8 CASTILLO DE SAN MaRCOs NATIONAL MONUMENT: HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY

while the French fleet was at sea eliminated most of the
settlers; the sailors later met their demise when their ships
wrecked, leaving them at the mercy of the Spanish. Most of
the men, including their leader Jean Ribault, were killed at the
direction of Menéndez. Within two months of landing in
Florida, Menéndez had reclaimed the vast territory comprising
most of North America for the Spanish king.*

THE FIRST CENTURY IN ST. AUGUSTINE

The Spanish settlers remained in Seloy’s village less than a year
due to growing discord between the natives and the
newcomers. The move out of the big house was the first of
several within a small area around Matanzas Bay that would
eventually lead them to the site of present-day St. Augustine.
During the first century of the Florida settlement, the Spanish
built nine different wooden forts for the defense of the colony.
Each of these had a short life span due to the ill effects of time,
weather, and insects on the structures. Enemy attacks destroyed the forts that were not
eliminated by natural forces.*

The likelihood of attack and the shortage of food and supplies most threatened the safety and
stability of the colony. Settlers made few attempts to farm the land around St. Augustine
because of poor soil conditions and the threat of Indian attack on those who ventured too far
from the settlement. Except for produce raised in small plots around the houses, all of the
colony's food, clothing, and other necessities came from Mexico and Habana, Cuba. Because
supply shipments were often detained in Mexico and occasionally lost at sea, the residents of St.
Augustine were often hungry and poorly clothed.®

The threat of enemy raids on the town was always present, both from neighboring Native
American tribes angered by Spanish activities and from other European nations covetous of
Spain's New World riches. The English in particular threatened Spanish control of the Florida
coast due to the success of privateers like Sir Francis Drake. In 1586, Drake led an expedition
against the Spanish at St. Augustine and took the city with relative ease, burning the wooden

Figure 2. Pedro Menéndez de Avilés

“Albert Manucy, Florida's Menéndez: Captain General of the Ocean Sea (St. Augustine: St. Augustine
Historical Society, 1965), 30-45.

5Chatelain, 41: Luis Arana and Albert Manucy, The Building of Castillo de San Marcos (Eastern National
Park and Monument Association, 1977), 10-11

°Chatelain, 9.



Tne UNITED STATES WAR DEPARTMENT AT FORT MARION, 1821-1933 29

declared the fort nonessential to the nation's defenses but worthy of maintenance until further
notice. The garrison stationed in St. Augustine made needed repairs to the fort and prepared
it for possible use as a prison. **

In the aftermath of the Civil War,
the attention of the federal
government shifted to the Great
Plains, where the march of American
settlers across the continent had
continued virtually —_— unabated
throughout the war. The search for
precious minerals and new
agricultural lands drew miners from
the west and farmers from the east
toward the center of the continent.
This new population of settlers not
: : only infringed upon Indian lands but

: : isin ___] also threatened resources upon

Figure 14. Fort Marion courtyard, ¢. 1870 which the natives relied. While some

tribes agreed to removal to new

reservations, many others resisted, remembering the broken promises of the 1830s that had

originally placed them on reservations. The Western Indian wars began in the early 1860s and
continued through the 1880s.**

In the course of the Indian campaigns, the army captured a number of rebellious natives for
whom accommodations removed from the scene of battle were needed. Army officials chose
Fort Marion, which had been used as a prison periodically from the time of the American
Revolution, to house some of the captives. Seventy-one members of the Cheyenne, Kiowa,
Comanche, Caddo, and Arapaho tribes arrived at the fort on May 21, 1875. Lt. Richard H.
Pratt, who escorted the Indians to Florida, directed the construction of a wooden shed on the
terreplein to house the prisoners.*°

Pratt attempted to educate and assimilate the Indians during the three years they were at
Fort Marion, teaching them vocational skills as well as arithmetic, history, and English. He also
encouraged them to make souvenirs to sell to tourists for spending money. When the prisoners
were released by the War Department in 1878 to return home, a group of young men went to
the Hampton Institute in Virginia to further their education and assimilation. Pratt's experience

“Bearss, 262
“Tindall and Shi, 478-82

‘Bearss, 275-80.


Tae UnrrED STATES WAR DEPARTMENT AT FORT MARION, 1821-1933 28

masonry walls, a crumbling water battery, and leaks in the terreplein were among the structural
problems identified by American engineers. These problems made the fort uninhabitable;
therefore, the St. Francis barracks, built during the British period to house soldiers, were
Tepaired to house the garrison, and Fort Marion was used to store supplies and provisions. The
War Department also permitted local authorities to use several casemates as a prison.”

THE SECOND SEMINOLE War, 1835-1842

The belief that American occupation of Florida would provide security against warring Indian
tribes helped garner public support for the acquisition of Florida in 1821. It was soon clear,
however, that fighting between the Seminoles and white settlers had continued unabated, and
the government was forced to intervene in order to protect American lives and property.
Negotiations in September 1823 resulted in the Treaty of Moultrie Creek, which established a
four-million-acre reservation in the center of the Florida peninsula for the Seminole tribes. The
treaty also required the government to provide money and supplies during the move and to
reimburse tribesmen for improvements on the land they were forced to abandon."

The move to the reservation progressed slowly, but most tribes had relocated by 1826.
Hunger soon forced the Indians off the reservation in search of food on neighboring farms;
white settlers responded by petitioning the federal government for removal of the tribes to the
West. In 1830 Congress passed the Indian Removal Act, which authorized the government to
trade land west of the Mississippi River for Native American lands in the east and to assist in
the removal of the tribes to their new homes. In the Treaty of Payne's Landing (1832) and the
Treaty of Fort Gibson (1833), Seminole leaders agreed to removal, but soon after they reneged
and declared both agreements invalid. Tensions mounted between the Indians and Americans,
reaching a climax in December 1835 with the murder of the federal Indian agent and several
others at Fort King and the ambush of an American detachment from Fort Brooke.”

The Second Seminole War raged for seven years throughout the peninsula and ultimately
resulted in the death or removal of virtually all Native Americans from Florida. St. Augustine
became an important base of operations for the United States Army during the early stages of
the war, and the population expanded with the influx of soldiers and refugees from neighboring
plantations. While no skirmishes occurred in the city, attacks in outlying areas kept citizens on

“Buker, 152: Edwin C. Bearss, “Castillo de San Marcos: The War Department Years, 1821-1933,” in
Historic Structure Report for Castillo de San Marcos National Mfonument, Edwin C. Bearss and John C. Paige
(Denver: National Park Service, 1983), 36-44

“'Buker, 161: John K. Mahon, History of the Second Seminole War, 1835-1842 (Gainesville, FL: University
of Florida Press, 1985), 29-50.

“Mahon, 51-61, 72-83, 101-6.



34 CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT: HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY r )

defense system. The reconstruction of the seawall by the Army was necessary to protect the
fort and the city from erosion and storms and to permit the construction of the water battery.
The water battery and hot shot furnace originated as a result of the Second Seminole War and
national attempts to prepare the coastline in the event of a naval attack. As such, they represent
the military thinking prevalent at the time of their construction. They complement the Castillo,
demonstrating the evolution of military engineering and technology.

Significance
Castillo de San Marcos and the moat, covered way, glacis, and ravelin are nationally significant
under National Register Criteria A and C. All of these structures were significant during the
Second Seminole War, when the fort served as a base of operations for the United States Army
against the Seminoles. The structures also played a minor role in the Civil War and the coastal
defense system developed by the Army Corps of Engineers during the nineteenth century.
During the twentieth century, the Castillo and its associated structures gained additional
significance as recipients of federal funding for their preservation. The structures were also
contributing factors to tourism development in Florida at the end of the nineteenth century.
The seawall, water battery and hot shot furnace also contribute to the significance of the
district under National Register Criteria A and C. The three structures were built in the mid-
nineteenth century in order to update the defenses of Castillo de San Marcos, then known as
Fort Marion. The reconstruction of the seawall by the Army Corps of Engineers was necessary @
to insure the safety of the town and fort from high waters and erosion. The construction of the
water battery and hot shot furnace was primarily a response to the Second Seminole War and
was also a part of the development of the nineteenth century coastal defense system. The
structures are significant examples of the military and engineering conventions of their day.

REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS/INTEGRITY
Castillo de San Marcos National Monument was listed on the National Register in 1966, and
documentation accepted in 1977 identified a district with three contributing historic structures,
including the Castillo and the water battery. Both the Castillo and the water battery have
retained integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
The moat, covered way, glacis, ravelin, seawall, and hot shot furnace were included in the
original nomination but not individually listed on the National Register. These are independent
structures worthy of listing as contributing resources, demonstrating integrity of location,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The covered way, glacis, ravelin,
seawall, and hot shot furnace also retain integrity of design. The moat was altered for
construction of the water battery, but the change in design did not significantly impact its
integrity



CASTILLO DE SAN Marcos NATIONAL MONUMENT: HisToRIC RESOURCE STUDY

)
\
ALABAMA GEORGIA !
. ee Nr. me ATG Sackzonville
Castillo de San Marcos “Than YS Castle de San Mi
National Monument Be i National Moanment
~ Beach
Location Maps FLORIDA)
‘Tampa \
Miami
FLORIDA oe
Location Map
es MILES
7 0 7 isd
“tp,
,
G St. Augustiog Inlet
 Wasec
2 % MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT
1G
WZ
Atlantic
Ocean
4S
Key:
ZZ SM. Augustine city limits
0 i 2 3 1
— mm MILES >
To Daytona Beach

Figure 1. Location of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument





A-2 CASTILLO DE SAN MARcos NATIONAL MONUMENT: HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY

concrete walls is earthen infill with a depth of forty-five feet. A dry moat exists along the north
face of the Cubo Line. (structure, IDLCS 90100)

Seawall, 1833-1842: Coquina structure faced with granite to the high water mark, the seawall
protects the fort from the waters of Matanzas Bay. The original Spanish seawall was
substantially reconstructed by the Army Corps of Engineers between 1833 and 1844.
(structure, IDLCS 91421)

Water battery, 1842: The earth and coquina structure comprises the east side of the Castillo
de San Marcos, between the curtain wall and the seawall. The water battery was built on top
of the east side of the moat by the Army Corps of Engineers between 1842 and 1844 to permit
placement of guns facing the harbor. (structure; IDLCS 07174)

Hot shot furnace, 1842: Stuccoed coquina furnace measuring nine feet long by eight feet wide
has a chimney eleven feet high on the south end, Small arched openings with lintels provide
access to the interior of the furnace on the south and north ends. The exterior of the structure
is marked with iron crossties on all sides. The hot shot furnace sits on top of the water battery
on the east side of the fort. (structure, IDLCS 91419)





USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form
Castillo de San Marcos National Monument
St. Johns County, FL Page 4

el

Criteria Considerations (Mark *X" in all the boxes that apply.)

—_A owned by a religious institution or used for religious purposes.
—sB removed from its original location.
—c a birthplace or a grave.
—oD a cemetery.
XE a reconstructed building, object, or structure.
—_F a commemorative property.
—_ G&G less than 50 years of age or achieved significance within the
past 50 years.
Areas of Significance Period of Significance
(Enter categories from instructions) 1672-1821
Architecture 00 4821-1924
Engineering

Exploration/Settlement —__

Military

Significant Dates

N/A

Significant Person
(Complete if Criterion B is marked above)

Osceola

Cultural Affiliation

Architect /Builder

Daza,. Ignacio

Narrative Statement of Significance (Explain the significance of the property
on one or more continuation sheets.)


40 CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT: HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY

. “Some Military Affairs in Territorial Florida.” Florida Historical Quarterly 25:2
(Oct. 1946): 202-11.

, ed. A History of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas from Contemporary
Narratives and Letters. Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1943

, and Alberta Johnson. Fort Marion and the War of Independence. St. Augustine:
National Park Service, Southeastern National Monuments, 1941.

, Rhoda Emma Neel, and F. Hilton Crowe. Great Men and Great Events in St.
Augustine. National Park Service, 1939

Martin, Sidney Walter. Florida During the Territorial Days. Athens, GA: University of
Georgia Press, 1944

Muller, John. A Treatise Containing the Elementary Part of Fortification, Regular and
Irregular. 1746. Reprint, Ottawa: Museum Restoration Service, 1968.

Patrick, Rembert W. Florida Fiasco: Rampant Rebels on the Georgia-Florida Border, 1810-
1815. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1954.

Tindall, George B., and David E. Shi. America: A Narrative History. 2d ed. New York: W.
W. Norton and Co., 1989.

Waterbury, Jean Parker, ed. Zhe Oldest City: St. Augustine, Saga of Survival. St. Augustine:
St. Augustine Historical Society, 1983.



12 CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT: HisToRic RESOURCE STUDY

harbor could be bombarded easily from the safety of the fort. The location was also
advantageous for the protection of the colony from land attack from the north.'*

Preparations for construction began in 1671 as blacksmiths and carpenters made the
necessary tools and implements for quarrying and transporting stone to the construction site.
Coquina, a soft limestone made of cemented seashells, was locally available on Anastasia Island
and provided an adequate material with which to build the fortress. Lime kilns were built in St.
Augustine to convert oyster shells into lime for construction. On October 2, 1672, Cendoya and
other royal officials broke ground for the foundation trench of the fort, and several weeks later
the first stone was laid.’

Local Indians, convicts, African-
American slaves, and occasionally Spanish
soldiers labored alongside the skilled
workers imported from Cuba. Work
progressed at a steady rate on the fortress,
although funding shortages and disease
epidemics occasionally slowed construction.
By 1686, the main block of the Castillo was
complete. At that time, the outer curtain
walls and bastions of the fort were coquina,
while the interior walls and roof were wood;
the terreplein was made of tabby, a cement
made of lime and seashells, laid on top of
wood planks. The fort housed troop
quarters, a chapel, and a number of
storerooms for the garrison. Ten years later, the moat and seawall were finished, thus enhancing
the Castillo's defenses."’

The War of Spanish Succession between England and Spain precipitated the first true test
of St. Augustine's fortress. Governor James Moore of Carolina led an attack against St
Augustine in 1702, hoping to drive the Spanish out of Florida, gain control of the Bahama
Channel for the English, and eliminate the threat of Spanish-French aggression against
Charleston. When the English reached St. Augustine, they bypassed the Castillo and occupied
the town: local residents fled to the fort for protection. The English besieged Castillo de San
Marcos for fifty days, until four Spanish men-of-war arrived from Cuba with fresh supplies and

Figure 5. Plan of Castillo, 1675

'SChatelain, 15.
‘Arana, “First Spanish Period.” 6, 13

"Luis Arana, David C. Dutcher, George M. Strock, and F. Ross Holland, Castillo de San Marcos and Fort
Matanzas National Monuments, Florida: Historical Research Management Plan (National Park Service, 1967),
8-9.



30 CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT: HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY

with the Native American captives at Fort Marion led him to establish the Carlisle Indian
Training School in Pennsylvania in 1880.”

Conflicts with the western tribes continued into the 1880s. In April 1886, a new group of
prisoners arrived in St. Augustine from Arizona. The seventy-seven Apaches had surrendered
to the army and were sent to Florida while the rest of the tribe was still at large. The Indians
lived in army tents on the parade ground of the fort. By January 1887, the total number of
prisoners at the fort was 447. As with the group that preceded them, the Apaches were
educated in a special school, and tourists frequented the fort for a view of the men, women, and
children. After a year of captivity in Florida, the prisoners were shipped to a reservation in

Oklahoma.*

Figure 15. Native American prisoners at Fort Marion, date unknown

%’Albert Manucy, “Indian School at Fort Marion,” chap. 16 in Great Men and Great Events in St. Augustine,
Albert Manucy, Rhoda Emma Neel, and F. Hilton Crowe (National Park Service, 1939), 5-7

‘8Qmega G. East, Apache Prisoners in Fort Marion, 1886-1887 (National Park Service, 1951).



CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS
NATIONAL MONUMENT
HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY

March 1997

Jennifer D. Brown

National Park Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia



CHAPTER THREE: THE UNITED STATES
WAR DEPARTMENT AT FORT MARION, 1821-1933

ESTABLISHING THE AMERICAN TERRITORY OF FLORIDA

A ceremony held July 10, 1821, at Castillo de San Marcos officially marked the transfer of East
Florida from Spain to the United States. Some Americans were unenthusiastic about acquisition
of territory that U. S. Representative John Randolph described as “a land of swamps, of
quagmires, of frogs and alligators and mosquitoes.”*” Nevertheless, many other citizens,
particularly in the South and West, viewed the removal of the Spanish from the east coast as
essential to the prosperity and sovereignty of the nation. Supporters, including President James
Monroe, also believed that acquisition of Florida would pacify the Seminole Indians and bring
an end to attacks on white settlers.**

The newly established territory united East and West Florida under one government, and
Monroe appointed Andrew Jackson its first military governor. American farmers began to
migrate into the territory soon after its acquisition, carving farms and plantations out of the
fertile wilderness of north Florida. Other citizens moved into the territory's largest towns, St.
Augustine and Pensacola, mingling with former Spanish citizens who remained in Florida under
American rule. The United States Army established outposts throughout the territory; the
garrison at St. Augustine occupied Castillo de San Marcos and several Spanish government
buildings. In 1825, the War Department changed the name of the Castillo to Fort Marion, in
honor of American Revolutionary War General Francis Marion.”

The Spanish had limited expenditures on building maintenance and improvements during
their final years of occupation because of funding shortages and uncertainty about the future of
the colony. As a result, many of the public buildings and private residences in St. Augustine
were in poor condition at the time of American occupation. At Fort Marion, cracks in the

* Quoted in George E. Buker, “The Americanization of St. Augustine, 1821-1865,” in The Oldest City: St.
Augustine, Saga of Survival, ed. Jean Parker Waterbury (St. Augustine: St. Augustine Historical Society, 1983),
151

“Ibid.

“Ibid., 152: Arana, et al., 18



THE STRUGGLE FOR FLORIDA AND CONSTRUCTION OF CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS, 1565-1821 9

fort, houses, and other buildings.” Thomas Cates, an English sailor who accompanied Drake
during the assault, described the fort at that time, named San Juan de Pinos:

When the day appeared, we found it built all of timber, the walles being none other
but whole Mastes or bodies of trees set vpright and close together in manner of a
pale, without any ditch as yet made, but wholy intended with some more time; for
they had not as yet finished al their work, having begunne the same some three or
Joure moneths before: so as, to say the trueth, they had no reason to keepe it, being
subject both to fire, and easie assault.

Cates's description illustrates the appearance of this early precursor to Castillo de San Marcos
and the vulnerability of wood forts to enemy attack
Despite the inadequacies of the wooden forts erected in St. Augustine, the Spanish continued
to build and repair these structures, largely because they did not have the money to construct a
masonry fortification. The attack of
the pirate John Davis in 1668 provided
the stimulus for the construction of a
masonry fortress, however. Davis and
his men captured a Spanish supply ship
from Havana headed to St. Augustine
and sailed into the city without raising
suspicion among the townspeople. His
attack under cover of night revealed
once again the vulnerability of the
colony and the inadequacy of its
defenses. Fear that the pirates would
eases? : =] return to claim the city, which they had
Figure 3. Plan of St. Augustine, 1660 not destroyed, led the colonial
governor to request aid from officials
in Spain and Mexico. The Spanish queen approved the proposal for construction of a masonry
fortress at St. Augustine, and in 1672 the first stone was laid for Castillo de San Marcos.”

“Amy Bushnell, “The Noble and Loyal City, 1565-1668,” in The Oldest City: St. Augustine, Saga of
Survival, ed. Jean Parker Waterbury (St. Augustine: St. Augustine Historical Society, 1983), 36.

‘Albert Manucy, ed., 4 History of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas from C ‘ontemporary
Narratives and Letters (Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1943), 8.

*Arana and Manuey, 7-9



THE STRUGGLE FOR FLORIDA AND CONSTRUCTION OF CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS, 1565-1821 15

Before the ravelin was completed, news arrived in St. Augustine of the Spanish cession of
Florida to England under the terms of the treaty ending the Seven Years War, fought in America
as the French and Indian War from 1754 to 1763. All work on the Castillo ceased as the
Spanish prepared to evacuate the city. On July 21,
1763, the Spanish governor officially surrendered
Castillo de San Marcos to England. Thus ended the
occupation of St. Augustine by the Spanish, who
chose to abandon the city altogether rather than suffer
under British rule.”

BRITISH OCCUPATION OF FORT ST. MARK

The Spanish left behind a fortified town with
approximately 400 residences and the nearly complete
Castillo de San Marcos, which the British renamed
Fort St. Mark. The elimination of other European
powers from the eastern coast of North America diminished the strategic significance of St.
Augustine; therefore, the British undertook few alterations to the city's defenses during the first
decade of occupation.”

The outbreak of the American Revolution elevated the importance of St. Augustine to the
English, however. A British garrison was headquartered in town, and a large number of British
Loyalists from the southern colonies sought refuge within its walls. The small frontier outpost
quickly became a thriving city. Fort St. Mark received needed repairs to its defenses during this
time, including the reconstruction of the entrenchment and retrenchment lines north of the city.
The fortress housed troops, weapons, and equipment for the army. Additionally, the British
used the fort as a prison for rebel colonists. Hundreds of prisoners of war passed through St.
Augustine before being moved elsewhere or exchanged for imprisoned British soldiers and
Loyalists,”

Although the Continental Congress entertained plans to invade East Florida in 1778, the
British capture of Savannah late that year crushed those ambitions and ended rebel plots against
St. Augustine. Even as the American threat to the colony diminished, a new threat to St.
Augustine arose from the Spanish, who longed to regain a foothold in North America. Spain
declared war on England in 1779 but never launched an attack against East Florida.

. Ravelin viewed west, 1995

Figure

*Tbid., 53.

Daniel L. Schafer, “*... Not So Gay a Town in America as This...,° 1763-1784,” in The Oldest City: St.
Augustine, Saga of Survival, ed. Jean Parker Waterbury (St. Augustine: St. Augustine Historical Society, 1983),
91. Arana and Manucy, 54

Albert Manucy and Alberta Johnson, Fort Marion and the War of Independence (St. Augustine: National
Park Service, Southeastern National Monuments, 1941), 3-10.



‘THE STRUGGLE FOR FLORIDA AND CONSTRUCTION OF CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS, 1565-1821 il

GLACIS

Re-entrant place
‘of arms

Traverse

a

ea
j \ ‘ \©

RAVELIN

Glacis Parapet | Terreplein
Covered way Banquette
° 100 200

YARDS

Figure 4. Plan of a simple bastioned fort

fortress and allowed the defenders to move farther into the landscape against the enemy. As a
complete defensive fortification, the bastioned fort and its outer defenses provided a great deal
of security to its occupants during a siege, although a persistent enemy might breach the walls
given sufficient time and manpower."

CONSTRUCTION OF THE CASTILLO
In 1669 Queen Regent Mariana of Spain approved the construction of a masonry fortress in St.
Augustine and sent the colony's newly appointed governor, Manuel de Cendoya, to Mexico to
obtain the necessary funds. Cendoya arrived in St. Augustine in 1671, after stopping in Havana
to recruit masons, stonecutters, and lime burners to aid in construction. In Cuba he also acquired
the services of Ignacio Daza, an engineer, and Lorenzo Lajones, the master of construction.'*
Daza was an experienced military engineer familiar with contemporary fortification designs.
After examining possible locations for the fort, Daza and the military council in St. Augustine
determined that the site of the existing fortress, at the northern edge of town, was most
appropriate for the defense of St. Augustine. From this site, enemy fleets attempting to enter the

“Tbid., 3

“Luis Arana, “Governor Cendoya's Negotiation in Mexico for a Stone Fort in St. Augustine,” E/ Escribano 7
(Oct. 1970): 125-33.



24

CASTILLO DE SAN Marcos NATIONAL MONUMENT: HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY

RS a a

Figure 10. Plan of Castillo. 1821





USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form
Castillo de San Marcos National Monument
St. Johns County, FL Page 2

4. National Park Service Certification -

I, hereby certify that this property is: oO

entered in the National Register
—— See continuation sheet.
determined eligible for the
National Register

—— See continuation sheet.
determined not eligible for the
National Register

removed from the National Register

—— other (explain):

eens of Keeper Date of Action
Classification
Ownership of Property Category of Property
(Check as many boxes as apply) (Check only one box)
—__. private _ building(s)
—— public-local _x_ district
_—. public-State —_. site
_X. public-Federal —._. structure
—— object

Number of Resources within Property
(Do not include previously listed properties in the count)

Contributing Noncontributing
2 buildings
sites
structures
objects
Total

HHI
HE

Number of contributing resources previously listed in the National
Register 32

Name of related multiple property listing (Enter “N/A" if property is not part
of a multiple property listing.) _N/A





THE STRUGGLE FOR FLORIDA AND CONSTRUCTION OF CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS, 1565-1821 2

The moat, covered way, glacis, and ravelin were included in the original nomination but not
individually listed on the National Register. These are independent structures worthy of listing
as contributing resources; each demonstrates integrity of location, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association. The moat was altered in the mid-nineteenth century
when the east side was filled for construction of a water battery. This alteration changed the
design of the structure but did not significantly impact its integrity. The covered way, glacis,
and ravelin retain integrity of design.

Reconstructions must demonstrate a high level of historical accuracy and integrity in order
to be eligible for the National Register. The Criterion Considerations require that
reconstructions be placed in appropriate settings as part of a master plan of restoration, in which
no other structure with the same association remains. The Cubo Line meets all of these criteria.
The reconstruction is built on the original location of the Cubo Line, which was identified
through archeological investigation. No physical or archeological remains exist from the other
outer defense works constructed at the same time as the Cubo Line. Therefore, the
identification of the location of the original Cubo Line provided a unique opportunity for the
reconstruction of a significant structure related to the long history of Castillo de San Marcos.

The Cubo Line is an accurate reconstruction, exhibiting integrity of location, design, setting,
feeling, and association. The line provides an important visual link between the Castillo and the
City Gate, a link that had previously been absent and hindered interpretation of the City Gate
at Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. While the reconstruction does not employ the
original material, which was palm logs, the choice of concrete is justified both for its longer life
span and by the careful casting of the concrete to simulate the appearance of palm logs. During
the reconstruction, precautions were taken to protect the archeological remains of the original
Cubo Line. The Cubo Line is thus eligible for the National Register due to the historical
accuracy of the reconstruction and the lack of other structures with the same association around
the fort

CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES

Castillo de San Marcos (1672-1756)
Moat (1672-1696)

Covered way (1672-1762)

Glacis (1672-1758)

Ravelin (1762)

City Gate (1808)

Cubo Line (1808, reconstructed 1963)

NONCONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES
None



18 CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT: HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY

The primary impetus behind the Patriot Rebellion was greed for land and expansion of the
American nation. Similar motives propelled the United States in 1812 to declare war on
England, which controlled the northern part of the continent. Anxious to expand the nation's
boundaries and rid its borders of foreign influence, expansionists utilized the violation of neutral
rights by the English and dissatisfaction with Spanish rule in Florida to rally public support
behind the War of 1812 and the Patriot Rebellion. Both conflicts were ill-conceived, however,
and consequently the goal of expansion was not reached. The Treaty of Ghent, which ended
the War of 1812, restored the pre-war boundaries of the United States, including the area of
West Florida annexed in 1811; East Florida remained in Spanish hands.**

The affirmation of Spanish control of East Florida in the Treaty of Ghent did not extinguish
American desires for annexation of Florida. In 1817, just three years after the treaty was
signed, President James Monroe authorized a campaign against the Seminole Indians, who were
fighting with American settlers along the Georgia-Florida border. Monroe sent General Andrew
Jackson to drive the Seminoles back into Florida. While Jackson was not authorized to attack
Spanish posts, he did so anyway, and by May 1818 he had conquered the Florida panhandle.
While Jackson's forces never approached St. Augustine, the conquest of East Florida was a
motivating force behind his campaign.*

In the wake of American encroachments in Florida and revolutions against Spanish rule in
Central and South America, the government in Spain finally acknowledged its inability to
maintain possession of Florida. In 1821, Spain agreed to cede Florida to the United States in
return for the retirement of Spanish debts owed American citizens. On July 10 of that year,
ownership of Castillo de San Marcos transferred to the American government with appropriate
fanfare, and the Spanish left the city of St. Augustine for the last time.**

ASSOCIATED PROPERTIES

Castillo de San Marcos and the moat, ravelin, covered way, glacis, Cubo Line, and City Gate
are properties associated with the context, “European Powers in Florida: The Construction of
Castillo de San Marcos, 1565-1821.” All seven structures represent the struggle between
European nations for control of North America over two-and-one-half centuries in Florida.

Physical Characteristics

Castillo de San Marcos is a bastioned masonry fortification located north of the colonial town
of St. Augustine. The Castillo is built around a square plaza, the sides of which measure 320
feet, and has diamond-shaped bastions projecting outward at each corner. The coquina walls

“Tbid., 144-5, 299
*“Tindall and Shi, 237

*“Thid., 238-9.



CONTENTS

Figure Credits... soe See See
List of Figures
Foreword ....
Chapter One: Introduction .0 02. ec
Chapter Two: The Struggle for Florida and Construction of

Castillo de San Marcos, 1565-1821

Associated Properties beeen .

Registration Requirements/Integrity

Contributing Properties oes bee eee
Noncontributing Properties .......... eee eee

Chapter Three: The United States War Department at Fort Marion, 1821-1933 ..

Associated Properties . . . . veces
Registration Requirements/Integrity nee bees
Contributing Properties a en .: .
Noncontributing Properties ....... eee eee ee
Chapter Four: Management Recommendations ..............
Bibliography .......... vee eee
Appendix A: Descriptions of Historic Resources .

Appendix B: Historical Base Map

Appendix C: National Register Documentation

iit

18
20
21
21

... 32

cece 34
cove. 3S
cee ...35

bees 37





CHAPTER TWO: THE STRUGGLE FOR FLORIDA AND
CONSTRUCTION OF CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS, 1565-1821

EXPLORATION IN FLORIDA AND THE FOUNDING OF ST, AUGUSTINE

The history of Castillo de San Marcos begins with the earliest European exploration in the New
World. In the century following the initial voyage of Christopher Columbus to the Caribbean
in 1492, Spanish conquistadores carved out a vast and wealthy overseas empire for Spain that
encompassed many of the Caribbean islands and the mainlands of Mexico, Central America,
Colombia, Venezuela, and Peru.’

Juan Ponce de Leon discovered the Florida peninsula in 1513, claiming the North American
continent for Spain. Ponce de Leon also discovered a significant water current crucial to the
success of Spanish empire—the Gulf Stream. Leaving the Caribbean by way of the Bahama
Channel, Spanish galleons carrying the riches of the Americas utilized the natural flow of the
Gulf Stream to propel them along the Florida coast and across the Atlantic. As a result, Florida
assumed a great deal of strategic significance: if Spain did not control Florida, pirates would use
its harbors as a base from which to attack the treasure fleets.’

A number of attempts to settle Florida followed Ponce's discovery, but their costly failures
led the Spanish king, Philip II, to forbid any further efforts at colonizing the region in 1561. The
monarch revoked his order three years later, however, as word arrived in Spain of the newly
established French settlement, Fort Caroline, on the St. Johns River in northeast Florida. In an
effort to protect Spanish interests in the New World, Philip commissioned Pedro Menéndez de
Avilés to remove the French from Florida and colonize the area for Spain.?

Menéndez arrived on the coast of Florida in 1565, landing first at Cape Canaveral before
travelling north to the sheltered harbor of the land he named San Agustin. Hastily erecting
fortifications around the big house given to the Spaniards by the Timucua Indian Chief Seloy,
Menéndez and his men prepared to defend Spanish claims to Florida. An attack on Fort Caroline

‘George B. Tindal) and David E. Shi, America: A Narrative History, 2d ed. (New York: W. W. Norton and
Co., 1989), 8-9

*Verne E. Chatelain, The Defenses of Spanish Florida, 1565-1763 (Washington, DC: Camegie Institution of
Washington, 1941), 5-9.

“thid., 7-17



Figure 1.
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8.
Figure 9.

Figure 10.

Figure 11.
Figure 12.

Figure 13.

Figure 14

Figure 15.

Figure 16.

Figure 17

FIGURES
Location of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument
Pedro Menéndez de Avilés

Plan of St. Augustine, 1660 |. .

Plan of a simple bastioned fort... Le eee e eee

Plan of Castillo, 1675

Plan of Castillo, 1763

Ravelin viewed from west, 1995

Reconstructed Cubo Line viewed from northwest, 1991
City Gate viewed from northwest, 1991

Plan of Castillo, 1821

View of seawall from south, 1991

View of hot shot furnace from south, 1995 .

View of water battery from south, 1991

Fort Marion courtyard, c. 1870 ..

Native American prisoners at Fort Marion, date unknown
View of moat and east wall from south, 1991 |...

View of moat, covered way, and glacis from east, 1995

24

26

.27

_ 27

29

. 30

31

32



THE STRUGGLE FOR FLORIDA AND CONSTRUCTION OF CASTILLO DE SAN Marcos, 1565-1821 13

reinforcements. Weary from the long siege and unable to match the new Spanish force, Moore
burned his ships, abandoned his supplies, and retreated overland to the St. Johns River. The
British set the city afire as they left, and the Castillo was the only structure to survive."*

Following Moore's attack on the Castillo and the total destruction of St. Augustine, the
Spanish sought to strengthen the city's defenses by constructing a system of inner defense lines
Between 1706 and 1763, the Spanish built four earth and log defensive structures around the
town. The Cubo Line formed the northern boundary of St. Augustine and, along with the
Rosario Line to the west, created a "line of circumvallation" protecting the city's land
approaches. The homwork and Fort Mose line were built north of the Cubo Line, between the
North River on the east and the San Sebastian River on the west. These structures strengthened
the town's defenses but proved difficult to maintain in the warm Florida climate.'”

Meanwhile, a new English threat from the north caused the Spanish to reassess the strength
of the Castillo's defenses. General James Oglethorpe began settlements at Savannah in 1732 and
at Fort Frederica in 1736, thus staking the English claim to an area traditionally considered part
of Spanish Florida. As the English pressed south, Spanish Governor Manuel de Montiano
realized that Castillo de San Marcos was inadequate for the defense of the colony, even with the
addition of the outer defense works. An evaluation of the fort by Antonio de Arredondo, an
engineer from Havana, found that the stone walls were in good shape, but the wood in the
interior rooms and the terreplein was rotted through.” The governor wrote officials in Cuba
regarding conditions in St. Augustine:

Your Excellency must know that this castle, the only defense here, has no
bombproofs for the protection of the garrison, that the counterscarp is too low, that
there is no covered way, that the curtains are without demilunes, that there are no
other exterior works to give them time for a long defense; .. . we are as bare outside
as we are without life inside, for there are no guns that could last 24 hours and if
there were, we have no artillerymen to serve them.”

Following the governor's report, officials in Cuba sent soldiers, laborers, provisions, and
money to St. Augustine. The Cuban govemor authorized construction of masonry vaults within

'SArana and Manucy, 42.
Chatelain, 82
?°Arana and Manucy, 42-43.

"bid., 43



AERC. CUS WE

ON MICROF! M







Foreword

We are pleased to make available this historic resource study, part of our ongoing effort to
provide comprehensive documentation for all the historic structures and landscapes of National
Park Service units in the Southeast Region. Following a field survey of park resources and
extensive research, the project team updated the park's List of Classified Structures, developed
historic contexts, and prepared new National Register of Historic Places documentation. Many
individuals and institutions contributed to the successful completion of this work. We would
particularly like to thank Castillo de San Marcos Superintendent Gordon Wilson, Chief of
Administration Bob Fliegel, Archivist Clara Gualtieri, and retired park historian Luis Arana, for
their assistance. We hope that this study will prove valuable to park management and others in
understanding and interpreting the historical significance of the park's cultural resources

Kirk A. Cordell

Assistant Superintendent, Cultural Resources
Southeast Support Office

March 1997

vii



NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018
(Rev. 10-90)

United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
REGISTRATION FORM

This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and
districts. See instructions in How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places
Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x" in the
appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If any item does not apply to the
property being documented, enter "N/A" for “not applicable." For functions, architectural
classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from
the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form
10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items.

1. Name of Property

historic name _Castillo de San Marcos National Monument

other names/site number

ie

Location

street & number _1 Castillo Drive East

not for publication __
city or town _St. Augustine vicinity __

state Florida 4. ss code _FL__ county _St. Johns code 109

3. State/Federal Agency Cartification

As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of
1986, as amended, I hereby certify that this ___. nomination request for
determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering
Properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural
and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the
property meets ___. does not meet the National Register Criteria. I
recommend that this property be considered significant __ nationally __
statewide _.. locally. ( __ See continuation sheet for additional comments.)

Signature of certifying official Date

State or Federal agency and bureau

In my opinion, the property ___ meets ___. does not meet the National Register
criteria. ( See continuation sheet for additional comments.)
Signature of commenting or other official Date

State or Federal agency and bureau



32 CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT: Historic RESOURCE STUDY

preservation action by almost five years, it established a little known precedent for
the expenditure of federal monies to preserve an historic structure.”

Additional appropriations in 1888 and 1890 aided preservation efforts at the fort, and
expenditures for restoration continued into the twentieth century.

A disastrous fire in 1914 destroyed much of the
downtown of St. Augustine, including the
headquarters of the St. Augustine Historical Society
and Institute of Science. Searching for a place to
house its collections, the society applied to the War
Department for use of several casemates at Fort
Marion. Under terms of an agreement reached the
same year, the Historical Society provided guided
tours of the fort for ten cents per person and rana gift |.
shop selling postcards and other souvenirs. The War Figure 17.
Department reserved the right to ensure building elacis from east, 1995
maintenance and access to visitors as well as quality of
guide service. This arrangement would continue, with modifications, until the National Park
Service assumed responsibility for the fort in 1933.°

In 1924, President Calvin Coolidge, acting under the authority of the Antiquities Act of
1906, declared five forts, including Fort Marion and another Spanish colonial fortification, Fort
Matanzas, to be national monuments. This action officially established a government policy of
preservation for the two structures. The War Department continued to administer the two forts
until 1933, when Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an executive order transferring national
monuments, military parks, battlefields, and cemeteries to the National Park Service in the
Department of the Interior.

View of moat, covered way, and

ASSOCIATED PROPERTIES

Castillo de San Marcos and the moat, ravelin, covered way, glacis, water battery, hot shot
furnace, and seawall are properties associated with the context, “The United States War
Department at Fort Marion, 1821-1933.” All eight structures represent the continued use of
the fort as a defensive structure throughout the nineteenth century, they also illustrate advances
in military architecture and technology that eventually made the fort obsolete.

“Krakow, 8.
Thid., 14-5

“Ibid . 23-4, 39,



20 CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT: HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY

at the same time, built the City Gate to allow entrance into St. Augustine through the line. The
Cubo Line and the City Gate are closely associated with the attempts to strengthen the defenses
of the city during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Significance

Castillo de San Marcos is nationally significant under National Register Criteria A and C. The
Castillo represents the military struggle that occurred in Florida between the European powers,
particularly Spain and England, for control of North America. It also illustrates the early
diplomacy of the United States government, which culminated in the cession of Florida to the
United States in 1821. Indeed, in many ways the Castillo represents the history of the nation
from the time of the first permanent European settlement, through the struggle for empire
between Spain and England, to the emergence of the American republic. The Castillo is also
architecturally significant as the oldest masonry fortification remaining in the United States.
Built using the bastion system of fortress construction popular in Europe, Castillo de San
Marcos remains an important example of early military architecture in the United States.

The moat, covered way, glacis, and ravelin are nationally significant structures under
Criteria A and C. These four structures were integral to the protection of the Castillo and
designed as significant elements of the city's defenses. As a result, they represent the battle for
control of the eastern shores of North America by the European powers from the time of
Florida's discovery to 1821. The structures are also architecturally significant, representing the
military theories prevalent at the time of their construction and the execution of these European
designs in the New World. Together with Castillo de San Marcos, the moat, covered way,
glacis, and ravelin contribute to the understanding of the struggle for the Americas and the early
military architecture that resulted from it.

The Cubo Line and City Gate contribute to the significance of the district under Criteria A
and C. The Cubo Line is an accurate reconstruction of the line as it appeared in 1808, when
the Spanish rebuilt the structure and added the City Gate. The Cubo Line and City Gate
represent early additions to the defenses of St. Augustine, and thus several centuries of struggle
between European powers for control of Florida. As military fortifications, the Cubo Line and
City Gate are typical designs for the period and thus have significance as early nineteenth-
century military structures

REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS/INTEGRITY

Castillo de San Marcos National Monument was listed on the National Register in 1966, and
documentation accepted in 1977 identified a district with three contributing historic structures,
including the Castillo and the City Gate. Both the Castillo and the City Gate have retained
integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The Castillo has
additionally retained integrity of setting. The setting of the City Gate has lost some integrity
due to the construction of modern roadways that have physically separated it from the Castillo,
but the eligibility of the structure has not been significantly diminished by the changes



CHAPTER FOUR: MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

The Cultural Resources Team of the Southeast Region offers the following management
recommendations to assist resource managers in identifying areas for further research,
expanding existing interpretive programs, and maintaining records related to historic cultural
resources. We provide some preliminary recommendations for the management and treatment
of cultural resources that should be incorporated into the park's Resource Management Plan
(RMP).

The List of Classified Structures (LCS) inventory for CASA previously included three
structures, all of which are listed on the National Register. The LCS update added eight
properties to the list, seven of which are eligible for the National Register. The ineligible
structure is a nonhistoric commemorative marker placed in honor of the Castillo's tricentennial
in 1972. Although the Tricentennial Marker fails to satisfy the National Register's fifty-year
requirement, it is managed as a cultural resource. Existing National Register documentation
for CASA included Castillo de San Marcos, the water battery, and the City Gate as contributing
features. The revised National Register documentation prepared by the LCS team adds the
moat, covered way, glacis, ravelin, seawall, and hot shot furnace as contributing structures
within the district. It also provides a more fully developed contextual history of Castillo de San
Marcos and the other contributing structures.

The resources at CASA are well documented through two Historic Structure Reports,
numerous special history studies, journal articles, and archeological reports. These studies and
reports cover virtually all aspects of the Castillo's long history with a great deal of detail. A
number of reports have also been written concerning the structural stability of the Castillo, an
ongoing concern for park management. The 1996 RMP called for the development of a
stabilization strategy and a historic structure preservation guide for the Castillo. It also calls
for routine removal of vegetation from the coquina walls of the fort and related structures. The
park should continue to pursue such projects in order to ensure the structural stability of the
monument into the future.

Park management has additionally identified a need for a Cultural Landscape Report (CLR)
at Castillo de San Marcos. A CLR would aid park interpretation by providing information on
the historic appearance of the fort's grounds and making possible a restoration or recreation of
the historic scene. Furthermore, a CLR might identify landscape features (e.g., sidewalks,



THE STRUGGLE FOR FLORIDA AND CONSTRUCTION OF CASTILLO DE SAN Marcos, 1565-1821 19

of the Castillo are thirty feet high, ten to fourteen feet thick at the base, and five feet thick at
the top. Vaulted casemates support the wide terreplein, and embrasures at intervals along the
top of the wall provided openings through which cannon could be fired.

The moat, covered way, and glacis surround the Castillo on the north, west, and south sides.
The moat originally encircled the fort on all sides, but the east side was filled with earth in 1842
to create a water battery. The remaining three sides of the moat are framed by coquina walls
and contain water; the moat is approximately forty-two feet wide. The covered way is the flat,
grassy area between the glacis and the moat; a masonry wall five feet high separates it from the
glacis. The glacis is the open, sloped area beyond the covered way that stretches into the
landscape. The ravelin is the triangular masonry structure built to afford additional protection
to the corners of the bastions. The ravelin is located within the moat on the south side of the
fort and is connected to the main structure by a reconstructed drawbridge.

The Cubo Line begins at the covered way on the northwest side of the fort and proceeds
250 feet west toward the City Gate. The line is a reconstruction of the earthwork built in 1808
by the Spanish. The northern and southern faces of the defense work are concrete cast to
imitate the palm logs of the original wall. Between the concrete walls is earthen infill, with a
depth of forty-five feet. A dry moat exists along the north face of the Cubo Line.

The City Gate of St. Augustine originally was part of the Cubo Line, providing entrance into
the city from the north. Two four-foot-square coquina pillars frame an opening twelve feet
wide. Each pillar has a cove-molded pyramidal cap with a round finial and a height of fourteen
feet. On either side of the pillars, low stone walls thirty feet long by eleven feet wide extend to
meet reconstructed portions of the Cubo Line. North of the gate, a coquina bridge spans a
shallow moat.

Associative Characteristics

Castillo de San Marcos and the moat, covered way, glacis, ravelin, Cubo Line, and City Gate
are closely associated with the struggle for domination of the New World by European powers.
The Spanish built the Castillo and its related structures, the moat, covered way, glacis, and
ravelin, to protect the colony at St. Augustine and Spanish interests along the eastern coast of
North America. Throughout the periods of Spanish and English occupation of Florida, the
Castillo was central to the defense of the colony from enemy forces.

The Cubo Line originated during the eighteenth century, while the Castillo was still under
construction. Following the English siege of St. Augustine in 1702, the Spanish government
recognized the need for improved defenses for the city and undertook construction of defense
works around the fort and town. The Cubo Line formed the innermost line of defense; north
of the line, the hornwork and Fort Mose line provided additional barriers between the land
approach to the city and the Castillo. The Cubo Line and the Rosario Line, another defense
work, created the line of circumvallation that walled St. Augustine on the north, west, and south
sides. Built of earth and wood, these outworks had short life spans in the subtropical Florida
climate and were periodically reconstructed. The Spanish rebuilt the Cubo Line in 1808 and,



FIGURE CREDITS

Cover, clockwise from top left: Water Battery and City Gate, William Chapman for National Park Service, and aerial view of Castillo, Castillo
de San Mareos National Monument archives; p. 2: William Chapman for National Park Service; p. 8, 9: Florida State Photographic Archives; p.
11: Christopher Duffy, The Fortress in the Age of Vauban and Frederick the Great, 1660-1789, p. 12, 14: Castillo de San Marcos National
Monument archives: p. 15: Jennifer D. Brown and Jill K. Hanson for National Park Service; p. 17: William Chapman for National Park Service;
p. 24, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument archives; p. 26: William Chapman for National Park Service; p. 27: Jennifer D, Brown and
‘Jill K. Hanson for National Park Service, and William Chapman for National Park Service; p. 29, 30: Castillo de San Marcos National Monument
archives: p. 31, William Chapman for National Park Service; p. 32: Jennifer D. Brown and Jill K. Hanson for ‘National Park Service.



10 CASTILLO DE SAN MARcos NATIONAL MONUMENT: HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY

SEVENTEENTH CENTURY MILITARY FORTRESSES

Seventeenth century military engineering conventions dictated the design of Castillo de San
Marcos. The introduction of cannon as an implement of war late in the Middle Ages rendered
the castle useless as a form of defense and forced military engineers to develop a new type of
fortress able to withstand the force of cannon bombardment on its walls. The Italians first
developed the bastion system, which quickly spread across Europe and, by the seventeenth
century, dominated fortress design. European nations not only utilized bastioned fortresses at
home but also built fortifications in their colonial outposts in the same manner, altering designs
to suit local conditions and materials. Thus the Spanish officials in St. Augustine adopted the
bastion system for the early wood forts and, later, for the stone fortress, Castillo de San
Marcos.”

The bastion system evolved out of the medieval castle form. Engineers lowered castle walls
and placed mounds of earth in front of them, creating ramparts able to withstand cannon
bombardment. Moats remained an integral part of the defenses to prevent enemy forces from
scaling the sloped embankments and entering the fort. The circular castle tower evolved into the
angular bastion, which afforded protection to adjacent walls. Beyond the fortress walls engineers
placed a variety of masonry and earthen outer works that strengthened the fort's defenses. "'

Bastioned forts centered on a plaza, around which the massive ramparts stood. The interior
of the ramparts sloped upward toward the fighting platform, called the terreplein. The
banquette, or firing step, rose above the terreplein and was protected by the parapet. Soldiers
fired on the enemy through embrasures (openings) in the parapet. On the exterior of the
rampart, facing the moat, a masonry scarp retained the earthen wall of the rampart. The opposite
side of the moat also had a masonry retaining wall, the counterscarp, above which stood the
covered way. A palisade protected the banquette for the covered way. The glacis, an earthen
bank kept clear of vegetation, sloped downward from the covered way into open country.”

Seventeenth century forts were most often square in shape; the linear curtain walls projected
outward at the corners into diamond-shaped bastions, from which soldiers could view the
surrounding area in all directions. Ravelins were similarly shaped defensive structures, often built
in front of curtain walls to provide additional support to the points of the bastions, which were
most vulnerable to attack. Finally, outer defense works like counterguards and hornworks, built
of earth and wood and placed in front of the fort's main body, provided additional strength to the

9] uis Arana, “The First Spanish Period, 1668-1763: The Endurance of Castillo de San Marcos,” in Historic
Structure Report: Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, C. Craig Frazier, Randall Copeland, and Luis
Arana (National Park Service, 1986), 9-10: Chatelain, 39-40.

John Muller, 4 Treatise Containing the Elementary Part of Fortification, Regular and Irregular (1746.
reprint, Ottawa: Museum Restoration Service. 1968), 21-22

Christopher Dutly, The Fortress in the Age of Vauban and Frederick the Great, 1660-1789, vol. 2 of Siege
Warfare (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1985), 2



APPENDIX C: NATIONAL REGISTER DOCUMENTATION


USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form
Castillo de San Marcos National Monument
St. Johns County, FL Page 6

11. Form Prepared By

name/title Jennifer D, Brown, Architectural Technician 0

organization National Park Service, Southeast Field Area Office
date _December 14, 1995
street & number 75 Spring Street, S.W.

city or town Atlanta

telephone (404)730-9486
state GA. zip code 30303

Additional Documentation
Submit the following items with the completed form:

Continuation Sheets

Maps
A USGS map (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location.
A sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage
or numerous resources.

Photographs

Representative black and white photographs of the property.
Additional items (Check with the SHPO or FPO for any additional items)

Property Owner (Complete this item at the request of the SHPO or FPO.)

name National Park Service
street & number P.O, Box 37127 telephone
state DC zip code 20013-7127 _

city or town Washington

e



THE Untrep STATES WAR DEPARTMENT AT FORT MARION, 1821-1933 27

Figure 12. View of hot shot furnace from south,
1995

Figure 13. View of water battery from south,
1991

of the fort and reconstruction of the city's seawall. Congress allocated $20,000 the same year
to make needed repairs to the structures.*®

The seawall received top priority in the expenditure of funds because of a breach which
threatened property and lives in town. The Army Corps of Engineers directed the
reconstruction of the seawall over a period of fourteen years. The outbreak of the Second
Seminole War forced the government to reevaluate the importance of Fort Marion within the
coastal defense system, and additional expenditures for construction of a water battery were
approved in 1842. Workers filled the moat between the east curtain wall and the seawall,
building gun emplacements on the battery terreplein. They also built a hot shot furnace, which
was used to heat iron cannon balls for firing at flammable targets like wooden ships.*’

The completion of the water battery and hot shot furnace in 1844 ended construction
projects at Fort Marion. The fort's defenses were updated sufficiently to be included as part of
the nation's coastal defense system. Like many of the contemporary fortifications along the
American coastline, however, the fort lacked one ingredient key to its defense: a garrison to
man its guns. When Confederate troops came to take over Fort Marion in 1861, they found
only one elderly caretaker occupying the fortress. *

FLORIDA IN THE CIVIL WAR, 1861-1865

At the conclusion of the Second Seminole War in 1842, Florida began a gradual return to a
peacetime economy. Farmers returned to their fields, and merchants resumed trade. Soldiers
stationed in St. Augustine during the war were relocated to other posts around the country.
Migration into the territory from the north continued, so that by 1845 Florida had sufficient

“*Bearss. 35. 46-8

“Bearss, 152-230: Albert Manucy, Artillery Through the Ages (Washington: National Park Service, 1949,
reprint 1985), 69.

“Arana, et al., 18-19.



28 CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT: HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY

population to apply for statehood.*” Congress accepted lowa and Florida into statehood
simultaneously, maintaining the balance between free and slave states in the Union. The need
for such compromise illustrated the growing tension between the slave states of the South and
the free states of the North, a tension that led to the secession of South Carolina in late 1860.
On January 10, 1861, Florida followed suit and the next month became part of the newly
formed Confederate States of America.”

Throughout the South, secession governors ordered state troops to seize federally owned
forts. In Florida, the governor sent state troops into Fort Marion, Fort Clinch, Fort Barrancas,
and the Chattahoochee Arsenal five days before the formal act of secession by the legislature.
Troops entered Fort Marion on January 7 and took the fortress from its solitary caretaker
without a fight. At Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina, federal troops did not surrender
to Confederate forces, and the siege on the fort in April 1861 signalled the beginning of the Civil
War."

Florida contributed minimally to the war effort, both because of its limited supply of men
and provisions and its location far south of the major theaters of the war. In St. Augustine,
troops dismantled the guns at Fort Marion and shipped them to positions more important to the
defense of the South. When Union gunboats appeared outside the harbor in March 1862,
Confederate forces quickly departed the city, federal troops occupied St. Augustine on March
11 without confrontation. The Union forces upgraded Fort Marion to a state of defense, but
the Confederacy made no attempt to reclaim the city for the duration of the war.”

The federal occupation of the city continued after the Confederate surrender at
Appomattox, troops assigned to Florida during Reconstruction were headquartered in St.
Augustine. The strain of the war effort and the absence of winter tourists combined to deplete
the town's resources, and recovery occurred slowly. Yet, by the 1870s, improvement was
apparent: the local orange industry was rebounding, tourists were returning, and the first
suburbs began to appear outside the old city walls.”

FORT MARION AND THE WESTERN INDIAN WARS
As St. Augustine recovered from the Civil War, army engineers once again evaluated the
importance of Fort Marion within the coastal defense system. In 1866, the War Department

*“Buker, 160-72
“°Bearss, 255: Tindall and Shi, 405

S'Bearss, 255-6: E. Merton Coulter, The Confederate States of America, vol. 7 of A History of the South
(Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1950), 34

“Coulter, 398: Bearss, 256-63

“Thomas Graham, “The Flagler Era, 1865-1913," in. The Oldest City: St. Augustine, Saga of Survival, ed.
Jean Parker Waterbury (St. Augustine: St. Augustine Historical Society, 1983), 183-9.



APPENDIX B: HISTORICAL BASE MAP



16 CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT: HisTORIC RESOURCE STUDY

Nevertheless, negotiations following the war returned Florida to Spain, and the brief British
occupation of St. Augustine ended in July 1784.

SECOND SPANISH OCCUPATION OF CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS

Most British citizens evacuated the colony with the military, although about 300 chose to
remain and declare allegiance to Spain rather than give up their homes and plantations. The
Spanish military escorted the new colonial government into St. Augustine, and the city was soon
repopulated with a variety of immigrants, including, “Spaniards, Englishmen, Americans,
Minorcans, Italians, Greeks, Swiss, Germans, French, Canary Islanders, Scots, and Irish.” A
sizable population of free blacks, slaves, and Native Americans resided throughout the colony
as well.”

The new Spanish St. Augustine was not a tranquil city, however. Difficulties arising from
dependence on Cuba and Mexico continued as they had in the First Spanish Period, leaving the
town short on supplies and soldiers much of the year. Unrest along the Georgia border
exacerbated the colonial government's problems. Runaway slaves from Georgia often sought
refuge in Florida, particularly in the interior of the peninsula controlled by Seminole Indian
tribes. Asa result, Georgia plantation owners often crossed the border in search of fugitives,
raiding Indian towns and Florida plantations. Slaves belonging to Floridians and the Seminoles
were often stolen during the raids, and the angry slave owners retaliated with attacks against
the Georgians.”

The problems of the colonial government in East Florida escalated with the outbreak of the
French Revolution and the ensuing European conflict. The struggle against Napoleon drained
the Spanish government of resources, and her colonies in the Americas suffered as a result.
Nevertheless, the threat of American or French attack against East Florida inspired the Spanish
governor at St. Augustine to undertake improvements to the defenses of the city. The Spanish
rebuilt the Cubo Line, widening the moat and lining the earthwork with palm logs. They also
built a gate within the line, providing access to the city from the north. The renovations to the
Cubo Line and the new City Gate, which replaced an earlier gate built around 1740, were

*John C. Paige, “Castillo de San Marcos: The British Years, 1763-1784,” in Historic Structure Report for
Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, Edwin C. Bearss and John C. Paige (Denver: National Park Service,
1983), 14-21

Patricia C. Griffin, “The Spanish Return: The People-Mix Period. 1784-1821,” in The Oldest City: St
Augustine, Saga of Survival, ed. Jean Parker Waterbury (St. Augustine: St. Augustine Historical Society, 1983),
130-1

“Rembert W. Patrick, Florida Fiasco: Rampant Rebels on the Georgia-Florida Border, 1810-1815
(Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1954), 31







THE UNITED STATES WAR DEPARTMENT AT FORT MARION, 1821-1933

35

CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES
Castillo de San Marcos (1672-1756)
Moat (1672-1696)

Covered way (1672-1762)

Glacis (1672-1758)

Ravelin (1762)

Water battery (1842)

Seawall (1833-1842)

Hot shot furnace (1842)

NONCONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES
None



Tue UNrreD STATES WAR DEPARTMENT AT FORT MARION, 1821-1933 33

Physical Characteristics

Castillo de San Marcos is a bastioned masonry fortification located north of the colonial town
of St. Augustine. The Castillo is built around a square plaza, the sides of which measure 320
feet, and has diamond-shaped bastions projecting outward at each corner. The coquina walls
of the Castillo are thirty feet high, ten to fourteen feet thick at the base, and five feet thick at
the top. Vaulted casemates support the wide terreplein, and embrasures at intervals along the
top of the wall provided openings through which cannon could be fired.

The moat, covered way, and glacis surround the Castillo on the north, west, and south sides
The moat originally encircled the fort on all sides, but the east side was filled in 1842 to create
a water battery. The remaining three sides of the moat are framed by coquina walls and contain
water, the moat is approximately forty-two feet wide. The covered way is the flat, grassy area
between the glacis and the moat; a masonry wail five feet high separates it from the glacis. The
glacis is the open, sloped area beyond the covered way that stretches into the landscape. The
ravelin is the triangular masonry structure built to afford additional protection to the corners of
the bastions. The ravelin is located within the moat on the south side of the fort and is
connected to the main structure by a reconstructed drawbridge.

The water battery comprises the east side of Castillo de San Marcos between the curtain
wall and the seawall. This area was infilled by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers between
1842 and 1844 to permit the placement of guns facing the harbor. The water battery is
constructed of earth and coquina stone. The seawall protects the fort from the waters of
Matanzas Bay. Originally built by the Spanish, the seawall was substantially reconstructed by
the Army Corps of Engineers between 1833 and 1844. The coquina structure is faced with
granite to the high water mark. The hot shot furnace was built in 1844 on top of the water
battery. The stuccoed coquina furnace measures nine feet long and eight feet wide, and the
chimney is eleven feet high

Associative Characteristics
Castillo de San Marcos and the moat, covered way, glacis, ravelin, water battery, seawall, and
hot shot furnace are closely associated with the continued use of a colonial fortification by the
United States Army into the twentieth century. The Castillo served as a military base of
operations during the Second Seminole War and the American Civil War. The structure also
served as a prison during the Second Seminole War and the Western Indian wars of 1875-1878
and 1886-1887. The moat, covered way, glacis, and ravelin are all structures closely associated
with the defense of the fort and contributed to its ability to remain a part of the coastal defense
system during the nineteenth century. The Castillo and its associated structures were also a
significant part of the development of tourism in St. Augustine, and their preservation marks
early commitment by the U.S. government to the preservation of historic structures under its
management

The seawall, water battery, and hot shot furnace were built between 1833 and 1844 in an
attempt to update the Castillo and make it a contributing part of the nineteenth century coastal


INTRODUCTION 3

The Spanish founded St. Augustine in 1565 and, following an English pirate raid on the city
in 1668, began construction of Castillo de San Marcos in 1672. The Castillo had been completed
for less than a hundred years, however, when Florida became a diplomatic pawn. Control of
Florida passed to the English in 1763, only to revert to the Spanish twenty-one years later.
Finally, in 1821, Spain agreed to a treaty that transferred ownership of Florida to the United
States, and Florida became an American territory.

The United States War Department administered the Castillo, renamed Fort Marion, for more
than a century. During the early years, troops garrisoned in St. Augustine stored supplies at the
fort. The building also housed prisoners of war from a number of conflicts with Native American
groups during the nineteenth century. After the Civil War, Fort Marion was no longer necessary
to national defense, and although it remained an active fortification in name, the Castillo was
regarded as a historic relic by the military. In 1915 the War Department entered into an
agreement with the St. Augustine Historical Society to provide guide service to the public. The
Castillo was declared a national monument in 1924, and in 1933 its administration passed from
the War Department to the National Park Service.

The historic resources at Castillo de San Marcos National Monument include the Castillo,
moat, covered way, glacis, ravelin, City Gate, reconstructed Cubo Line, water battery, seawall,
and hot shot furnace. The Castillo, moat, covered way, glacis, ravelin, and Cubo Line date from
the First Spanish Period, while the City Gate dates from the Second Spanish Period. The water
battery, seawall, and hot shot furnace date from the War Department era. The park interprets
all of the structures as part of the evolution of the defenses of St. Augustine during the
seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. The St. Augustine National Landmark District
exists near Castillo de San Marcos National Monument; its resources illustrate the growth of the
city which the fort was built to protect

SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY

The Historic Resource Study (HRS) identifies and evaluates, using National Register criteria,
the historic properties within the national monument. The study establishes and documents
historic contexts associated with the park and evaluates the extent to which the surviving historic
resources represent those contexts. The completed HRS will serve as a tool for future site
planning, resource management, and the continuing development of interpretive programs at the
monument.

Castillo de San Marcos National Monument has been the subject of numerous investigations
undertaken by the National Park Service, including historic structure reports, archeological
investigations, and detailed studies of the fort's history. This report utilizes previous research
to evaluate the park's resources through the development of historic contexts. This HRS and
associated survey documentation will provide park management with information on historic
structures, an interpretive framework for the park, and updated National Register
documentation.



@ B-3 CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT: HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY

Castillo de San Marcos National Monument
Historical Base Map



USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form
Castillo de San Marcos National Monument.

St. Johns County, FL Page 3

6. Punction or Use

Historic Functions Current Functions

(Enter categories from instructions) (Enter categories from instructions)
DEFENSE/fortification OTHER/National Park

7. Description

architectural Classification Materials
(Enter categories from instructions) (Enter categories from instructions)
Spanish Colonial foundation:

walls: Stone
Toof: Stone
other: Earth

GSenerete

Narrative Description (Describe the historic and current condition of the
property on one or more continuation sheets. )

8. Statement of Sicnificance

Applicable National Register Criteria (Mark "x" in one or more boxes for the
criteria qualifying the property for National Register listing)

—%. A Property is associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

-%&.B Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in
our past.

-%C Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type,
period, or method of construction or represents the work of a
master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack
individual distinction.

—— 0D Property has yielded, or is likely to yield information important
in prehistory or history.


ee

INTRODUCTION 5

The first context, “The Struggle for Florida and Construction of Castillo de San Marcos,
1565-1821,” relates to the NPS themes “Peopling Places,” “Shaping the Political Landscape,”
and “Changing Role of the United States in the World Community.” The context also relates
to several aspects of Florida history, including, “First Spanish, 1513-1763,” “British, 1763-
1782,” and “Second Spanish, 1783-1820.” This context considers the early history of Florida
and the events that led the Spanish government to build the Castillo in St. Augustine. It also
briefly examines the Castillo as a typical defensive fortification for its time. The context further
discusses the turbulent eighteenth century in Florida, during which possession of the Castillo was
lost and later regained by the Spanish.

The second context, “The United States War Department at Fort Marion, 1821-1933,”
relates to the NPS themes “Shaping the Political Landscape” and “Changing Role of the United
States in the World Community.” The context also relates to the Florida SHPO's chronological
contexts of the American period in Florida. In 1821 Spain agreed to cede Florida to the United
States, and the Castillo became property of the War Department. This context chronicles the
history of Fort Marion, as it was called, throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
first as part of the American coastal defense system and later as the focus of early preservation
efforts in St. Augustine. It ends with the transfer of the Castillo from the War Department to
the National Park Service in 1933.

Historic resources within the park represent three periods of significance. The First Spanish
Period, 1565-1763, includes the initial settlement of Florida by the Spanish; this period is
represented by Castillo de San Marcos and the moat, covered way, glacis, and ravelin. The
Second Spanish Period witnessed the construction of the City Gate and Cubo Line as reinforcing
elements of the Castillo's defense. This period encompasses the second occupation of Florida
by the Spanish from 1784-1821. Finally, the seawall, hot shot furnace, and water battery
represent the War Department period of the Castillo's history, 1821-1933, when the United
States government administered the fort through that executive agency.

HISTORICAL BASE Map DISCUSSION

The historical base map (Appendix B) depicts the existing historic resources within the park that
are documented in this study. The map shows the Park boundaries, nearby bodies of water, and
major area highways. National Park Service maps prepared by the Denver Service Center for
the Park's General Management Plan served as the basis for the maps included in this study. The
historical base map does not attempt to depict a historic scene or identify nonextant historic
structures.



United States Department of the Interior

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
Atlanta Federal Center

IN REPLY REFER TO: 1924 Building

Z 100 Alabama St., S.W.
3017 (CRS-SESO) Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Technical Information Center, Information & Production Services Division
Denver Service Center, National Park Service

12795 West Alameda Parkway, PO Box 25287

Denver, CO 80225-0287

Dear Colleague:

We are pleased to enclose a copy of a recently published work, Castillo de San Marcos National
Monument Historic Resource Study, written by Jennifer D. Brown of our staff. This study is part
of an ongoing effort in the National Park Service's Southeast Support Office to provide
comprehensive documentation of historic resources in the region's parks. It should prove valuable
for resource management and interpretation.

Sincerely,

pak Coal

Kirk A. Cordell
Chief, Cultural Resources Stewardship, Southeast Support Office

Enclosure



alert. Fort Marion continued to serve as a storehouse for weapons, supplies, and provisions for
the army during this period.**

The fort also served briefly as a prison for captured Seminole warriors. King Philip,
Coacoochee, Blue Snake, Osceola, and Coa Hadjo were among the Indian leaders captured by
American troops during the fall of 1837. Their loss weakened Seminole resistance, but the
dramatic escape of Coacoochee and nineteen others from the fortress prison in November
brought renewed vigor to the fight. Many of the prisoners who did not escape, including
Osceola, were later sent to Fort Moultrie in South Carolina for safekeeping.**

As the war progressed, the conflict moved farther south into the Everglades, but the
superior strength of the Americans ultimately proved too much for the natives. In 1842, the
Seminoles conceded defeat and loaded their belongings onto ships headed for their new homes
west of the Mississippi. Approximately 4,000 Seminole Indians were either killed in the fighting
or moved west at the conclusion of the war, leaving few Native Americans in Florida. The
victory brought peace to Florida at a substantial cost: the Second Seminole War was the most
expensive of the Indian wars, costing approximately $20 million dollars and 2,000 American
lives.“

26 CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT: HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY @
|
'

FORT MARION AS A COASTAL FORTIFICATION

Engineers and officials in the War Department did not view Fort Marion as essential to national

defense prior to the Second Seminole War. Military engineers considered the fort a solid, e@
defensible work, but they also believed the bastioned

design of the fortress outdated. War Department |
officials observed that St. Augustine did not hold a
position of strategic significance in Florida: the
territorial capital moved to Tallahassee in 1824, and
large ships found Matanzas Bay difficult to access.
Asa result, the War Department made few efforts to
improve the fortress in the early years of occupation.
Local citizens protested the Army's neglect in 1832,
petitioning Congress to appropriate funds for repair

Figure 11. View of seawall from south, 1991

“Sidney Walter Martin, Florida During the Territorial Days (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press,
1944), 183

“Mahon, 212-24

“SThid., 238: Albert Manucy, “Some Military Affairs in Territorial Florida,” Florida Historical Quarterly 25:2 @
(Det, 1946), 210.



14 CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT: HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY

Figure 6. Plan of Castillo, 1763

the fortress walls and improved outer defense works. By 1739, the eight vaults along the east
curtain wall were completed, increasing the total height of the wall five feet. The outbreak of
war between England and Spain the same year slowed construction, however, and completion
of the project was postponed until the end of the war.””

The War of Jenkins’ Ear, as the conflict between England and Spain was known, provided
Oglethorpe with an excuse to attack St. Augustine and oust the Spanish from Florida.
Oglethorpe sailed south from Fort Frederica in 1740 and lay siege to the Castillo for thirty-eight
days, but the onset of the hurricane season caused the English to abandon the effort and return
home. Construction on the vaults resumed after the war and was completed between 1750 and
1756. Work also continued on the covered way and the glacis until funds ran out in 1758.”

In 1762 the Spanish undertook the last of their construction projects at the Castillo. Town
residents volunteered their labor to enlarge the covered way by five feet, and masons
constructed a six-foot-high stone parapet on top. Construction of the glacis was also completed
at this time. Engineers determined that the original ravelin was inadequate to the defense of the
fort's entrance; therefore, a new, larger ravelin, capable of housing five cannon and an
underground powder magazine, was built by the end of the year.*

*Tbid., 43-46
*Ibid.. 46-49.

“bid. 52-53





38 CASTILLO DE SAN Marcos NATIONAL MONUMENT: HisTORIC RESOURCE STUDY

retaining walls) dating from the War Department era of the park's history. Such features would
be potentially eligible for the National Register.

Park structure files should be maintained that record any activity to LCS properties and also
serve as central repositories for historical documentation. Historic and nonhistoric photographs,
maps, and documents should be catalogued and appropriately stored. Ongoing efforts to
organize the park archives and library should continue to ensure the preservation of these
important resources





THE UNITED STATES WAR DEPARTMENT AT FORT MARION, 1821-1933 31

FORT MARION NATIONAL MONUMENT

St. Augustine was a popular tourist destination as early as 1830, attracting many northerners
with its healthful climate and unique history. The tourism industry continued to grow until the
Civil War, when travel between North and South became impossible. Recovery was slow after
the war, until Henry M. Flagler, a cofounder of Standard Oil Company, began building his
Florida resort dynasty in the 1880s. Flagler's vision of Florida as a rich man's paradise began
in St. Augustine, where he opened several hotels catering to America's wealthy elite.”

Two of the great attractions of St. Augustine were its European flavor and Spanish colonial
architecture, and Fort Marion embodied both of those qualities. From the earliest days of
American occupation, visitors to St. Augustine
recognized the fort as one of the “must-see” sites in
the city. The War Department began giving guided
tours of the structure around 1848; tours were in such
demand during the incarceration of the western Indians
that special permits were required to gain access to the
building.

The historical significance of Fort Marion was
recognized by local citizens and War Department
administrators early in the American period. Ina letter === a

+ : : Figure 16. View of moat and east wall trom
requesting Congressional support for needed repairs to cout, 199]
the structure in 1832, a local citizen, Judge Robert R.
Reid, referred to the fort as “‘a fine and venerable monument of art” worthy of preservation, and
he considered the structure a source of pride to the local community. Military engineers
assigned to work in St. Augustine often made similar observations about the strength of the
fortress and its historic value to the city and the nation.*!

In 1884 Congress made the first appropriation for restoration of Fort Marion, which Jere
Krakow, in the administrative history of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas, describes
as a particularly important step toward the structure's preservation:

Of all the congressional actions, the most significant one occurred in 1884 when
President Chester A. Arthur signed into law an appropriation of $5,000 for
restoration and preservation of the Castillo. Preceding the Casa Grande

“Graham, 189-96,

Jere L. Krakow, Administrative History of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument and Fort Matanzas
National Monument (National Park Service, 1986), 1-7.

“'Bearss, 46-7. Krakow, 7



THE STRUGGLE FOR FLORA AND CONSTRUCTION OF CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS, 1565-1821 17

Mad

Figure 9. City Gate viewed from northwest, 1991

Figure 8. Reconstructed Cubo Line viewed from
northwest, 1991

completed in 1808, and the residents of St. Augustine waited anxiously to see if and when an
attack might come.*!

Florida had long been divided into two sections, west and east, with separate governors
West Florida contained the area west of the Apalachicola River to the Mississippi River, while
the peninsula east of the Apalachicola comprised East Florida. It was in West Florida that the
first threat to Spanish control emerged. The American government had claimed possession of
West Florida following the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, but the Spanish refuted the American
claim and retained control of the area. American citizens dominated the population of West
Florida, however, and in 1810 they revolted against Spanish authority, meeting little resistance
from the helpless Spanish government. The United States annexed the portion of West Florida
west of the Perdido River the following year.*”

This bloodless revolution encouraged land-hungry Georgians, who hoped to oust Spain
from the rest of Florida. A small group of planters with land in South Georgia and Florida
organized in 1812 as the East Florida Patriots and declared their independence from Spain.
With the backing of the United States military, the Patriots took the Spanish settlement at
Fernandina on Amelia Island and advanced to the old site of Fort Mose, north of St. Augustine.
The Spanish governor at St. Augustine refused to surrender to the Patriots, however, and a
stalemate ensued during the summer. Attacks by the Seminole allies of the Spanish forced the
Americans to retreat, and the cause was lost when President James Madison withdrew his
support for the rebels.*?

“bid.
“Ibid., 10-12.

“Ibid., 83-193


CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Castillo de San Marcos National Monument in St. Augustine, Florida, contains the oldest
remaining European fortification in the United States. Built more than one hundred years afier
the founding of St. Augustine by the Spanish in 1565, the Castillo stands as a reminder of a
century of conflict between the European powers for control of North America. Its bastioned
design also represents the conventions of military architecture and technology of its day. The
Castillo additionally illustrates the waning power of Spain in the Southeast, principally after the
United States won its sovereignty. The long history of Castillo de San Marcos and its distinctive
character and architecture attest to the significance of the monument to the story of the United
States and the building of a nation.

DESCRIPTION OF CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT

Castillo de San Marcos National Monument comprises approximately 20.48 acres in St.
Augustine, St. Johns County, Florida. The park lies north of St. Augustine's central plaza and
fronts Matanzas Bay. Built as the northernmost Spanish stronghold in the southeastern United
States and as a defense against pirate attacks on St. Augustine, the Castillo was originally located
at the northern edge of the city, where it commanded the land and sea routes into the settlement.
Today, colonial St. Augustine extends south of the monument, while the modern city has grown
around this core in all directions.

The city of St. Augustine lies on the eastern coastal plain of Florida. It is a low-lying, sandy
area protected from the sea by a number of barrier islands. The San Sebastian River runs west
of the city and formed a natural boundary for the colony early in its history. A seawall and water
battery separate Castillo de San Marcos from the waters of Matanzas Bay on the fort's east side.
The site of the Castillo is a rolling, grassy area sprinkled with a few trees. The outer portions
of the grounds are flat up to the glacis, which slopes upward toward the fort and roughly follows
the contour of the moat and covered way. The park area is irregular in shape, with much of its
western boundary following the contour of State Road A-1-A. West of the fort, beginning at
the bottom of the glacis near the northwest bastion, is the reconstructed Cubo Line. The defense
work runs west from the glacis to the City Gate, interrupted by State Road A-!-A just east of
the gate.



USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form
Castillo de San Marcos National Monument
St. Johns County, FL “Page 5

7 eC ABC pap
9. Major Bibliographical References

(Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form on one
or more continuation sheets.)

Previous documentation on file (NPS)
—— preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67) has been
requested.
-X_ previously listed in the National Register
previously determined eligible by the National Register
—— designated a National Historic Landmark
—X_ recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey # FL-17
—— recorded by Historic American Engineering Record #

Primary Location of Additional Data

—— State Historic Preservation Office
Other State agency

-xX_ Federal agency

—— Local government

—— University

—— Other

10. Geographical Data

Acreage of Property 20.48

UTM References (Place additional UTM references on a continuation sheet)
Zone Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing

— D_

A
B Fo
c F

_ See continuation sheet.

Verbal Boundary Description (Describe the boundaries of the property on a
continuation sheet.)

The existing district boundary will not change.

Boundary Justification (Explain why the boundaries were selected ona
continuation sheet.)



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arana, Luis. “Governor Cendoya's Negotiation in Mexico for a Stone Fort in St. Augustine.”
El Escribano 7 (Oct. 1970): 125-37

, David C. Dutcher, George M. Strock, and F. Ross Holland. Castillo de San
Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments, Florida: Historical Research
Management Plan. National Park Service, 1967.

and Albert Manucy. The Building of Castillo de San Marcos. Eastern National
Park and Monument Association, 1977

Bearss, Edwin C., and John C. Paige. Historic Structure Report for Castillo de San Marcos
National Monument. Denver: National Park Service, 1983.

Chatelain, Verne E. The Defenses of Spanish Florida, 1565-1763. Washington, DC: Carnegie
Institution of Washington, 1941.

Coulter, E. Merton. The Confederate States of America. Vol. 7 of A History of the South.
Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1950.

Duffy, Christopher. The Fortress in the Age of Vauban and Frederick the Great, 1660-1789.
Vol. 2 of Siege Warfare. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1985.

East, Omega G. Apache Prisoners in Fort Marion, 1886-1887. National Park Service, 1951.

Frazier, C. Craig, Randall Copeland, and Luis Arana. Historic Structure Report, Castillo de
San Marcos National Monument. National Park Service, 1986.

Krakow, Jere L. Administrative History of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument and
Fort Matanzas National Monument. National Park Service, 1986.

Mahon, John K. History of the Second Seminole War, 1835-1842. Gainesville, FL: University
of Florida Press, 1985.

Manucy, Albert. Artillery Through the Ages. Washington: National Park Service, 1949.
Reprint, Washington: National Park Service, 1985

. Florida's Menéndez: Captain General of the Ocean Sea. St. Augustine: St
Augustine Historical Society, 1965



APPENDIX A: DESCRIPTIONS OF HISTORIC RESOURCES

Castillo de San Marcos, 1672-1756: A bastioned masonry fortification located north of the
colonial city of St. Augustine, the Castillo centers on a square plaza, the sides of which measure
320 feet. Diamond-shaped bastions project outward from each corner of the fortress; each
bastion has a sentry box at its point. The coquina walls of the Castillo are thirty feet high, ten
to fourteen feet thick at the base, and five feet thick at the top. Vaulted casemated support the
wide terreplein, and embrasures at intervals along the top of the wall provided openings through
which cannon could be fired. The entrance to the fort, or sally port, is located in the south
curtain wall and accessed by a reconstructed drawbridge. (building; IDLCS 00129)

Moat, 1672-1696: A coquina-lined ditch approximately forty-two feet wide surrounds the
Castillo on the north, west, and south. The ditch contains a small amount of water. Originally
constructed to encircle the fort on all sides, the moat was filled on the east side in 1842 to create
the water battery. (structure; IDLCS 91415)

Ravelin, 1762: A roughly triangular masonry structure located within the moat on the south
side of the Castillo. The ravelin was built to afford additional protection to the corners of the
bastions and to protect the sally port. It is connected to the main structure by a reconstructed
drawbridge. (structure; IDLCS 91418)

Covered way, 1672-1762: The flat, grassy area between the moat and the glacis on the north,
west, and south sides of the Castillo is separated from the glacis by a masonry retaining wall five
feet high. (structure; IDLCS 91416)

Glacis, 1672-1758: The open, sloped area beyond the covered way that stretches from the fort
into the landscape on the north, west, and south sides of the Castillo. The glacis was historically
kept clear of trees and other obstructions in order to maintain a clear line of vision for the fort's
defenders. (structure; IDLCS 91417)

City Gate, 1808: Two four-foot-square coquina pillars frame an opening twelve feet wide.
Each pillar has a covemolded pyramidal cap with a round finial and a height of fourteen feet.
On either side of the pillars, low stone walls thirty feet long by eleven feet wide extend to meet
reconstructed portions of the Cubo Line. North of the gate, a coquina bridge spans a shallow
moat. The City Gate was originally part of the Cubo Line and provided entrance to the city of
St. Augustine from the north. (structure; IDLCS 00131)

Cubo Line, 1808, reconstructed 1963: A reconstruction of the earth and log structure built by
the Spanish in 1808, the Cubo Line extends from the covered way on the northwest side of the
fort and proceeds 250 feet west toward the City Gate. The northern and southern faces of the
defense work are concrete cast to imitate the palm logs of the original wall. Between the



4 (CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT: HistoRIC RESOURCE STUDY

Castillo de San Marcos National Monument was placed on the National Register of Historic
Places in 1966 with the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act. The Keeper of the
Register accepted the nomination of the park as a historic district in March 1977. This
documentation named the Castillo, City Gate, and water battery as contributing structures. The
contexts developed in this study will be used to supplement the original documentation and
support the addition of the moat, covered way, glacis, ravelin, Cubo Line, seawall, and hot shot
furnace as contributing properties within the district

SUMMARY OF IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION METHODS

Survey Methodology

Goals of the historic resource survey of the Park are to 1) update the List of Classified Structures
(LCS) database for the Park for use by park management; 2) prepare a Historic Resource Study
for the Park; 3) update the Park's National Register of Historic Places documentation; and 4)
assemble a comprehensive survey of structures consisting of a photographic record for each
structure built prior to 1950 and considered eligible for listing in the National Register. This will
be used in complying with Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966

The initial survey of Castillo de San Marcos was completed under a cooperative agreement
with the University of Georgia Research Foundation. The survey, led by Principal Investigator
William Chapman, concentrated on four structures within park boundaries, the Castillo, water
battery, City Gate, and reconstructed Cubo Line, and one structure located outside park
boundaries, the Orange Street Annex. Denise Larimore prepared a draft Historic Resource
Study based on the survey work and additional research.

In November 1995, Jennifer D. Brown and Jill K. Hanson, working under the direction of
the National Park Service Southeast Field Area, revisited the Park and surveyed six additional
structures, the ravelin, moat, covered way, glacis, hot shot furnace, and Tricentennial Marker.
Brown wrote the current Historic Resource Study based on the Larimore text and further
research and documentation

Determination of Historic Contexts
This study evaluates the historic integrity and assesses the eligibility of the park's historic
resources within two historic contexts. These contexts correspond to historic themes identified
by the National Park Service in its revised thematic framework and by the Florida State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO). The Florida SHPO has identified thirty-five distinct historic
contexts for Florida history, many of which relate to the resources at Castillo de San Marcos
National Monument

The following two historic contexts have been developed for the current study: 1) The
Struggle for Florida and Construction of Castillo de San Marcos, 1565-1821, and 2) The United
States War Department at Fort Marion, 1821-1933