway, NA RG 79. 
119

and picnic grounds proved the most popular features in these visions of future 

development. The most imaginative—if outlandish—plan was offered by the Club 

Prenso National, which would have turned Fort Hunt into “El Rancho Grande,” complete 

with rodeo arena, horse corral, food and beer stations, and bleacher seating for 2,000 

spectators.3 

 No entity coveted Fort Hunt in the postwar years as much as the Commonwealth 

of Virginia. Virginia had no state parks in the region at that time, and was eager to 

establish a recreation area of its own near the capital. In 1952, the General Assembly of 

Virginia passed House Joint Resolution No. 78, authorizing the Department of 

Conservation and Development to study the possibility of acquiring Fort Hunt from the 

National Park Service. In the ensuing months, the department’s acting director, Raymond 

V. Long, gathered information about the site and investigated the possibility of a transfer. 

He subsequently presented his findings to the Governor and General Assembly in 

September 1953.4

 

Long reported that recreational facilities at the site included a large field (the 

former “parade ground”) with baseball diamonds, horseshoe, tennis, volleyball, and 

badminton courts. The parade ground could accommodate picnic groups of 100 to 5,000, 

while a dozen “picnic groves,” serving from 10 to 150 visitors, were equipped with picnic 

fireplaces, tables, benches, and drinking fountains. Meanwhile, a “club-house” provided 

comfort station facilities and drinking fountains for all picnickers.5

 The park was already 

popular with area residents, he noted; Boy Scout “camporee” groups frequently stayed 

overnight at the park, while the Fairfax County Council of Girl Scouts held day camp 

sessions at the picnic area each July. In short, Long concluded, the location and facilities 

of the park were ideal. The only problem was that the National Park Service absolutely 

refused to consider handing over the land to Virginia.6 

On July 23, 1953, Virginia Delegates J. Maynard Magruder and Edwin Lynch 

invited National Park Service Assistant Superintendent Frank T. Gartside to meet at the 

park to discuss a potential transfer of the land. Gartside wrote back the following day. 

He would be happy to meet with the state representatives, he said, but “strongly advised 

against the trouble and expense of making the trip in the interests of securing Fort Hunt 

as a State Park, advising further and emphatically that the answer of the National Park 

Service to any request on the part of the State for acquisition of the park would be “No.”” 

In case the Virginians did not get the message, Superintendent Edward J. Kelly followed 

up with a lengthy letter, outlining the Park Service’s position on the issue. “It would be 

helpful for you to know,” he advised, 

that this area is in almost constant use throughout the summer months with 

recreational activities of many kinds. A portion of this area is used 

throughout the summer months as a day camp for Girl Scouts in the 

 

3

 “Layout for Rodeo and Barbecue,” June 13, 1953, Map File No. 117.6-110, National Capital Region, 

National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 4

 Commonwealth of Virginia, Report to the Governor and General Assembly (Richmond, 1953), p. 4. 5

 In 1953, Fort Hunt still included 14 former post buildings and the four concrete artillery batteries. 

Virginia, Report to the Governor and General Assembly, pp. 6-7. 6

 Virginia, Report to the Governor and General Assembly, 5. 
120

Alexandria area. Several times yearly it is used as a camping ground for 

large troops of Boy Scouts, 4-H Clubs, and similar groups who come to 

visit the Nation’s Capital. It is also the only area administered by the 

National Capital Parks of sufficient size to accommodate community 

gatherings, such as the Board of Trade, Press Club, church assemblies, and 

other groups numbering into the thousands. The Fort Hunt area is used 

many times throughout the summer months for such purposes. 

 In addition to the present current uses, it has been set aside and 

planned as a golf course to serve the residents in Alexandria and nearby 

Virginia. A program of demolition has been all but completed and the 

principal structure remaining on this area has been set aside as a club 

house for the golf course just referred to. 

 From the above it will be clear that we consider the Fort Hunt area 

as an essential part of the Federal parks serving the Washington 

metropolitan area. We would be happy to meet with you and with the 

Hon. Edward W. Lynch and J. Maynard Magruder to discuss the 

suggestion presented in your letter of July 23, but I cannot encourage you 

to hope that we would look with favor on the proposal to transfer this area 

to the State of Virginia.7

 

 

The National Park Service position was clear. The disappointed Virginia officials 

cancelled their visit to Fort Hunt, and the feasibility study was concluded. After Long 

presented his report to the Governor and General Assembly, Virginia unceremoniously 

shelved its bid for the land.8

 Given the intensive public use of Fort Hunt Park, the NPS recognized by the early 

1960s that additional facilities would be required to meet the needs of visitors. Plans for 

a new “picnic pavilion and comfort station” were finalized in June 1963. When 

completed, the picnic pavilion became the dominant feature of Fort Hunt Park’s built 

environment. Encompassing nearly 8,000 square feet of usable space, the facility 

included an office and lobby, comfort station, and sheltered picnic area with fireplaces, a 

stage, and dressing rooms. In terms of design and materials, the building was reminiscent 

of CCC camp and park architecture, with stone foundation walls and chimneys, exposed 

trusses, and wood siding. What NPS planners did not consider, however, was the effect 

its construction would have on Fort Hunt’s archaeological resources: the pavilion stands 

almost exactly on the site of the old post hospital, the secret “Creamery” of World War II 

days (see Chapter 6, Figure 30). 9 

 Fort Hunt’s vanishing historic resources would soon demand greater attention. 

With the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) in 1966, federal 

agencies were now required to assess the impact of their undertakings on historic 

 

7

 Virginia, Report to the Governor and General Assembly, 7. 8

 Virginia, Report to the Governor and General Assembly. 9

 Preliminary Plans for Picnic Pavilion, June 20, 1963. National Park Service Design and Construction, 

National Capital Region Map #117.6.272. 
121

properties. Since that time, legal requirements and shifting cultural attitudes concerning 

historic preservation have had a significant effect on how the National Park Service has 

managed the Fort Hunt property. In October 1979, the National Capital Region of the 

NPS nominated Fort Hunt to the National Register of Historic Places. Virginia’s State 

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)—then the Virginia Historic Landmarks 

Commission—concurred, and the property was listed in the Register on March 26, 1980. 

The National Register boundaries encompassed the existing park, which then included 

157.4 acres; significant contributing elements included the four artillery batteries, the 

battery commander’s station, one single non-commissioned officer’s quarters, and the 

Quartermaster Stable.10

Within a few months, the Regional Director of the National Capital Region, NPS, 

recommended the removal of the ca. 1900 Quartermaster Stable, then serving as a park 

maintenance facility. The building was located outside the park boundary fence in an 

adjoining residential neighborhood, and area residents had voiced concern over its 

deteriorated condition and “nuisance potential.” The NPS considered the possibility of 

preserving the stable, but the projected $60,000 repair cost proved prohibitive. Similarly, 

the suggestion of moving the unstable building to a different location within the park was 

rejected as “contrary to good preservation practice.” Under the requirements of Section 

106 of the NHPA, the NPS consulted with the Virginia SHPO, which determined that the 

proposed undertaking would have an adverse effect on a contributing element of the 

National Register site. In order to mitigate the adverse effect, the NPS, the Virginia 

SHPO, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation signed a memorandum of 

agreement (MOA) outlining the procedures to be followed prior to the demolition of the 

building. The MOA stipulated that the NPS would make a permanent record of the stable 

for submission to the National Architectural and Engineering Record, while the Virginia 

SHPO or designee was invited to select architectural elements from the property for 

curation or use in other projects. The MOA was ratified by all parties in November 1980, 

and the stable was subsequently dismantled.11

Since the late 1970s, the NPS has conducted three limited archaeological 

investigations at Fort Hunt Park. In 1978, Park Service archaeologists performed testing 

at the proposed site of the park maintenance facility and maintenance facility access road, 

but found no evidence of either prehistoric or historic occupation. Prior to the 

construction of a parking lot between the main entrance road, maintenance facility, and 

park loop road in August 1985, archaeologists excavated 22 shovel test pits within the 

proposed area of disturbance. Testing yielded only a handful of prehistoric artifacts, 

primarily quartz and quartzite lithic debitage, which appeared to have been introduced 

with gravel along the main entrance road. All historic artifacts dated to the later 

twentieth century, and consisted entirely of “casual surface litter.”12 

The most recent, and productive, archaeological testing at Fort Hunt was 

conducted in October 1991 and February 1992 by Matthew Virta of the Denver Service 

 

10 National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form, Fort Hunt File (VDHR #29-103), 

Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond. 11 Fort Hunt File (VDHR #29-103), Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond. 

12 Paul Inashima, Archaeological Survey Report: An Archaeological Investigation of 

 Selected Construction Locales Along the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway. (Denver Service CenterEastern Applied Archaeology Center, National Park Service), 1985. 
122

Center-Eastern Applied Archaeology Center (DSC-EEA). This investigation focused on 

six areas in the path of a proposed sewer line connection. The first area was in the 

vicinity of the old post hospital site (known as the “Creamery” during World War II), 

near the existing picnic pavilion. Two features were identified in this area, including a 

V-shaped cement drainage trough and a burned fence post. The second area, 

approximately 50 feet west of the picnic pavilion, yielded no significant artifacts or 

features. The third area was situated approximately 250 feet northwest of the pavilion, 

and 50 feet north of an existing gravel service road. Only modern detritus, including a 

“Friends of the Kennedy Center” button, was noted. The fourth area was located 

approximately 120 feet south of the pavilion. Shovel tests here revealed disturbed 

stratigraphy and numerous chunks of loose rock and concrete, likely representing the 

demolition of Army buildings. The fifth area investigated was located approximately 170 

feet south-southeast of the picnic pavilion, in the vicinity of a World War II building (T129: “School & Office”). No evidence of the building was identified, however. The final 

area examined was situated approximately 250 feet southeast of the pavilion, and 25 feet 

east of the park loop road. Limited excavations revealed a 4.5-foot-square concrete 

“collar,” with evidence of a hinged “trap-door” opening. Virta concluded that this feature 

might represent a utilities vault or manhole entrance.13

As a result of these investigations, Virta recommended that the contractor relocate 

the sewer line to the west of the picnic pavilion to avoid known structural remains and 

features. During the course of the sewer construction project two additional in situ 

architectural features were noted, and were subsequently investigated by Virta in 

February 1992. The first feature was identified along the north side of the current gravel 

service road, and consisted of subsurface brick paving capped with asphalt, and formed 

into a U-shaped channel. As it was located adjacent to an early fort road, Virta concluded 

that this feature was part of the original road gutter. The second feature was located east 

of the park loop road and southeast of the picnic pavilion, and appeared to be the 

remnants of another brick drainage channel. Neither feature was significantly disturbed 

by the utility trenching project.14

 Using digital mapping of Fort Hunt Park provided by the National Park Service, 

Cultural Resources, Inc. (CRI) has projected historic map data from the eighteenth 

through mid-twentieth centuries onto the modern park landscape (see Figure 5). These 

map projections were made as precisely as possible using AutoCAD Release 14; 

however, given the relative inaccuracies of the historic maps used, all building and 

feature locations should be considered approximate. Of the dozens of buildings that once 

stood on the property, only a handful remain, including one single-set non-commissioned 

officer’s quarters, the four former coast artillery batteries, and the battery commander’s 

station. However, the material manifestation of earlier occupations on the property may 

be discerned in the archaeological record. 

The earliest and potentially most significant historic-period archaeological site 

that may be located within current park boundaries is the tenant farm indicated on 

Washington’s 1766 map of his newly acquired Clifton’s Neck tract. Documentary 

 

13 Matthew Virta, Management Report: Archaeological Test Excavations in Advance of the New Sewer 

Line Connection at Fort Hunt Park, George Washington Memorial Parkway (Denver Service CenterApplied Archaeology Center, National Park Service, 1992), 1-5. 14 Virta, Archaeological Test Excavations, 6-7. 
123

evidence suggests that Jane Hester and her sons may have occupied this farm as early as 

1741. A map projection indicates that the two depicted structures and orchard were 

situated in the south-central portion of Fort Hunt Park, approximately 1,000 feet 

southwest of Battery Mount Vernon (see Chapter 1, Figure 3). This area appears to have 

been largely undisturbed by later development, so this site conceivably might be 

identified through archaeological testing. If discovered and excavated, this site would 

open an intriguing window on a period of the property’s history for which little 

documentary evidence remains. 

Given their style of construction, it is unlikely that many of the buildings 

associated with Fort Hunt’s active military occupation have left significant subsurface 

remains. With few exceptions, the post buildings dating to the Coast Artillery era were 

of frame construction, and built on brick piers. Evidence of these brick footings may 

indicate the locations of these buildings, if they have not been disturbed by later 

improvements, such as roads, parking lots or—in the case of the former post hospital—

the main picnic pavilion. Similarly, the many new structures that appeared at Fort Hunt 

during the 1930s and 1940s were generally of temporary, “pre-fabricated” form, and 

would have left little imprint at ground level when they were removed. As the National 

Park Service excavations of the early 1990s revealed, the historical post features most 

likely to be evident in the archaeological record are former road traces and utilities 

(primarily water and sewer lines), the arteries of a once active military community that 

has, for the most part, vanished from the landscape. 
124

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Manuscript Sources: 

Fairfax County Court Records. 

Deeds, Wills, Leases, Land and Personal Property Tax Records, Fairfax County 

Circuit Court, Fairfax, Virginia, and microfilm copies at the Library of Virginia, 

Richmond. 

Prince William County Court Records. 

Deeds, Wills, Leases, Land and Personal Property Tax Records, Prince William 

County Circuit Court, Manassas, Virginia, and microfilm copies at the Library of 

Virginia, Richmond. 

National Archives, Washington D.C. and College Park, Maryland (NA). 

Record Group 35. Records of the Civilian Conservation Corps. 

Record Group 48. Records of the Department of the Interior. 

Record Group 64. Records of the National Archives. 

Record Group 77. Records of the Office of the Chief of Engineers. 

Record Group 79. Records of the National Park Service. 

Record Group 92. Records of the Office of the Quartermaster General. 

Record Group 94. Records of the Office of the Adjutant General (Military 

Secretary’s Office), 1890-1917. 

Record Group 165. Records of the War Department General Staff. 

Record Group 407. Records of the Adjutant General’s Office, 1917-1939. 

Returns from U.S. Military Posts, 1800-1916: Fort Hunt, Virginia, 1899-1913. 

Microcopy 617, Rolls 499-500. 

United States Bureau of the Census. Fairfax County Population, Agricultural, and Slave 

Schedules, 1820-1880. 
125

Published Sources: 

Abbott, W.W. (ed.). The Papers of George Washington: Colonial Series (10 vols.); 

Revolutionary War Series (4 vols.); Presidential Series (7 vols.). The University 

Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, 1983-1998. 

Albion, Robert Greenhalgh. Makers of Naval Policy, 1798-1947. U.S. Naval Institute, 

Annapolis, Maryland, 1980. 

Alexandria Gazette, “Price Fixed by Commission,” 1 April 1903. 

Barber, James G. Alexandria in the Civil War. H. E. Howard, Inc., Lynchburg, Virginia, 

1988. 

Brent, Chester Horton. The Descendants of Collo

 Giles Brent, Capt George Brent, and 

Robert Brent,Gent., Immigrants to Maryland and Virginia. Tuttle Publishing 

Company, Rutland, Vermont, 1946. 

Brighton, Ray. The Checkered Career of Tobias Lear. Portsmouth Marine Society, 

Portsmouth, New Hampshire, 1985. 

Carter, Edward C. II (ed.). The Virginia Journals of Benjamin Henry Latrobe, 2 vols. 

Yale University Press, New Haven, 1977. 

Civilian Conservation Corps. Happy Days (newspaper). Published weekly, 1934-1942. 

Congressional Information Service, Inc. CIS Index to Presidential Orders & 

Proclamations, Part I: April 30, 1789 to March 4, 1921, George Washington to 

Woodrow Wilson. Washington, D.C., 1987. 

Daily Evening Star (Washington, D.C.). “Restricting Passes to Soldiers.” 28 June 1898. 

Daniels, Roger. The Bonus March: An Episode of the Great Depression. Greenwood 

Publishing Corporation, Westport, Connecticut, 1971. 

Davis, Timothy. Highways in Harmony: George Washington Memorial Parkway, 

Virginia, Maryland, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of the Interior, National 

Park Service, Washington, D.C., 1994. 

Decatur, Stephen, Jr. Private Affairs of George Washington, From the Records and 

Accounts of Tobias Lear, Esquire, his Secretary. Houghton Mifflin Company, 

Boston, 1933. 

Dent, Richard J., Jr. Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. Plenum 

Press, New York, 1995. 
126

Doran, Michael F. Atlas of County Boundary Changes in Virginia, 1634-1895. Iberian 

Publishing Company, Athens, Georgia, 1987. 

EDAW, Inc. Cultural Landscape Report, Mount Vernon Memorial Highway, vol. 1: 

History. Alexandria, Virginia, 1989. 

Endicott, William C. et al. Report of the Board on Fortifications or Other Defenses 

Appointed by the President of the United States Under the Provisions of the Act of 

Congress Approved March 3, 1885. Government Printing Office, Washington, 

D.C. 1886. 

Feest, Christian F., “Nanticoke and Neighboring Tribes,” in Bruce G. Trigger (ed.), 

Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15: Northeast, pp. 240-52. 

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., 1978. 

Fitzpatrick, John C. (ed.). The Writings of George Washington, From the Original 

Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, 39 vols. U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, D.C., 1931-1944. 

Flexner, James Thomas. Washington: The Indispensable Man. Little, Brown and 

Company, Boston, 1974. 

Gardner, William M. “Early and Middle Woodland in the Middle Atlantic: An 

Overview,” in Roger W. Moeller (ed.), Practicing Environmental Archaeology: 

Methods and Interpretations, American Indian Archaeological Institute, 

Occasional Paper No. 3: 53-86. 

Grashof, Bethany C. A Study of U.S. Army Family Housing Standardized Plans, 1866-

1940. 6 vols. Center for Architectural Conservation, College of Architecture, 

Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, 1986. 

Haile, Edward Wright (ed.), Jamestown Narratives: Eyewitness Account of the Virginia 

Colony, The First Decade, 1607-1617. RoundHouse, Champlain, Virginia, 1998. 

Happy Days. “Anthony Eden Oh’s and Ah’s While Learning of American CCC in 

Virginia Camp,” Saturday, December 17, 1938. National Archives, Washington, 

D.C. 

_____. “King and Queen Get Chummy With Men at CCC Inspection,” Saturday, June 

10, 1939. National Archives, Washington, D.C. 
127

Hening, William Waller (ed.). The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of all the Laws 

of Virginia from the First Session of the Legislature in the Year 1619. 13 vols. 

Franklin Press, Richmond, Virginia, 1819-1824. 

Hill, Frank Ernest. The School in the Camps: The Educational Program of the Civilian 

Conservation Corps. American Association for Adult Education, New York, 

1935. 

Hirschfeld, Fritz. George Washington and Slavery: A Documentary Portrayal. 

University of Missouri Press, Columbia, Missouri, 1997. 

Inashima, Paul. Archaeological Survey Report: An Archaeological Investigation of 

Selected Construction Locales Along the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway. 

Denver Service Center-Eastern Applied Archaeology Center, National Park 

Service, 1985. 

Jackson, Donald (ed.). The Diaries of George Washington, 6 vols. The University Press 

of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, 1976-1979. 

Ketchum, Richard M. The World of George Washington. American Heritage Publishing 

Company, Inc., New York, 1974. 

Kulikoff, Allan. Tobacco and Slaves: The Development of Southern Cultures in the 

Chesapeake, 1680-1800. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1986. 

Lisio, Donald J. The President and Protest: Hoover, Conspiracy, and the Bonus Riot. 

University of Missouri Press, Columbia, 1974. 

Mackall, B. F. Portions of Alexandria and Fairfax Counties, Virginia, Showing the 

Routes Surveyed for a National Road from Washington, D.C., to Mount Vernon, 

Virginia, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1890. Fairfax County Regional Library, 

Fairfax, Virginia. 

Martin, Lawrence (ed.). The George Washington Atlas. United States George 

Washington Bicentennial Commission, Washington, D.C., 1932. 

Mitchell, Beth (ed.). Beginning at a White Oak . . .Patents and Northern Neck Grants of 

Fairfax County, Virginia. McGregor and Werner, Fairfax, Virginia, 1977. 

Moore, John Hammond. The Faustball Tunnel: German POWs in American and Their 

Great Escape. Random House, New York, 1978. 

_____. “The Fort Hunt Saga: Guns, Bonus Marchers, U-Boats, and Picnics.” Northern 

Virginia Heritage, February 1980, pp. 3-6, 20. 
128

Muir, Dorothy Troth. Potomac Interlude: The Story of Woodlawn Mansion and the 

Mount Vernon Neighborhood. Mount Vernon Print Shop, Mount Vernon, 

Virginia, originally published 1943, reprinted 1979. 

_____. Mount Vernon: The Civil War Years. Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association, Mount 

Vernon, Virginia, 1993. 

Mulligan, Timothy P. Lone Wolf: The Life and Death of U-Boat Ace Werner Henke. 

Praeger Publishers, Westport, Connecticut, 1993. 

National Archives. Thirteenth Annual Report of the Archivist of the United States for the 

Year Ending June 30, 1947. United States Government Printing Office, 

Washington, D.C., 1948. 

Navy Department. Final Report on the Interrogation of Survivors from U-210 Sunk by 

H.M.C.S. Assiniboine, August 6, 1942. Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, 

Serial No. 4, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1942. 

Nelson, Robert T. “Fort Hunt, Virginia: An Historical Sketch.” National Capital Region, 

National Park Service, Washington, D.C., 1964. 

Netherton, Nan, Donald Sweig, Janice Artemel, Patricia Hickin, and Patrick Reed. 

Fairfax County, Virginia: A History. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, 

Fairfax, Virginia, 1978. 

The New York Times. “Roosevelt Aides Praise Camp,” May 14, 1933, p. 29. 

_____. “Bonus Camp Viewed by Mrs. Roosevelt,” May 17, 1933, p. 10. 

_____. “Bonus March Leaders Deny Split in Ranks,” May 12, 1934, p. 1, 

_____. “Bonus Colony Increased 100; Split Denied,” May 13, 1934, p. 1 (2nd section). 

Nugent, Nell Marion (ed.). Cavaliers and Pioneers: Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents 

and Grants, Vol. 1: 1623-1666. Virginia State Library and Archives, Richmond, 

Virginia, 1992. 

Nugent, Nell Marion (ed.). Cavaliers and Pioneers: Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents 

and Grants, vol. II (1666-1695). Virginia State Library, Richmond, 1977. 

Paige, John C. The Civilian Conservation Corps and the National Park Service, 1933-

1942: An Administrative History. National Park Service, Department of the 

Interior, Washington, D.C., 1985. 

Pharo, Eugene. “George Keenly Interested in CCC Cuisine,” The Washington Post, June 

10, 1939, p. 5. 
129

Potter, Stephen R. Commoners, Tribute, and Chiefs: The Development of Algonquian 

Culture in the Potomac Valley. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, 

Virginia, 1993. 

Prussing, Eugene E. The Estate of George Washington, Deceased. Little, Brown, and 

Co., Boston, 1927. 

Roosevelt, Eleanor. This I Remember. Harper & Brothers, New York, 1949. 

Salmond, John A. The Civilian Conservation Corps, 1933-1942: A New Deal Case 

Study. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina, 1967. 

Sculp, Neele. A Map of General Washington’s Farm of Mount Vernon from a Drawing 

Transmitted by the General. London, 1801. Library of Congress, G3882.M7 

1793.W34. 

Shoemaker, Lloyd. The Escape Factory: The Story of MIS-X, the Super-Secret U.S. 

Agency Behind World War II’s Greatest Escapes. St. Martin’s Press, New York, 

1990. 

Sifakis, Stewart. Who Was Who in the Civil War. Facts on File Publications, New York, 

1988. 

Sparacio, Ruth and Sam Sparacio. Deed and Will Abstracts of Stafford County, Virginia, 

1699-1709. Published by the authors, McLean, Virginia, 1987. 

_____. Order Book Abstracts of Stafford County, Virginia, 1692-93. Published by the 

authors, McLean, Virginia, 1988.

_____. Deed and Will Abstracts of Stafford County, Virginia, 1689-93. Published by the 

authors, McLean, Virginia, 1989. 

Sprouse, Edith M. (ed.). Fairfax County in 1860: A Collective Biography. 6 vols. 

Published by the author, 1996. 

Stephenson, Richard W. (ed.). The Cartography of Northern Virginia. History and 

Archaeology Section, Office of Comprehensive Planning, Fairfax County, 

Virginia, 1981. 

United States, The Statutes at Large of the United States of America, from December, 

1889, to March, 1891, and Recent Treaties, Conventions, and Executive 

Proclamations, vol. XXVI. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 

1891. 
130

_____. The Statutes at Large of the United States of America, from December, 1927, to 

March, 1929, vol. XLV, part 1. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 

1929. 

_____. The Statutes at Large of the United States of America, from December, 1929, to 

March, 1931, vol. XLVI, part 1. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 

1931. 

_____. Order of Battle of the United States Land Forces in the World War (1917-19), 

Zone of the Interior. Vol. 3 (parts 1-2). United States Government Printing 

Office, Washington, D.C., 1949. 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

1953 Report to the Governor and the General Assembly of Virginia in Compliance with 

House Joint Resolution No. 78. Department of Conservation and Development, 

House Document No. 25, Division of Purchase and Printing, Richmond, Virginia. 

Virta, Matthew. Management Report: Archaeological Test Excavations in Advance of 

the New Sewer Line Connection at Fort Hunt Park, George Washington 

Memorial Parkway, Denver Service Center-Eastern Applied Archaeology Center, 

National Park Service, 1992. 

War Department, Engineer Bureau. 

Extract of Military Map of Northeast Virginia Showing Forts and Roads, 1865. 

Fairfax County Regional Library, Fairfax, Virginia. 

The Washington Post. “Eden, at Washington’s Tomb, Finds Peace After Busy Day,” 

Wednesday, December 14, 1938. 

_____. “George Keenly Interested in CCC Cuisine.” Saturday, June 10, 1939. 

Wayland, John W. The Washingtons and Their Homes. McClure Printing Company, 

Staunton, Virginia, 1944. 

Winslow, Colonel Eben Eveleth. Notes on Seacoast Fortification Construction. United 

States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1920. 
APPENDICES 
132

APPENDIX A 

EARLY LAND PATENTS, LEASES, AND WILLS 1653 - 1768 

Original Land Patents of Giles Brent (Source: Nugent, Cavaliers and Pioneers, 279, 

315, 398). 

MR. GILES BRENT, Junr., 800 acs. being on the S. side of Potomeck Riv. opposite 

against the Indian Town of Puscattaway. 11 Sept. 1653. Trans of 16 pers. 

MR. GILES BRENT, son of Capt. Giles Brent, 1,000 acres Westmoreland Co., 6 Sept. 

1654. On S. side of Petomeck River, in the freshes, beg. at the Ricohockian Stand & 

N.E. near the mouth of Hunting Creek. Trans. of 20 pers: Capt. Robert Felgate, his son 

Erasmus twice, his wife Sibilla, 3 Negroes: Tony, Bass & Maria; Thomas Hall, Willm. 

Burford, Richard Wells, Henry Morgan, Fra. Sharpe, Grace Head, Mary Hayes Wm. 

Hillard, Thomas Bassett, Robert Tyler, Edward Fenner, Mary Peay, Fra. Hansworth. 

GYLES BRENT, Jr., son of Gyles Brent, Esqr., 1800 acs. Westmoreland Co., 3 Nov. 

1662. 1000 acs. beg. at the Richahockian stands, extending to near the mouth of Hunting 

Cr. & E.S.E. along Petomake Riv. 800 acs. on S. side sd. river opposite against the 

Indian Towne of Pascataway. Renewal of patents dated 6 Sept. 1654 & 11 Sept. 1653. 

William Clifton’s Leases to John Sheridine and Jane Hester, 14 August 1741

(Source: Prince William County Deed Book E: 419-23). 

This indenture made the fourteenth day of August in the year of our Lord one thousand 

seven hundred forty & one between William Clifton of the County of Prince William of 

one part & John Sheridon of the aforesaid county Planter of other part witnesseth that 

said William Clifton for the rents & covenants hereafter expressed hath granted to farm 

let unto the said John Sheridon a tract of land by estimation two hundred acres in the 

aforesaid county being the land where he the said John Sheridon now lives on & bounded 

beginning at the river side on the upper side of a Branch between the said John Sheridon 

and Jane Hester & running north to four Spanish oaks corner trees thence south east to 

the River on the lower side of a mirey branch near Timber Landing thence with the river 

to the first beginning of him the said John Sheridon John his son & Edward his son 

during the natural life of him the said John Sheridon John his son & Edward his son 

during which time if may be lawful for him to possess the said land he the said John 

Sheridon paying unto said William Clifton his heirs or assignees the annual rent of seven 

hundred & thirty pounds of tobacco qualified according to law to be paid yearly by the 

twenty fifth day of December & the said John Sheridon doth agree not to sell or dispose 

of any timber nor have a subtenant on the same during the lease neither shall he sell his 

lease without the consent of the said William Clifton & at decease of the said three lives 

shall yield up into the hands of said William Clifton provided always if the rent not be 

paid in twenty days space next after the same shall become due the said William Clifton 

to possess the said premises & the said William Clifton agree it may be lawful for the 

said John Sheridon to use any timber they can find on any of the land unleased belonging 
133

to the said William Clifton the land hereafter only excepted all the land lying between the 

said William Clifton & a north course from four Spanish oaks corner trees of said John 

Sheridon’s land to two Spanish oak saplings corner trees by the side of a branch that 

William Williams is bounded on finally said John Sheridon doth oblige himself to plant 

out one hundred apple trees cious on the said plantation & keep the same under good 

fence. In witness thereof the parties have set their hands & seals in presence of Robert 

Whitely, John Westbrooke, Gilbert Stimpson, William Clifton. 

At a court held for Prince William County the 24th day of August 1741 William Clifton 

acknowledged this lease to John Sheridon to be his act and deed & it was thereupon 

admitted to record. 

This indenture made the fourteenth day of August in the year of our Lord one thousand 

seven hundred forty & one between William Clifton of the County of Prince William 

gent of one part & Jane Hester of the aforesaid county of the other part witnesseth that 

said William Clifton for the rents & covenants herein after expressed hath demised to 

farm let unto the said Jane Hester a certain tract of land by estimation two hundred acres 

in the aforesaid county being the land where the said Jane Hester now lives on & 

bounded beginning at a white oak on the Potomac River side running thence up a valley 

north by east to a bounded red oak & two hickories thence east to a bounded red oak 

standing by a red oak & white oak sapling thence south to the river side on the lower side 

of a branch thence down the river to the beginning tree with the rights & appurtenances 

belonging to have and to hold the said land & premises to her the said Jane Hester her 

heirs and administrators during the natural life of the said Jane Hester John her son & 

Gustavus her son during which time it may be lawful for her the said Jane Hester to 

possess the said land paying therefore unto the said William Clifton his heirs or assigns 

the annual rent of eight hundred and thirty pounds of tobacco qualified according to law 

to be paid yearly by the twenty fifth day of December & the said Jane Hester doth agree 

not to sell or dispose of her lease to any without the consent of the said William Clifton & 

at the decease of the said lives shall yield up into the hands of said William Clifton 

provided always if it shall so happen the said rent be not paid twenty days space next 

after the same shall become due that it may be lawful for the said William Clifton into the 

messuage to enter & the goods there found bear away & keep until said rent is fully paid 

& the said William Clifton doth agree that it shall be lawful for the said Jane Hester to 

make use of any timber they can find on any of the land unleased belonging to the said 

William Clifton for the support of the plantation she lives on provided it not be found on 

her own part the land hereafter only excepted all land lying between said William Clifton 

& a north course running from four Spanish oaks corner trees of John Sheridine’s land to 

a red oak & two Spanish oak saplings corner trees by the side of a branch that William 

Williams is bounded on finally said Jane Hester doth oblige her self in three years space 

after this present date to plant out one hundred apple trees cious on the said plantation & 

the same to keep under good fence & if any dies to plant one in its stead. In witness 

whereof the parties have set their hands & seals in presence of Robert Whitely, John 

Westbrook, Gilbert Simpson, William Clifton. 
134

At a court held for Prince William County the 24th day of August 1741 William Clifton 

acknowledged this lease to Jane Hester to be his act & deed & it was admitted to record. 

Will of John Sheridine, 6 September 1767 

(Source: Fairfax County Will Book C-1: 29). 

In the name of God, amen. I John Sheridon of Fairfax County being weak in body, but in 

perfect senses and memory do constitute & appoint this to be my last will and testament 

revoking and disannulling all other wills that shall by me be made if any such can be 

found. 

Imprimis I give my soul to God who first gave it hoping for a joyful resurrection through 

the merits of Jesus Christ & my body to the earth to be decently interred at the discretion 

of my executors. Item. I give & bequeath to my loving wife Barberry Sheridon all my 

estate real and personal to her & her heirs forever except my wearing clothes, saddle & 

bridle which I give & bequeath to my loving father John Sheridon. In witness whereof I 

have hereunto set my hand & seal this sixth day of September 1767. 

 John Sheridin (Seal) 

Witnesses, 

Samuel Johnston, Samuel Fielder 

At a court held for the County of Fairfax 16 May 1768. This will was presented in Court 

by Barbara Sheridon who made oath thereto & the same being proved by the oaths of the 

Witnesses is committed to record & the said Barbara having performed what the laws 

required certificate is granted her for obtaining letters of administration with the will 

annexed on our form. 

Appraisal of John Sheridine’s Estate, 17 August 1768 

(Source: Fairfax County Will Book C-1: 40). 

Pursuant to an order of Fairfax Court dated the 18th of May 1768 we the subscribers 

being first sworn did meet and appraise all the estate of John Sheridine deceased that was 

brought to our view, Vizt. 

To 1 Negro man £50, 1 ditto £35, 1 Negro girl £35 £120.0.0 

To 2 sows & pigs # 15/, 30 stoats # 5/ 9.0.0 

To 14 old hogs @ 10/, a young horse £10 17.0.0 

To 1 old mare 60/, 1 young horse colt £5 8.0.0 

To 11 old sheep @8/, 1 lamb 6/ 4.14.0 

To 1 young steer 30/, 3 yearlings @15/ 6.0.0 

To 1 Bull 30/, 2 young steers @ 30/, 2 yearlings @ 15/ 6.0.0 

To 1 bed & furniture £7.10.0, 1 ditto £6.0.0 13.10.0 
135

To 1 old bed 26/, 6 new chairs @2/6, 1 linen wheel 10/ 2.11.0 

To 1 wooling wheel 6/, 1 oval table 25/, 1 ditto 12/6 1.13.6 

To 2 old chests @ 15/, 1 old gun 15/, a parcel of earthen ware & some 

glasses @18/4 2.8.4 

To 10 lbs. yarn @ 2/, 52 lbs. spun cotton @4/, 4 lbs. picked cotton 8/ 2.11.0 

To 12 dozen pewter plates @ 1/, 2 dozen pewter spoons 1/6 0.19.6 

To 1 desk £4.0.0 4.0.0 

To 3 pewter dishes, 3 basins & some old spoons 0.10.0 

To a parcel of table knives & forks 7/6, some tin 1/3 0.8.9 

To 1 man’s saddle 20/, 3 pair yarn stockings @ 5/ 1.15.0 

To some wearing apparel 3.10.0 

To 32 yards broad cloth and trimming 4.10.0 

To 3 3 yards fine linen @ 4/6, 12 yards ditto @ 2/, 3 yards check @1/6 2.3.12

To 15 yards ? @ 1/ 0.15.0 

To cash 12.18.113

To 3 razors & a pair of horse phleames (?) 20d, some books 6/ 0.7.8 

To 1 old ? 60/, 1 old plow, some hoes, axes, etc. 20/. 4.0.0 

To 38 lbs. wool in the dirt @ 1/, 42 lbs. ditto washed @ 1/6. 2.4.9 

To a parcel of old lumber, pots, pans, etc. 1.6.0 

To some old tubs 12/, 1 small gilt trunk & box 3/6. 0.15.6 

To 1 looking glass 5/, 1 cloth brush 1/, some table linen 10/. 0.16.0 

To 1 grid iron 1/, some new nails 25/. 1.6.0 

To 1 old chest 2/6, some tanned leather 20/, 1 copper kettle 2/6 1.5.0 

To 1 raw hide 5/, fish barrel 2/6, candle stick 15 d 0.8.9 

To one orphan boy 10.0.0 

To one new mill bag 3/, 1 old ditto 1/6 0.4.6 

To tobacco 1,812 lbs £241.7.3 

 

Sampson Darrell, Thomas Triplett, Samuel Johnston 

At a court contained and held for the county of Fairfax 17th August 1768. This 

inventory was returned and ordered to be recorded. 
136

APPENDIX B 

FAIRFAX COUNTY TITHABLES FOR THE RIVER FARM, 1761 - 1774 

Tithes were taxes collected to support the Anglican parish vestry in Virginia until the 

American Revolution. Generally paid in tobacco, the tax was levied on all black and 

white men over 16 years of age, and later on black women as well. The lists were 

collected and compiled by a county justice in June, then submitted to the county court at 

its next session. (Source: Abbott (ed.), Papers of George Washington, Colonial Series, v. 

7: 45, 68, 139, 313, 342, 377, 443, 516; v. 8: 238-39; v. 9: 55; v. 10: 137). 

1761

Samuel Johnston, Jr., overseer. 

Tom, Neptune, George, Betty, Cloe, Doll (6). 

1762

Samuel Johnston, Jr., overseer. 

Tom, Ben, George, Robin, Nat, Peg, Murria, Cloe, Flora, Doll (10). 

1764

John Chewning, overseer. 

Tom, Ben, Nat, George, Robin, Ruth, Peg, Murria, Flora, Doll (10). 

1765

James Cleveland, overseer. 

Tom, Nat, Ben, Cupid, Will, George, Schomberg, Ruth, Peg, Murria, Doll, Cloe, Nan, 

Daphne (14). 

1766

James Cleveland, overseer. 

Frederick, Ben, Cupid, Nat, Will, Neptune, Abram, Walley, Schomberg, Ruth, Peg, 

Murria, Doll, Cloe, Nan, Daphne, Judy, Molly, Jenny (19). 

1767

James Cleveland, overseer. 

Frederick, Ben, Nat, Will, Neptune, Abram, Walley, Schomberg, Ruth, Peg, Muria, Doll, 

Cloe, Nan, Daphne, Judy, Milly (17). 

1772

James Cleveland, overseer. 

Frederick, Essex, Ben, Nat, Will, Neptune, Abram, George, Schomberg, Dick, Ruth, Peg, 

Murria, Doll, Daphne, Cloe, Nan, Judah, Milly (19). 
137

1773

Alexander Cleveland, overseer. 

Frederick, Essex, Ben, Nat, Will, Neptune, Abram, George, Schomberg, Dick, Robin, 

Arlington, Ned, George, Ruth, Peg, Murria, Doll, Daphne, Cloe, Nan, Judy, Milly, Frank, 

Judy, Sue, Kitt, Hannah, Nell (29). 

1774 

Alexander Cleveland and James Oram, overseers. 

Frederick, Essex, Ben, Nat, Will, Neptune, Abram, George, Schomberg, Robin, George, 

Arlington, Ned, Harry, Bath, Scipio, Stafford, Ruth, Peg, Murria, Doll, Daphne, Cloe, 

Nan, Suckey, Judy, Milly, Frank, Judy, Sue, Nell, Kitt, Hannah (33). 
138

APPENDIX C 

SLAVES AT RIVER FARM, FEBRUARY 1786 

In this list found in his diary, Washington divides his 52 River Farm slaves by sex and 

age. Names marked with an asterisk (*) denote “dower negroes,” or slaves he inherited 

through his wife, Martha (Source: Jackson (ed.), Diaries of George Washington, v. 4: 

279). 

*Davy, overseer 

*Molly, overseer’s wife 

Laboring Men: *Breechy, Nat, Ned, Essex, Bath, *Johny, Adam (dead), *Will, Robin, 

*Ben (10). 

Laboring Women: Ruth, *Dolly, Peg, Daphne, Murra, *Agnus, Suck, Sucky, Judy-M, 

Judy-F, *Hannah, *Cornelia, *Lidia, *Esther, Cloe, *Fanny, *Alice (17). 

Children (name, mother, age): 

Will, Mill Judy’s, 13 

*Joe, Hannah’s, 12 

Ben, Peg’s, 10 

Penny, Peg’s, 8 

Joe, Daphne’s, 8 

Moses, Daphne’s, 6 

Lucy, Daphne’s 4 

Daphne, Daphne’s, 1 

*Ned, Lidia’s, 7 

*Peter, Lidia’s, 5 

*Phoebe, Lidia’s, 3 

Cynthia, Suckey’s, 6 

Daniel, Suckey’s, 4 

James, Ferry Doll’s, 8 

Bett, Neck Doll’s, 7 

Natt, Neck Doll’s, 4 

Dolly, Neck, Doll’s, 3 

Jack, Neck Doll’s, 1 

Rose, Suck-Bass, 12 

Milly, House Sall’s, 7 

Billy, House Charlotte’s, 4 

Hukey, Agnus’s, 1 

Ambrose, Cornelia’s, 1 month. 
139

APPENDIX D 

SLAVES AT RIVER FARM, JUNE 1799 

Taken just before Washington died, this is the most detailed enumeration of the slaves 

who lived and worked on the River Farm (Source: Fitzpatrick (ed.), Writings of George 

Washington, v. 37: 262-63). 

Name Age Remarks 

George Washington’s slaves 

Robin 80 nearly past labor 

Nald 55 wife Doll (River Farm), dower 

Ned 56 wife Hannah (River Farm), dower 

Ben Carter 22 

Peg 56 husband Old Ben (River Farm), dower 

Judy 55 husband Gunna 

Cloe 55 no husband 

Suckey 50 no husband 

Suckey Bay 46 husband belongs to Adans 

Sall 30 husband Postn. Joe, dower 

Rose 28 no husband 

Penny 20 husband Ben Hubd. 

Lucy 18 husband Cyrus Postn., dower 

Hannah 12 daughter to Daphne, dead 

Daniel 15 son to Suckey, River Farm 

Henry 11 son to Sall, River Farm 

Nancy 11 daughter to Bay Suke, River Farm 

Elijah 7 son to Sall, River Farm 

Dennis 5 son to Sall, River Farm 

Gutridge 3 son to Sall, River Farm 

Polly 1 daughter to Sall, River Farm 

Hagar 6 daughter to Rose, River Farm 

Simon 4 son to Rose, River Farm 

Tom 2 son to Rose, River Farm 

Joe 1 son to Rose, River Farm 

Nancy 4 daughter to Bay Suke, River Farm 

Ruth (past labor) 70 husband Breechy, dower 
140

Name Age Remarks 

Dower slaves 

Ben 70 nearly done, Peg for wife 

Breechy 60 not better, Ruth his wife 

Johny 39 wife Esther, River Farm, dower 

Richmond 20 no wife 

Ned 20 

Henky 17 son to Agnes, River Farm 

Jack 22 son to Agnes, River Farm 

Esther 40 husband John, River Farm 

Doll 58 husband Natt, River Farm, 

Lydia 50 husband Smith George 

Agnes 36 husband Sambo Carr 

Alce 26 husband Lear’s John 

Fanny 30 husband Alexanders 

Betty 20 husband Lear’s Reuben 

Doll 16 no husband, daughter to Doll 

Cecelia 14 no husband, daughter to Agnes 

Jack 12 son to Doll 

Anderson 11 son to Agnes 

Lydia 11 daughter to Lydia 

Ralph 9 son to Sall, River Farm 

Charity 2 daughter to Sall, River Farm 

Charles 1 son to Sall, River Farm 

Davy 6 Cornelia’s child, deceased, dower 

Lewis 4 Cornelia’s child, deceased, dower 

Alce 2 Cornelia’s child, deceased, dower 

Suckey 4 daughter to Alce, River Farm 

Jude 1 daughter to Alce, River Farm 

Milley 1 daughter to Betty, River Farm 

Peter 9 son to Doll 

Hannah old Cooks, husband Ned, River Farm 

George Washington’s slaves 

workers 17 

children: 9 

past labor: 1 

together 27 

Altogether, at this Farm: 57. 

Dower slaves 

workers: 19 

children: 10 

cook: 1 

making 30 
141

APPENDIX E 

WASHINGTON’S INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE RIVER FARM, 1799 

 Shortly before his death in 1799, George Washington produced the 

following detailed plan of operations for the River Farm through the year 

1803 and beyond. This document provides significant insight into how 

River Farm was used during his lifetime, and how Washington envisioned 

its future (Source: Fitzpatrick (ed.), Writings of Washington, 37: 463-472). 

RIVER FARM 

CROPS FOR, AND OPERATIONS THEREON, FOR THE YEAR 1800 

Mount Vernon, December 10, 1799 

Field No 1. Is now partly in Wheat. Part thereof is to be sown with Oats. Another part 

may be sown with Pease, broadcast. Part is in meadow, and will remain so. And the 

most broken, washed, and indifferent part, is to remain uncultivated; but to be harrowed 

and smoothed in the Spring, and the worst parts thereof (if practicable) to be covered with 

litter, straw, weeds, or kind of vegitable Rubbish to prevent them from running into 

gullies. 

No 2. One fourth is to be in Corn, and to be sown with wheat; another fourth in 

Buckwheat and Pease, half of it in the one, and half of it in the other, sown in April; to 

be ploughed in as a green dressing; and by actual experiment, to ascertain which is best. 

The whole of this fourth is to be sown with Wheat also; another fourth part is to be naked 

fallow for wheat; and the other, and last quarter, to be appropriated for Pumpkins, 

Simlins, Turnips, Yateman Pease (in hills), and such other things of this kind as may be 

required; and to be sown likewise with Rye after they are taken off, for seed. 

No 3 Is now in Wheat, to be harvested in the year 1800; the stubble of which, 

immediately after Harvest, is to be plowed in and sown thin with Rye; and such parts 

thereof as are low, or produces a luxurient growth of grain, is to have grass-seeds 

sprinkled over it. The whole for Sheep to run on, in the day, (but housed at night) during 

the winter and spring months. If it should be found expedient, part thereof in the spring 

might be reserved, for the purpose of Seed. 

No 4 Will be in Corn, and is to be sown in the autumn of that year with wheat, to be 

harvested in 1801, and to be treated in all respects as has been directed for No. 3, the 

preceeding year. It is to be manured as much as the means will permit, with such aids as 

can be procured during the present Winter, and ensuing Spring. 

Nos. 5,6,7 and 8. Are to remain as they are, but nothing suffered to run upon them; as 

ground will be allotted for the sole purpose of Pasturage, and invariably used as much. 
142

Clover-Lots 

No. 1 Counting from the Spring branch, is to be planted in Potatoes. 

No 2 That part thereof which is now in Turnips, is to be sown with Oats and clover; the 

other part, being now in Clover, is to remain so until it comes into Potatoes, by rotation. 

No 3 Is also in Clover at present, and is to remain so, as just mentioned, for No. 3. 

No 4 Is partly in Clover, and partly in Timothy, and so to be, until its turn for Potatoes. 

The rotation for these Lots 

Invariable is to be, 1st. Potatoes, highly manured; 2d. Oats, and clover sown therewith; 

3d. Clover; 4th. Clover. Then to begin again with Potatoes, and proceed as before. The 

present Clover lots must be Plastered. 

All green Sward, rough ground, or that wch. is heavily covered with weeds, bottle brush 

grass, and such things as by being turned in will ferment, putrify, and ameliorate the Soil, 

should be plowed in, in Autumn, and at such times in Winter, as can be done while the 

ground is dry, and in condition for it. 

Pasture-Grounds 

The large lot adjoining the Negro houses and Orchd, is to have Oats sown on the Potatoe 

and Pumpkin ground; with which, and on the Rye also, in that lot and on the Mellon part, 

orchard-grass seeds are to be sown; and thereafter to be kept as a standing Calf pasture; 

and for Ewes (which may require extra: care) at yeaning, or after they have yeaned. 

The other large lot, NorthEast of the Barn lane, is to be appropriated, always, as a Pasture 

for the Milch Cows; and probably working Oxen, during the Summer Season. 

The Woodland, and the old field, commonly called Johnstons, are designed for Common

Pasture, and to be so applied, always. To which, if it should be found inadequate to the 

stock of the Farm, Field No. 8, and the Woodland therein, may be added. 

Meadows 

Those already established, and in train, must continue; and the next to be added to them, 

is the Arm of the Creek which runs up to the Spring house, and forks; both prongs of 

which must be grubbed, and wrought upon at every convenient moment when the 

weather will permit, down to the line of the Ditch which encloses the lots for clover &ca. 

And as the fields come into cultivation, or as labour can be spared from other work, and 

circumstances, will permit, the heads of all the Inlets in them must be reclaimed, and laid 

to grass, whether they be large, or small; forasmuch as nothing will run on, or can 

trespass upon, or injure the grass; no fencing being reqd. 

Mud for Compost 

The season is now too far advanced, and too cold to be engaged in a work that will 

expose the hands to wet: but, it is of such essential importance that it should be set about 

seriously, and with spirit next year, for the Summers Sun and Winters frost to prepare it 

for the Corn, and other crops of 1801, that all the hands of the farm, not indispensably 

engaged in the Crops, should, so soon as Corn planting is compleated in the spring, be 

uninterruptedly employed in raising Mud from the Pocosons, and even from the bed of 
143

the Creek, into the Scow: And the Carts, so soon as the Manure for the Corn and the 

Potatoes in 1800 is carried out is to be incessantly drawing it to compost heaps in the 

field, which are to be manured by it. What numbers of hands can be set apart for this all 

important work, remains to be considered, and decided upon. 

Penning Cattle, and folding Sheep 

On the fields intended for Wheat, from the first of May, when the former should be 

turned out to Pasture, until the first of November, when they ought to be Housed, must be 

practiced invariably: and to do it with regularity and propriety, the Pen for the first, and 

the fold for the latter, should be proportioned to the number of each kind of Stock; and 

both these to as much ground as they will manure sufficiently, in the space of a Week, for 

Wheat; beyond which they are not to remain in a place, except on the poorest spots; and 

even these had better be aided by litter or something else than to depart from an 

established rule, of removing the Pens on a certain day in every week: For in this, as in 

everything else, system is essential to carry on business well, and with ease. 

Feeding 

The Work horses and Mules are always to be in their Stalls, and well littered and cleaned 

when they are out of Harness; and they are to plenteously fed with cut straw, and as much 

chopped Grain, Meal, or Bran with a little salt mixed therewith, as will keep them always

in good condition for work; seeing also that they are watered, as regularly as they are fed. 

this is their winter feed: for spring, Summer, and autumn, it is expected that Soiling of 

them on green food, first with Rye, then with Lucern, and next with Clover, with very 

little grain, will enable them to perform their Work. 

The Oxen, and other horned Cattle, are to be housed from the first of November, until the 

first of May; and to be fed as well as the means on the Farm will admit. The first (Oxen) 

must always be kept in good condition. Housed in the Stalls designed for them; and the 

Cows (so many of them as can find places) on the opposite side. The rest, with other 

Cattle, must be in the newly erected Sheds; and the whole carefully Watered every day. 

The Ice, in frozen weather, being broken, so as to admit them to clean Water. 

With respect to the Sheep, they must receive the best protection that can be given them 

this Winter; against the next, I hope they will be better provided for. 

And with regard to the Hogs, the plan must be, to raise a given number of good ones, 

instead of an indiscriminate number of indifferent ones, half of which die, or are stolen 

before the period arrives for putting them up as porkers. To accomplish this, a sufficient 

number of the best Sows should be appropriated to the purpose; and so many pigs raised 

from them as will ensure the quantity of Pork the Farm ought to furnish. Whether it will 

be most advisable to restrain these hogs from running at large, or not, can be decided with 

more precision after the result of those now in close pens are better known. The exact 

quantity of Corn used by those which are now in Pens should be ascertained, and 

regularly reported, in order to learn the result. 

Stables and Farm Pens 

These ought to be kept well littered, and the Stalls clean; as well for the comfort of the 

Creatures that are contained in them; as for the purpose of manure; but as straw canot be 

afforded for this purpose, Leaves, and such spoiled Straw or weeds as will not do for 
144

food, must serve for the Stables; and the first, that is leaves, and Corn Stalks, is all that 

can be applied to the Pens. To do this work effectually, let the Cornstalks be cut down 

by a few careful people with sharp hoes, so low as never to be in the way of Scythes at 

harvest; and whenever the Wheat will admit Carts to run on it without injury, to bring 

them off, and stack them near the Farm Pens. In like manner let the People, with their 

blankets, go every evening, or as often as occasion may require, to the nearest wood and 

fill them with leaves for the purposes above mentioned; bottoming the beds with Corn 

Stalks, and covering them thick with leaves. A measure of this sort will be, if strictly 

attended to, and punctually performed, of great utility in every point of view. It will save 

food, Make the Cattle lay warm and comfortable, and produce much manure. The Hogs 

also in pens must be well bedded in leaves. 

Fencing 

As stock of no kind, according to this plan, will be suffered to run on the arable fields, or 

Clover lots (except Sheep, in the day, on the Rye field as has been mentioned before) 

partition fences between the fields until they can be raised of Quicks, must be dispens’d 

with. But it is of great importance that all the exterior of outer fences, should be 

substantially good; and those wch. divide the Common, or Woodland Pasture, from the 

fields and Clover Lots are to be very respectable. 

To accomplish this desirable object in as short of time as possible, and the with smallest 

expence of timber, the Post and Rail fence which runs from the Negro quarters or rather 

from the corner of the lot enclosing them up to the division between fields No 7 and No 8 

may be placed on the Bank (which must be raised higher) that runs from thence (where it 

was burnt) to the Creek. In like manner, the fence from the gate which opens into No 2, 

quite down to the River, along the Cedar hedge row, as also those Rails which are 

between No 1 and 2 and between No 2 and 3 may all be taken away and applied to the 

outer fences, and the fences of the lanes from the Barn into the Woodland Pasture, and 

from the former (the Barn) into No 5; for the fences of all these lanes must be good, as 

the Stock must have a free and uninterrupted passage along them, at all times, from the 

Barn yard to the Woodland Pasture 

One of the gates near the Fodder house, may be moved up to the range of the lane, by the 

gate, near that which leads into field No 2; and the other may be placed at the other end 

of the lane, by the Negro quarters: and so long as Mr. Mason’s old field remains 

uninclosed the outer gate into Field No 8 wd. stand better in the Fence which runs from 

the division between fields No 7 and 8 to the Creek than where it now is. 

All the feng. from the last mentioned place (between me and Mr. Mason ) until it joins 

Mr. Lears Farm, and thence with the line between him and me, until it comes to the 

River, will require to be substantially good; at its termination on the River, dependance 

must be placed in a Water fence; for, if made of common Rails , they would be carried 

off by boatmen for fire Wood. The fences seperating fields No 1 and No. 8 from the 

Woodland pasture must also be made good, to prevent depredations on the fields by my 

own stock. 
145

CROPS, &CA FOR 1801 

No 5 Is to be in Corn, and to be invariable in that article. It is to be planted (if drills are 

thought to be ineligable until the ground is much improved) in Rows 6 feet by 4, or 7 by 

3 1⁄2; the wide part open to the South. These hills are to be manured as highly as the 

means will admit; and the Corn planted every year in the middle of the Rows of the 

preceeding year; by doing which, and mixing the Manure and Earth by the Plow and 

other workings, the whole, in time, will be enrichned. 

The washed and gullied parts of this field should be levelled, and as much improved as 

possible, or left uncultivated. Although it is more broken than some of the other fields, it 

has its advantages. 1st. it has several Inlets extending into it with easy assents therefrom; 

2d. it is convenient to the mud in the bed of the Creek whensoever (by means of the 

Scow) resort is had thereto, and good landing places; and thirdly it is as near to the Barn 

as any other (when a bridge and causeway is made over the Spring branch). To these 

may be added, that it is more remote from Squirrels than any other. 

No 6 and 7 Or such part thereof as is not so much washed and gullied as to render 

plowing ineligable, are to be fallowed for Wheat. One of which, if both cannot, is to have 

the stubble plowed in and sown with Rye; and then the low, and strong parts to have 

Timothy or Orchard grass-seeds, perhaps both, in different places, sprinkled over them 

for the purpose of raising Seed. On the Rye pasture the Sheep are to be fed in winter and 

Spring, and treated in all respects as directed in the case of No. 3 in 1800 

IN THE YEARS 1802, 1803, AND SO ON 

The Corn ground, remaining the same, two fields in following numbers, will be fallowed 

for Wheat; and treated in all respects, as mentioned above. And if Pumpkins, Simlins, 

Turnips, Pease, and such like growths are found beneficial to the land, or useful and 

profitable for Stock, ground may readily be found for them. 

These are the great outlines of a Plan, and the operations of it, for the next year, and for 

years to come, for River Farm. The necessary arrangements, and all the preparatory 

measures for carrying it into effect, ought to be adopted without delay, and invariably 

pursued. Smaller matters may, and undoubtedly will, occur occasionally; but none, it is 

presumed, that can militate against it materially. To carry it into effect advantageously, it 

becomes the indispensable duty of him who is employed to overlook and conduct the 

operations, to take a prospective, and comprehensive view of the whole business which is 

laid before him, that the several parts thereof may be so ordered and arranged, as that one 

sort of work may follow another sort of in proper Succession, and without loss of labour, 

or of time; for nothing is a greater waste of the latter, and consequently of the former 

(time producing labour and labour money) than shifting from one thing to another before 

it is finished; as if chance, or the impulse of the moment, not judgmt. and foresight, 

directed the measure. It will be acknowledged that weather, and other circumstances 

may, at times,, interrupt a regular course of proceedings; but if a plan is well digested 

beforehand, they cannot interfere long, with a man who is acquainted with the nature of 

the business, and the Crops he is to attend to. 

Every attentive, and discerning person, who has the whole business of the year laid before 

him, and is acquainted with the nature of the work, can be at no loss to lay it out to 

advantage. He will know that there are many things wch. can be accomplished in winter 
146

as well as in summer; others, that Spring, Summer and Autumn only are fit for. In a 

word, to use the Wiseman’s saying “that there is a time, and a season for all things” and 

that, unless they are embraced, nothing will thrive; or go on smoothly, There are many 

sorts of Indoors work which can be executed in Hail, rain, or Snow, as well as in 

sunshine; and if they are set about in fair weather (unless there be a necessity for it) there 

will be nothing to do in foul weather; the people therefore must be idle. The man of 

prudence and foresight, will always keep these things in view, and order his work 

accordingly; so as to suffer no waste of time, or idleness. The same observations apply 

with equal force to frozen ground; and grounds too wet to work in; or if worked, will be 

injured thereby. 

These observations might be spun to a greater length, but they are sufficient to produce 

reflexion, and reflexion with Industry, and proper attention, will produce the end that is to 

be wished. 

There is one thing however I cannot forbear to add, and in strong terms; it is, that 

whenever I order a thing to be done, it must be done; or a reason given at that time, or as 

soon as the impracticality is discovered, why it cannot; which will produce a 

countermand, or change. But it is not for the person receiving the order, to suspend or 

dispense with its execution; and after it has been supposed to have gone into effect, for 

me to be told that nothing has been done in it; that it will be done; or that it could not be 

done; either of these is unpleasant, and disagreeable to me, having been accustomed all 

my life to more regularity, and punctuality, and know that nothing but system and method 

is required to accomplish all reasonable requests.